It is little coincidence that both authors refer to collecting as an unavoidable physical malady. Both definitions appear to regard collecting as a part of the human condition, so it is worthwhile to try and uncover the true nature and motivation behind collecting.
The usage of the word "collection" appears in all sorts of contexts. Whole social sub-cultures are devoted to the practice of collecting, ranging from bottle caps to railway carriages. Conferences are frequently held to accommodate all different types of collectors: antique shows, sci-fi conventions, comic emporiums, etc. Collectors section themselves into different collecting communities, often assuming quasi-scientific classifications like philatelist and bibliophile to describe their passion. These groups work under an intuitive definition of the word "collection", though their collecting habits follow different social codes, different levels of interest and different motivational factors. To understand the nature of collecting, a definition that finds a common ground between these different types of collecting is necessary.
A large percentage of the population includes "collecting" as one of their pastimes . What makes this an intuitive response is the apparent universal understanding of what "collecting" actually means. The simplest definition is one proposed by the American Heritage Dictionary, which defines collecting as "bringing together in a group". Clearly this definition is far too broad and all- encompassing to define Gundrey's "collectomania". Susan Pearce's definition of collecting is "simply that a collection exists if its owner thinks it does: the subjective yardstick makes good working sense, even if it too has its difficulties" . While this latter definition generates difficulties in the exact classification of the collection concept, it makes a crucial distinction: it treats the collection as an entity. This is a departure from thinking of the collection as a mere classifying scheme; it is defined as an entity that "exists", something that is created. However the nature of this entity is unclear. Within a Western society, we gather objects to give meaning to our lives . It is evident that there are more objects around today than there ever were, and that ownership of these objects is largely what drives the daily economic organization of our society. Yet calling any grouping of objects "collectables" is misleading. Pearce's subjectivist approach fails to convincingly distinguish between collecting and accumulation.
Baudrillard suggests that "what makes a collection transcend mere accumulation is not only the fact of its being culturally complex, but the fact of its incompleteness, the fact that it lacks something" . The notion of a collection being a set of items is powerful, yet doesn't account for different types of collecting. The idea of finalising a set, as Baudriallard proposes becomes problematic when considering certain types of collections. A child collecting sea shells, for example, would be outside of this classification, since even a child is aware that it is impossible to acquire a complete set of all the seashells in the world. The seashells do not comfortably fit into a defined finite set.
In an aim to clarify the definition of collection, we must first approach the differences in types of collection. This point is largely ignored in the current research literature, yet the previous definitions are a convenient point of departure in expanding the concept of the collectable object. To unite these definitions, and to clarify ambiguities, three categories proposed are proposed herein: Accumulation, Set Collecting and Serial Collecting.
Clifford has proposed that wares amassed are what define the Western individual . As consumers, members of society claim ownership of many objects within their lifetime, and appropriate these items into our own living schemes. These items can acquire different modalities according to the needs of the owner.
Object groups are often amassed, without having much value to the owner and without adhering to any underlying organizational scheme. This is often called hoarding, though the term is avoided here because of its negative connotations. The accumulator is not worried about the quality of the objects gathered, but of the quantity. Wether the collector is conscious or unconscious of the fact, the accumulation serves no other purpose other than to further propagate the existing stock pile of items already owned. An unconscious accumulator might be an individual that fails to throw out empty beer bottles, and at one point realise they have a "VB bottle 'collection'". The person who feels compelled to buy at least one item from a garage sale because it is "good value" is an example of a conscious accumulation. There is no underlying organisational scheme to the acquisition in the latter case; the accumulator unites them haphazardly.
The set collector searches for objects that belong to a pre-ordained set. This set is created and defined by the collector as a finite grouping, with a possibility of completing the set. The "collection-set" category serves to accommodate many models of collection. It introduces rational grouping, and the since the objects in the set are predetermined, the collector's search is directed towards specific objects. Unlike items in an accumulation, objects in a set collection must have particular qualities that justify their inclusion into the set. The collector is aware of the object they are searching for previous to their acquisition of it. A person collecting first edition Jane Austen novels has specific requirements that must be met for the object to form part of their collection set: the object must be a book, it must be a first edition, it's author must be Jane Austen, and it must be a different title to those already in the collection. The collector is not satiated until an object is found that satisfies these (and only these) conditions. They are conscious of the object they seek, and are aware of the place of that object within the collection that is being built.
