In opposition to the fashion for semiotic analyses of material culture
, I argue that the meaning of artefacts is not necessarily 'symbolic'
- that this term applies only to a particular class of meaning. In my
view the development of industrial cultures has created a false dualit
y between the aesthetic and the functional which in turn has allowed a
mistaken distinction between objects and their meanings. Meaning has
become reified. On the contrary, I argue, meaning exists in the dynami
c relationship between actors and material culture, and is not exclusi
vely the preserve of one or the other. In turn, this relationship cons
titutes the basis of exploration and understanding; both the mundane i
mplement and the work of art should guide us to extend our comprehensi
on of the world.