Chapter 4 Section 4- Art Objects at the Boundary

The boundary object is in its original formulation an object that can act as a point of communication between two groups. In the previous section I argued, following from the work of Actor-Network theorists and the work of Alfred Gell, that art objects have agency. Here I will discuss how this agency is expressed when disparate groups gather and communicate through such an agent. I will also consider the physical and metaphorical sense of the boundary as a spatial term, which will lead to the next section's discussion of spatiality.

The origin of the concept of the boundary object arises in a 1989 paper by Susan Leigh Star and James R. Griesemer where they discussed the interactions of amateur and professional zoologists at the Berkley Museum of Zoology during the early half of the 20th Century(1). Their work extends its analysis from the concept of interressement developed by Bruno Latour, Michel Callon and John Law. As Star and Griesemer describe interessement as that which entails different groups, for example scientists and non-scientists 'translating' their concerns so that these can be shared by other groups, thus retaining them as 'allies'(2).  In contrast to their characterization of Latour, Callon, and Law's work with it's emphasis on how one group "funnels" the interests of others to support it's particular concerns, Star and Griesemer allow for multiple negotiations between networks of interested groups(3). This negotiation was called translation, as in the meaning and message conveyed from one group in a network to another were shifted sufficiently to be understood and embraced by another group without betraying the original concerns expressed the group seeking to 'funnel' the exchanges in the network towards a goal or objective.

The role of the boundary objects in achieving those goals is to be "objects which both inhabit several
intersecting social worlds...and satisfy the informational requirements of each of them"(4). Star and Griesemer explicitly critique Latour et al's concept as failing to address the multiple interests at play in a museum setting- they point point out that

"There, several groups of actors -    amateurs, professionals, animals, bureaucrats and 'mercenaries'-    succeeded in crafting a coherent problem-solving enterprise, surviving multiple translations."(5)

The application of boundary object theory to contemporary art history becomes more apparent when we consider it was initially deployed to try "to understand the historical development of a particular type of institution:natural history research museums"(6). In this case the natural history museum they were examining originated as a research museum, unlike many others which Star and Griesemer describe as originating as a popular attraction that subsequently reflected a growing professionalization in the museology of natural history(7).
                                               
(1) Star, Susan Leigh & James R. Griesemer. "Institutional Ecology, 'Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39" in Social Studies of Science, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Aug., 1989), pp. 387-420 


 (2) ibid p. 389


 (3) ibid p. 390

(4) ibid p. 393

(5) ibid p. 392

(6) ibid p. 391


(7) ibid  p. 391


 Albertsen, Niels.& Bülent Diken "Artworks’ Networks Field, System or Mediators?" in Theory, Culture & Society 2004 (SAGE, London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi), Vol. 21(3): 35–58 

Rodriguez, H. "Technology as an Artistic Medium" in 2006 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics October 8-11, 2006, Taipei, Taiwan 

Berner, Boel. "Working knowledge as performance: on the practical understanding of machines" in
Work Employment Society 2008 22: 319


 Vandenberghe, FrÈdÈric. "Reconstructing Humants: A Humanist Critique of Actant-Network Theory" in
Theory Culture Society 2002 19: 51