Wunderkammer / Kunstkammer/ Cabinets of Wonder / wonder-rooms / cabinets of curiosities

A Wunderkammer is an encyclopedic-like collection that consisted of “types of objects whose categorical boundaries were, in Renaissance Europe, yet to be defined.” [1] In Gabriel Kaltemarckt noted that; sculptures, paintings, curious items from home or abroad, antlers, horns, claws, feathers and other things belonging to strange and curious animals, were fundamental in forming a Kunstkammer. [2]

The Wunderkammer, as noted by R. J. W. Evans in his untitled review (1988) of The Origins of Museums. The Cabinet of Curiosities in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Europe (1985) written by Oliver Impey and Arthur MacGrego, could be split into two categories: 1) a grand cabinet dominated by aesthetics, representational function and and an obtaining of the "exotic". 2) 'the more modest collection of the humanist scholar or virtuoso, which served more practical and scientific purposes.' [3] Evans notes these categories weren't easily discernible, "no clear distinction existed between the two categories: all collecting was marked by curiosity, shading into credulity, and by some sort of universal underlying design" [4]

When thinking about my speculative object works, I think its interesting to think how they more align with 2) as objects being researched yet still have some of the 'representational function' of 1) due to their visualised or prototypic nature. My install then could somehow navigate between the two ideas of the passive collection and the active one as noted by Evans.

Museum Wormiani Historia, 1655, image source: https://wellcomecollection.org/works/mzvgyzbt

It is important to note that the Wunderkammer was seen as an exercise of wealth, status and control of the patron who owned it;

"The Kunstkammer conveyed symbolically the patron's control of the world through its indoor, microscopic reproduction.'' [5]

"The Kunstkabinett itself was a form of propaganda. "[6]

"Cabinets of curiosities were limited to those who could afford to create and maintain them." [7]

And often held ethnographic objects from across the globe which aligned such owners with the fetishisation and exoticism of cultures.

Though very different to the fetishisation of the 15th century Wunderkammer, the idea of fetishisation is interesting to thinking about in reference to the past and present as concepts. The fetishisation of the past. The fetishisation of the future. Perhaps more so the idea of desire for something - better or different as noted by Anne Carson in Eros the bittersweet . An almost idealisation or idolisation. Perhaps, this predilection to catastrophise or idolise are overcome by the navigation between these time distinctions, and between utopia and dystopia natured objects - or their ambiguity.

I’m interested in is the mix of fact and fiction in these chambers and the creation of fake specimens for mythological creatures. The Wunderkammer then became a place for the artefact and the artifice.

"In spirit, the cabinets were not meant to be scientific—they were a place of the imagination in which those who could afford to do so, constructed their own personal versions of the world. Standing at the center of this mini-universe and pointing at the objects to disclose their deepest secrets, collectors felt a sense of ease and mastery over a world that most often appeared too big, too confusing, and too inhospitable......By the 18th century, the focus shifted, the rise of science as discipline meant collections could no longer just represent the wealth and intelligence of the owner, but that they needed to make sense of the world we lived in a more objective way" [8]

And, the combination of objects from different contexts into one collection/install,

“The juxtaposition of such disparate objects, according to Bredekamp's analysis (Bredekamp 1995) encouraged comparisons, finding analogies and parallels and favoured the cultural change from a world viewed as static to a dynamic view of endlessly transforming natural history and a historical perspective that led in the seventeenth century to the germs of a scientic view of reality.” [9]

there is a reference to the flux between art objects, natural objects and Man-made objects in the cabinet, that is has become prevalent in contemporary art practices and discourse. The organic-non organic conversations in biology/cyborg conversations - Donna Haraway.

Examples of cabinets - illustrating the different modes of accumulation and presentation. There is an interior design aspect to the whole collection. It's not just the object are brought into a collection, but that they also adorn the space.

Ferrante Imperato, Dell'Historia Naturale (1599), the earliest illustration of a natural history cabinet, https://www.sothebysinstitute.com/news-and-events/news/cabinets-of-curiosities-and-the-origin-of-collecting

Domenico Remps, Cabinet of Curiosities (c. 1690), https://www.sothebysinstitute.com/news-and-events/news/cabinets-of-curiosities-and-the-origin-of-collecting

Frans Francken the Younger, Chamber of Art and Curiosities, 1636, https://www.sothebysinstitute.com/news-and-events/news/cabinets-of-curiosities-and-the-origin-of-collecting

--

Museum Wormianum, Ole Worm, 15th century, written in latin, https://digital.sciencehistory.org/works/rv042t91s

Museum Wormianum acts as a literary Wunderkammer as is consists of,

“four books, the first three dealing with minerals, the plant and animal kingdoms. The fourth details manufactured objects, for example archaeological and ethnographical items, coins and some original works of art. The work is not merely a catalogue, but a scholarly work with references to, and quotations from, other writers.” [10]

The following excerpt is from the manufactured objects section,

A small section of text, that follows the image above, I translated (using google translate) to indicate the style of writing:

“The spur of the most invincible king of the Swedes, Guftavius ​​Adolphus, although he possesses nothing peculiar to the moderns, yet who was such a hero, I bring myself to my ornament. First the star and the wheel of his spurs, which he wore when he was almost invisible in the year 1623. while fighting valiantly against the Caesars, he fell down with gold and elegantly decorated with the numbers of the year and day of the month in which I was presenting this deed, the illustrious count Christian Rantzovius gave me, as in the memory of the event, among the branches of the holkii, who was in conflict when he was going down.” [11]

Here we see the object is not only described by its formal qualities - but in a narrative sense in how it came into possession.

[1] - "Cabinet of curiosities", Bionity, https://www.bionity.com/en/encyclopedia/Cabinet_of_curiosities.html#_note-4/

[2] - ibid.

[3] - Evans, R. J. W. The English Historical Review 103, no. 408 (1988): 737–38. http://www.jstor.org/stable/572739.

[4] - Evans, R. J. W. The English Historical Review 103, no. 408 (1988): 737–38. http://www.jstor.org/stable/572739.

[5] - Francesaco Fiorani, reviewing Bredecamp 1995 in Renaissance Quarterly 51.1 (Spring 1998:268-270) p 268.

[6] - Thomas, "Charles I of England: The tragedy of Absolutism", A.G. Dickens, ed. The Courts of Europe (London) 1977:201.

[7] - Cabinet of curiosities", Bionity, https://www.bionity.com/en/encyclopedia/Cabinet_of_curiosities.html#_note-4/ [8] Giovanni Aloi , Cabinets of Curiosities and The Origin of Collecting, Sotheby's Institute of Art, https://www.sothebysinstitute.com/news-and-events/news/cabinets-of-curiosities-and-the-origin-of-collecting

[9]- ibid.

[10] - "Museum Wormianum," Science history institute, https://digital.sciencehistory.org/works/rv042t91s

[11] - Museum Wormianum, Ole Worm, 15th century, written in latin, https://digital.sciencehistory.org/works/rv042t91s