This completion is what drives Baudriallard's theory of collection; the anxiety caused from knowing the set is incomplete becomes the motivation to collect. The only way to satiate this anxiety, according to this theory, is to finalise the set . While theoretically sound, this point of view fails to remain convincing when examining the broad range of real life collections. For once Frére-Michelat's "collection virus" takes hold, it is often the case that the end of a collection set only leads onto other collection. To account for this detail Baudrillard writes "One cannot but wonder whether collections are in fact meant to be completed, whether lack does not play an essential part here - a positive one" . This statement poses analytical problem. A person, on one hand is driven by the anxiety of the lack in a collection, yet the collection is created so that the collection cannot be completed. To rephrase from a psychoanalytic perspective; the unconscious pleasure derived from the yearning prevents the fulfillment of the conscious desire, which is manifested through anxiety. This paradoxical situation serves no purpose in defining a collection, rather it describes collecting as a self defeating mental struggle.
A serial collection differentiates from set collection in that it does not share the finality of the set collection. A serial collection is open-ended, and has a near infinite scope. Moreover, the serial collector differentiates from an accumulator in that there is a logical organization to the collection. For example, there are those who collect matchbooks from hotels or bars (a practice more common in the days before cigarette smoking was considered public heresy!). The serial collector looks to build upon their collection by specifically looking for objects that match their current collection, yet they have no prior knowledge of the exact qualities this object will have before they encounter it.
Nonetheless, the search for these items is directed, and the drive to collect the objects is still present. If the set collection "centers around the absent terms" then serial collection would center on the objects already present in the collection. The new objects must adhere to an already established array of criteria. In the matchbook collection example, the collector is looking for objects that are matchbooks that are not already in the collection. A logic pattern is assigned to the collection, and new objects entering this collection must follow these patterns. These templates that are associated with serial collections allow for at least one variable of the object to be different (i.e., a different pattern on the label). This contrasts to the criteria that are assigned in the set collection, where the object must adhere to all of the variables proposed in the template.
Of the three models proposed, only set-collection and serial-collection form the basis to what is classified as collecting. The lack of specific organization in the accumulator class disqualifies it as a genuine collection. Though the three classifications outlined are mutually exclusive, they are by no means static. Their utility in describing collecting stems from the ability for these categories to be used as components in a dynamic model of collection. Given a rationale, an accumulation can mutate into a serial-collection, and thence into a set-collection. In fact, a transmutation between any of these categories is possible.
The motivating factor of collection is the quest for an object. This drive is arguably part of the human condition, distributed evenly across different cultures, age groups and demographics . If we take Martin's view that collecting is an escapist response to the world , then it could be said that creating the collection-object is an extension to that escape. If our existence in the world is ephemeral, creating a collecting is a way of transcending mortality. While a full exploration of the psychological reasons behind Gundrey's "collectomania" are well beyond the scope of this paper , it is certain that the desire to collect is present in humanity. The quest is the driving force of collection: a mission that we set ourselves. Jean-Louis Christinat states this mission clearly:
The search for the object is the appeal of the collector. Without the search of the object, collections would only be gatherings of objects where it would be of little consequence if they were acquired as an entirety, or in installments. If collections are acquired complete, denying the search element, then they are not emotionally satisfying; they have nowhere to go. Take the example of Baseball cards. They are part of a clearly defined set from their conception -there is a numbered set of cards. What makes them collectable is that the entire set cannot be simply obtained. There are rituals that need to be performed if the collection is to be achieved (i.e., trading or winning the cards).
The lines between reality and fantasy are eroded, and the adventure for the item is of importance. The longer and more elaborate the search, the more satisfying the adventure. The enjoyment comes from the duration of this quest, and once the mission is completed, like a hungry child at the end of an adventure novel the urge is to plunge into yet another adventure. The acquisition process of the object is the way that the collector appropriates the object. The objects collected may have a general interest, but the fervor of collectomania lies in the collector's unique experience with that object, not within the object itself. The value to the collector is the unifying bond between themselves and the object, and this is something that is not inherent to the object. Frére-Michelat's essay on collection summarizes the passion for collecting as:
A collection starts with an object (or objects) whose qualities are of interest to the collector. The reasons for this attraction are unique to the person; they may hold an aesthetic value, or they may have memories embedded in it, or it may serve as a purposeful item. The reason behind the acquisition of these objects is only relevant to the collection in that they become what could be termed as anchor-pieces to the collection. In initializing a collection, the collector first decides to build upon these initial objects. The anchor-piece opens the space in which future objects in the collection will be placed, a space that can be defined as the collection-space. This is the point in which a person decides (consciously or unconsciously) the underlying rules to the collection. A person collecting, say, bottle caps is deciding to open a serial-collection space. However, if they chose to collect bottle caps made by Coca-Cola between the years 1939 to 1945, then they are opening a set-collection space. This is not an immutable decision, for as a collection grows, the collector's inclinations might adjust to a different category of collection. The collection-space is what Frére Michelat refers to as "favorable terrain" of collecting. The comparison to fertile ground is perceptive, as the collection space is a place that has been prepared for the inclusion of the collectable objects, and the growth of the collection. Upon creating, the collection-space lacks at items, and it is the search for these objects that drives the collector.
