Historicity

The subject of artificiality comes into question throughout this novel. What disguises an object from having historical importance and authenticity rather than being labeled as trivial? Some would argue that historical importance adds value to an object. If that were the case, then any object that is made would then have "historicity". Is it a certain number of years that an object is in existence that constitutes its value? Or is it the event that the object experiences that makes it a conduit for history to reach the present? Edfrank jewelry is the epitome of this dilemma. The jewelry that the duo are making is clearly not from a historically significant time period, nor has it been around long enough to have earned significance through age. When Paul examines it however, he senses its importance and deems it valuable. He judges its “historicity” and comments that, “This is alive in the now, whereas that merely remained” (176). In this instance, the object obtained its value because of its importance to the present day rather than it being a symbol of the past. The jewelry is a representation of the current decade and therefore is just as rich in value as more esteemed artifacts from past eras. If that is the case, then historical value cannot be derived from a simple formula compiled of age and experience.

Although this is applicable to the objects in the book, I was thinking about this concept in regards to people as well. A historical valuable person is dubbed as such from their age and experience in the world. Doesn’t this discount however, the people who have individual importance to one another? The specific significance is clearly different in its essence, but should not be discounted. This sounds incredibly cliched and sappy as I go on to say that every person is historically important to someone else. Regardless of this romanticized viewpoint however, objects as well as people cannot be judged for their value based upon a number or a contextual event.