One listmember posted on the notion of artifacts being separate
from policy and actions (see re-post underneath riposte below).

Alternative view on the absolute separation of
artifacts from politics:

Some (me included) feel artifacts *do* have politics. For a convincing
explanation, see Langdon Winner's essay "Do Artifacts have Politics?"
I don't have the bib ref right now, but if anyone wants it I can find
it.

The argument is simple: Made things turn out the way they do because
people who made them have attitudes, priorities, agendas, cultural
outlooks, etc. In this way, the politics of homo faber are embedded in
artifice. How could this kind of thing apply to military uniforms?
Here's a shot in the dark: I'll bet regalia of different nations and
military services look very different (and similar too) for reasons
related to the wishes of their designers and users, and are not entirely
dependent on the "form-function" question.

So is it too big a stretch to say that artifacts *are* politics? That
uniforms *are* politics? Or should we back off semantically and just
say they *have* politics? I think that's an interesting question. Sorry if
I've misconstrued or oversimplified, but it simply occurred to me that
separating artifacts from politics might lead to missing chances for
interpretive insight.

best regards to all,
Doug

........................................
Doug Lantry
The Ohio Historical Society
Statehouse Education and Visitors Center
Columbus, Ohio
[log in to unmask]

On Thu, 7 May 1998, Dave wrote:

> Military uniforms are only a part of the presentation of history, and
> are not of themselves more than historic documents. Do not confuse
> policy and actions with material culture objects/artefacts as they are
> VERY different. (One never sees that automobile museums present the
> on-road deaths or destruction of the landscape as that is neither their
> mission nor their intent.)
>
> On this original topic of uniforms in exhibtion, please check the New
> York Public Library's Resources on Military Uniforms:
>         http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/subguides/milhist/costnypl.html
>