The anchor-piece(s) become the first in the set or series. Once the collection-space is created, both anchor pieces and subsequent objects are stripped of any inherent value they may have, and draw their value solely from their inclusion within the collection. The collection becomes a gestalt construct where the value of the individual parts is subsumed into the value of the whole. The collection thus becomes an object in its own right, the collection-object.
Michael Thompson outlines a case study that outlines a typical dynamic progression of a collection-object. A woman acquires four Stevengraphs because she noticed that her newly married son has some displayed in his home. Originally intending to give the four works to his son, she decided to keep two. Through their connection with her son, these objects became her anchor-pieces. By chance, she came across other Stevengraphs, and started her collection. At this point, she opened a collection-space, and she defined what she was looking for (a serial collection of objects that satisfied the "Silk Prints by Thomas Steven's" condition). Her collection grew to the point where she wrote a book entitled The Silk Pictures of Thomas Stevens .
In creating the collection-space, the collector delineates the collection-object by framing it into upper and lower bounds. Setting an upper-bound serves to situate the acceptable duration of the quest for the objects. The quest must be feasible in respects to the collector since an impossible quest does not serve to keep the motivational interest of the collector. For example, an upper bound set as "a collection of all of Leonardo Da Vinci's works" is a near impossible task (unless, of course, one is prepared to steal!), considering that no major museum would relinquish their Da Vinci's. This upper bound is subjected to the tastes and means of the individual collector.
So the collection has to be attainable, but it cannot be too easy to complete. If items are readily available to the person, then the quest will be of too short duration. The lower bound is the resistance (or duration) in obtaining the objects that will inhabit the collection-space. The definition of the upper and lower bounds is made in terms that are purely idiosyncratic to the collector themselves. They correspond to the resistance or duration that must be undergone to complete the collection. This resistance is a corollary of the definition of lower bounds, and can manifest as different types of resistance: spatial (having to travel to search for the object), temporal (having to wait for an installment in a series), monetary (having to amass the means to purchase), or any other reason that prolongs the quest for the object.
Objects in a collection are dependent on two values: the tale of their acquisition and their position within the collection structure . In the case of a collection-set, there is a finite structure imposed, as compared to the serial-collection. Yet even when the set-collection is completed, the collection urge need not die, contrary to Baudrillard's claims . Instead, the collecting behavior is transferred to another collection, or the collection space is widened to accommodate new objects. Thus a collector who has successfully collected all the Spiderman comics from 1954-56 might then create a new collection of Spiderman comics from 1950-1957, or extend the search to comic of a similar genre. Then again, the collector might start a different collection that has seemingly nothing to do with the other one. In this case, the dormant collection simply becomes part of a more encompassing collection-object; a collection-object that is a "collection of collections by the collector". While a collection may become dormant, it doesn't seize to exist. Rarely does a collector relinquish a collection, largely because each object is a testament to the personal quest undergone to its acquisition. As Frére-Michelat puts it
Just as the collection is framed by the boundaries proposed in the creation of the collection-space, the objects themselves are physical entities, with a need for a physical frame. The appeal of a collection is not only in the gathering the objects, but in the display of the wares. The need to display can be observed in even the youngest collectors; kids display their collected objects in shelves or albums . The display need not be public, it could be purely for the collector's own pleasure, but it is a vital feature of a collection. The physical arrangement of the objects is testimony to the organization scheme of the collection-space. Compare this organization to the accumulator who amasses magazines in their basement. The objects are un-kept, with no classification or way of being displayed in their entirety. A collector must be able to see the fruits of their labor; indeed most collectors take pride in their arrangement within a physical space, such as a cabinet or bookshelf. This order is fastidiously kept, and symbolic of the meaning of the collection. Frére-Michelat writes that the collectors display their collection in their primary homes (as compared to secondary homes or place of work), to "enjoy their collection, to touch it, to see it".
