ABSTRACT
This penultimate chapter picks up where Chapter 5 left off to examine how the invisible and non-material could be useful for thinking about alternative forms of accumulation. As with previous chapters, this chapter unites research on cultural institutions with studies on the household, drawing on findings from each to explore our relationships and connections with objects. This begins with a discussion on object decay. Drawing on my Lost Property Project, I explore how decay is managed and, in some instances, enabled and celebrated by cultural institutions. Drawing on the concept of patina, I liken this to how certain household items are also celebrated for their wear and tear, and indeed their decay becomes a core feature of that object. In both cases, this treatment of decay is significantly determined by the material affinities the objects have and how they are valued. Replicas form part of this discussion, operating as stand-ins for the original and a means of preventing further decay. This preservation and sometimes celebration of decay pave the way for a discussion of how objects are preserved for future generations. I argue that such preservation is about maintaining material affinities to the past – whether these affinities collective or individual (or institutional). As I illuminate, preservation in some instances is impossible, not just because items are so decayed and beyond salvaging but also because of what I term ‘material disconnect’. This is when there is no longer any way to use particular objects because the technology or other objects they are dependent on to be put to use cease to exist. We could operate the object (such as a cassette) if only we had the other technology that went with it (the now-obsolete cassette player). In this instance, material affinities are broken. The latter part of the chapter builds on the concept of obsolescence to think about alternatives to accumulation, from the huge rise in digital forms of preservation and heritage to the growing interest in ‘experiences’ as opposed to ‘things’. Yet, as I illustrate, the human desire for possession is great, and the need for tangible, material goods which can be touched, felt and owned ensures the continuation of accumulation.
