In nomine Collector: Context manipulated

In Part II. The Collection, Paradise of Consumption, Susan Stewart says that "the archetypal collection .. [is] a world which is representative yet which erases its context of origin," (152). Her example, Noah's ark, illuminates her idea of a collection in so far as Noah's ark was allegedly the only trace left of all earth's animals after God smote every thing else off the planet. I don't think Susan's point is that a collection can only be a collection if it's original context is destroyed or irrevocably lost, but that the oblivion to which the collection piece's original context is consigned, derives from the whims of the collector. I guess then, the collector defines the new context of a collection, but how does a collector reconcile this idea that the original context must be lost in order to call it a collection? Perhaps by virtue of the collector him/herself, a collection must be something at least separated in space from where it came from. One can speculate further as to what "original context" means exactly, but I'm finding it difficult to come up with an example of an original context that has been destroyed and from which we have artifacts that could be called a collection of sorts. I know! What about in Star Wars, when the first death star destroy's princess Leia's home-planet? Would the destruction of an entire planet satisfy Stewart's definition of a "Context Destroyed"? Yes, Star Wars is really the best I can do.

I think context, especially original context, with regards to the collection is a tough area in which to obtain much traction. In other words, I'm not sure how much significance original context bears on a given collection or collector. Verily, the first thing that comes to my mind when someone says, "collection," is some sort of collected works of some author bound in volumes. But what about collections of farm animals and livestock, or collections of pokemon playing cards? Whence cometh the original context for pokemon cards? Further, can you call it a collection if it's nothing more than a barn full of pigs you plan to butcher and eat over several months?

As scientific and technical as a barn full of pigs and some playing cards may seem, I'm not quite ready for my point to be lost in what may soon degrade into how you might be able to collect various cuts of pork. If someone has a collection of pigs (and likely many people do) what is the original context of the pig? Arguably, the original context of bacon is the pig, but I return to the pig, because I'm having difficulties reconciling my idea of Stewart's idea of the definition of a collection with common place (or my lack of access to common place) ideas of collection. Why does context (destroyed, restored, or manipulated) matter if you're just going to eat the collection anyway? Noah probably wanted to eat all those animals he put on his ark, naturally he couldn't because they had divine purpose. Strangely enough, that brings up another good question about this Noah's Ark analogy: namely, who is the collector? God or Noah? And under whose context began this new series? Perhaps this Noah's Ark example isn't such a great example of the archetypal collection after all? This might be a decent place to end and invite speculate from other colleagues. For some strange reason I have an uncontrollable urge to go fry a package of bacon.. out of my collection of packages of bacon....




(Suckling Pig photo courtesy of Pico De Gallo's restaurant, Philadelphia)