Physical displays are also necessary for the purpose of conservation. The longevity of an object is never assured, so the collector tries to stop this aging. Even within controlled environments, aging is an existential truth that cannot be denied. Yet the display must at the least make the objects appear to be eternal . This transformation of the object into a temporal static is another feature of collecting. The collection-space forms a temporal bubble in which the object doesn't age. Displays are thus a way of turning ephemera into eternal objects. The display forms a physical barrier between external factors the collection-object, and once in the safety of the display case (or other physical framing device), they remain there only to be admired.
Displays are physical reflection of the abstract concept of the collection-space. When a collector builds a shelf for his collectables, they project the entirety of the collection-space, not just the existing collection. Collections displays (such as cabinets, albums or boxes) have "gaps" in which missing objects will be placed; a physical reminder of the objects that are being searched. Often installations to display the collectables must be built, from the creation of a photo album, to the designation of a particular room in a house, or even new annex to a building for the sole purpose of displaying a collection. These measures are part of the quest, and the quest for display can be just as strong as the quest for the collectable item, though of course never superseding it.
The above whimsy points out an interesting part of collecting. It tells us that the values placed on the collected object are subjected to the collector. In the joke, the Bible is viewed through two different types of modalities. One person sees it as part of a collection, having worth through its rarity and the fact that there is only a limited set of first edition Guttenberg bibles. The second person sees it as a old book, with little usage, that can be replaced by a more modern version.
Objects are created with a specific purpose in mind, and their value lies in their ability to fulfill this specific purpose. Yet the object entering the collection-space relinquishes all other modalities. This idea is recurrent in collection literature . By the same token, if an object is being put to a use, then it is not a collectable object at that point in time. For the object to be placed within the collectable modality, it cannot concurrently be placed in any other mode.
Once an object enters the collection-space, its value is solely determined by its relationship to the other objects in the space. Indeed, Durost defines an collection as a gathering of objects that are "valued chiefly for the relation [they] bear to some other object or idea, or objects, or ideas, such as being one of a series, part of a whole" . Upon entering the collection, the value of the object comes from outside the object, not from within. Clifford observes this with Shaker art works, which are valuable in that they are limited in number, not for their artistic properties .
It is also important to note that value here is not attached to monetary value. The value in a collection is related to the duration and satisfaction of the quest, and cannot be economically quantified. A questionnaire given to all convention members of the 1982 Foire des Collectionneurs found that less than 10% of collectors viewed their collection as a way of making money and less than 10% of collectors judge the quality of the collections by the monetary value . The economics behind the collecting societies are driven by other factors, and are not pertinent to this discussion.
If we accept that a collection is an object that is driven by the search of it's components, there must be certain other conditions that must be applicable to the object. Given that the majority of authors on the subject of collecting have broad definitions of a collection, below are some conditions that outline the arguments made previously, and that help in determining the validity of a collection.
The most simplistic and most encompassing definition of a collection is a grouping of different objects. This assumes there to be more than one item for the collection to exist. Though a collection starts with an anchor-piece, this single object is only a stepping stone in achieve the creation of a collection-object. So a single item can start a collection, but cannot be the collection itself.
While this might seem a moot point, it highlights that the item being searched for is not the focus of the collection. A single object might drive the collector, but the focus is always on the collection-object. Therefore the drive is not for the acquisition of the individual item, but for the contribution to the collection-object.
As we have seen, display is a central part of a collection. Not only display for others, but display for oneself. To achieve this display, it is imperative that the objects be physical properties, which can be seen and grouped according to the structure of the collection-space.
Ideas or abstractions are clearly not collectable because they cannot be conventionally stored. While it could be argued that the human brain "stores" abstractions, this type of gathering can only be described as accumulation. Ideas cannot be displayed in their entirety, and they cannot be easily organized as physical objects can. Furthermore, one cannot search for a specific idea, as the search would involve having an abstraction of what you are searching for (i.e., the idea itself). A philatelic collector has an idea of the stamp that they are looking for, but the act of collecting is not achieved till the physical object is acquired. It must take up space in a display, and it must be held within the context of other physical objects.
One might argue against this by pointing out that a bibliophile collects intellectual property - held inside the books. However, there is a difference between accumulation of knowledge and collecting of books. The point is better illustrated by asking the bibliophile if they would be satisfied with a photocopy of the information in the book. If content where the emphasis of the search, then a photocopy would suffice. A collector is only interested in the physical object, not a reproduction.
