Perhaps reading the buttercow within its state fair context as Americana, rather than art, is what has kept it so sacred to ISF viewers. Its authenticity remains assumed, because it has not been removed from its specific spatial and temporal context. Though the notion of authenticity has been tossed around and contested by anthropologists in recent years, to go back to earlier instantiations of the term may be useful. Shepard suggests that we must move beyond the idea that subjectivity to market forces destroys authenticity. However, in this instance, the fact that the buttercow remains in its original context outside of the “art world” preserves a sense of authenticity for its enthusiasts and viewers.
Desai argues that “high culture” art objects are revered based on the aesthetic experience they provide, in ways that could not be achieved by a reproduction. The buttercow as well, is read as authentic because the context of the state fair is part of the experience of viewing the buttercow. It is an object that to many people is symbolic of home, family, roots, and notions of community based in actual physical proximity and personal knowledge.
Thus, much as Anderson argues the census, the map, and the museum shaped notions of identity and community, the buttercow stands as symbol of “us-ness.” Like the colonial map, it demarcates “us” from “them,” and acts as a logo, and becomes a “pure sign” or emblem for a certain kind of community affiliation. Its presence at the state fair attests to its authenticity, and to view the buttercow in an art gallery or other space outside of the agricultural milieu, would be to surrender it to the Other who cannot appreciate its intricacies, thus commodifying and degrading its form.
Thus, much as Anderson argues the census, the map, and the museum shaped notions of identity and community, the buttercow stands as symbol of “us-ness.” Like the colonial map, it demarcates “us” from “them,” and acts as a logo, and becomes a “pure sign” or emblem for a certain kind of community affiliation. Its presence at the state fair attests to its authenticity, and to view the buttercow in an art gallery or other space outside of the agricultural milieu, would be to surrender it to the Other who cannot appreciate its intricacies, thus commodifying and degrading its form.
Inside the Illinois State Fair Dairy Building. Photo courtesy of Dick Moore
Despite the dichotomy I have constructed between state fair and museum, Anderson’s discussion of the museum as a contributor to imagined communities is helpful as well. Anderson focuses on archaeological exhibits, rather than artistic ones, and presents the colonial museum as a context in which peoples were able to systematically study their history. Further, the state constructed museums with the maintenance of ideological structures in mind. As Desai writes, “Authenticity, whether cultural or aesthetic, is a notion that serves political interests.” The buttercow, as displayed at the state fair, evokes place-based pride and nostalgia in its viewers, (re)connecting them to the state (of Iowa, or Illinois), and the agricultural lifestyle being promoted within the fair. Much like the Monumental archaeology Anderson presents, the buttercow “allow[s] the state to appear as the guardian to a generalized, but also local Tradition,” in an attempt to revive prestige.
But where the buttercow parts from Anderson’s examination of colonial iconicity is in the work of reproduction. Anderson writes that it was the states ability to reproduce the icon—exemplified in the postage stamp—was instrumental in the logoization of state symbols. The buttercow presents an interesting example, because in some ways it has been logo-ized. The 1993 & 2011 Iowa State Fair collectors' pins were images of the buttercow. And the Iowa State Fair edition of the Monopoly board game features a space for the buttercow. But even these commodifications remain on a small scale among collector-enthusiasts, and are not necessarily readily available to outsiders. These ephemera stand not as widely circulating objects, but as limited edition symbolic items that allow enthusiasts to perform legitimate claims to identities connected to the buttercow or fair [much like travelers’ collections of photographs and hostel bracelets]. Thus, even in the process of logoization the authenticity of the buttercow is not only preserved, but bolstered through the limited circulation of ephemera.
But where the buttercow parts from Anderson’s examination of colonial iconicity is in the work of reproduction. Anderson writes that it was the states ability to reproduce the icon—exemplified in the postage stamp—was instrumental in the logoization of state symbols. The buttercow presents an interesting example, because in some ways it has been logo-ized. The 1993 & 2011 Iowa State Fair collectors' pins were images of the buttercow. And the Iowa State Fair edition of the Monopoly board game features a space for the buttercow. But even these commodifications remain on a small scale among collector-enthusiasts, and are not necessarily readily available to outsiders. These ephemera stand not as widely circulating objects, but as limited edition symbolic items that allow enthusiasts to perform legitimate claims to identities connected to the buttercow or fair [much like travelers’ collections of photographs and hostel bracelets]. Thus, even in the process of logoization the authenticity of the buttercow is not only preserved, but bolstered through the limited circulation of ephemera.
Desai, Dipti
2000 Imaging Difference: The Politics of Representation in Multicultural Art Education. Studies in Art Education 41(2):114-129.
Shepherd, Robert
2002 Commodification, Culture and Tourism. Tourist Studies 2:183-196.
2000 Imaging Difference: The Politics of Representation in Multicultural Art Education. Studies in Art Education 41(2):114-129.
Shepherd, Robert
2002 Commodification, Culture and Tourism. Tourist Studies 2:183-196.
RSS Feed