Collecting involves physically gathering objects into a collection-space. Upon entering that space, objects are assumed to have static properties. An object that is transitory cannot be stored permanently, given that it has a pragmatically ephemeral life. An object must at least appear to be in a permanent static form to be a collectable.
A transient object such as fire is not collectable. This can be generalized to all abiotic states, such as light, temperature, gasses, etc. Processes also fall into this category, as the existence of the process is dependant an the states that delineate it. It therefore does not constitute as a physical entity.
By the same token, living beings cannot be collected, due to their definite ephemeral conditions. The only certainty they posses it that they will one day die, thus loose their "living" quality. As stated previously, collecting is a way of turning ephemera into eternity, or at least give the appearance of such. Animals can, off course, be mummified, or embalmed. It is at this point that they become collectable objects, because they are rendered static objects.
Though the collector creates the collection-object, the collector cannot make the objects that are within that collection. If a person can manufacture the collectable object, the quest becomes redundant. Being able to make something means that you have the availability to make it at leisure. The lower bound in the collection-space is set at such a low duration as negate any meaningful quest.
The quest in collecting is the collector's external quest into the real world. Christinat's earlier idea of adventure involves an interaction with the world outside of the collector's internal realm. The stories embedded in the collectable objects justify the quest and can only be realized with an interaction with the real world. Indeed, the quest for the object is a way of mediating with the real world. The resistance generated from the lower-bound in a collection-space must therefore come from outside the phenomenology of the collector.
Part of the collection process is appropriating the collection to oneself. Collections are vastly personal, being subjected to the boundaries imposed by the collector. If the drive of the collection is the quest, then one cannot collect for anyone but oneself. That doesn't mean that one cannot enjoy someone else's collection, rather, they will not have the same emotional attachment, nor the same drive to continue the collection as the collector. Personal ownership of the collection is part of collecting.
This is the reason why museums cannot be described as true collections. Museums are an accumulation of different people's ideas and desires. No one person appropriates a museum collection; it is part of an evolutionary process that involves many different individuals with their own agendas. It could be argued that the curator of a museum holds the personal control of objects within the museum, yet this argument fails to accept that an institution that dictates monetary funds and taste hires the curator. There is a responsibility to an audience, as compared to the collector who is answerable only to themselves.
A person that employed others to search for the objects that they seek could be said to be violating this condition. However, one must remember that it is the quest that is paramount to the collecting process. A person might employ the services of someone to find the object, but this in itself is also a part of their quest. Finding the means to acquire an object is a resistance in the lower bound of the collection space. The essential difference is that the person who searches for a specific object for someone else searches only for a single object. As stated previously, the collector's quest does not lie in the search of a single object, but in the maturation of the collection-object.
Likewise, the condition of self-ownership does not exclude all public collections. A Museum can be a collection if it is a public exhibition of a personalized collection-object. The fact that there is an external audience is irrelevant, as long as they play no part in the decisions of the collection. The collection exist even if none comes to view it, compared to museums that are subjected to public and government taste. In stating that "Museums are a gathering of objects within a scheme, but function only as a mechanic system of relationships between objects" , Baume outlines that a museum functions not as a collection-object, but as a system of relationships between objects. There are many ways in which objects can be meaningfully grouped, but that does not necessarily mean that they exhibit the emotional connection - the collectomania - between collector and collection-object.
In a proverbial sense the word "collection" encompasses any grouping of objects. However, there is an emotional urge observed in people that call themselves collectors - an urge that Muensterberger terms an "unruly passion" . This motivational factor delineates collections from random gatherings of objects. Authors that study collecting behavior have varying approaches to definitions, and their approaches generally specialize into their idiosyncratic arguments. In the existing body of work, one is faced with rigid methodologies such as Baudrillard's "uncompleted sets", or theories that are too encompassing and subjective for analytical discourse. To revise this, a new methodological approach is proposed.
In an aim to include different types of collecting in a more directed definition, this discussion outlines a different analytical structure. The distinction between accumulation, set-collection and serial-collection encapsulates differing notions of collections, from the collections of children to highly specialized endeavors. Also outlined is the evolution towards the collection-object, from its initiation by an anchor-piece and the creation of a collection-space. Finally, conditions are set out that use the notion of the collection "quest" and issues of display to explain Gundrey's "collectomania", and to demarcate collections from other meaningful groupings of objects.