In the nearby candles, the soft baize covering, and

In Jules David Prown’s analysis
of the two tables in The Truth of Material Culture, psychoanalysis is used to
point out the specific details of the two distinctively different tables and allows
the audience to understand the significance of the artifacts. Prown begins to
describe the pre-Revolution New York Chippendale table 1(American, New York, 1760-70). with
detail that is so precise. According to Prown he says, 2 “It has
wells for counters, recesses at the corners for candlesticks, a drawer to hold
cards and counters, and a baize cover to protect the surface, make it easier to
pick up cards, and keep them from sliding.”  Giving more insight and making the audience
more aware of the table’s purpose.

demonstrates The Freudian Psychoanalytic Theory as he explains that the table
is used for more intimate use. Prown says, 3 ” There is a sense of
intimacy, of coziness, reinforced by the warmth of the nearby candles, the soft
baize covering, and a sheltered trove of private wealth in a well – a kind of
security, like food in a bowl or money in one’s pocket.” What Prawn means when
he said that it gives the people sitting at The Chippendale get a sense of
security it goes back to the Freudian Psychoanalytic Theory because the table
with such small details gives the people sitting much greater purpose rather
than just sitting at an ordinary table. With everything the table includes
especially the candles the makes the ambience warm. It really demonstrates that
this table was designed to make it a table where friendly competition was preferred
from what Prawn makes us understand. The table makes the four people sitting
while playing get so close that Prawn believes the game is more intimate and
that is where he believes that the feeling of the people being cozy is because
they are so close to one another.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

post-Revolution Federal classical revival card table 4 (American, Massachusetts, 1785-1815). is
still explained with much detail but Prown without really telling the audience
we know that this table is very bland and has of course an importance but is
much more serious compared to The Chippendale Table. The table is designed for
four people and Prawn even gives us an idea that the table could be used by two
men and two women due to the type of details the table contained. Prawn
questioned, since women more than likely wore dresses they probably sat on the
two sides that had more room and were more open so their dresses could have enough
space. While men sat on the other two sides as well to be more comfortable.
Prawn also thought that this was a possibility because they would sit across
the opposed gender.

also begins to say that The Federal Card Table actually is not as intimate as
The Chippendale Table because it doesn’t have all of the closeness like The
Chippendale Table. Everything about this table is a bit more exposed. 5″Objects
on the table surface are less secure, less rooted, set on a flat, all purpose
surface rather than nestled into designed concavities.” It really explains that
when people were on The Federal Card Table it was 6 “less friendly”
according to Prawn. Which does make sense because everything is out in the open
and it’s demonstrates no form of intimacy like the other table.

find Prown’s analysis persuasive because he begins to describe the tables in a
way that really makes me appreciate the culture because these two tables look
like ordinary tables to me but when Prown breaks it down and explains the
importance of these two surfaces he makes me understand that there is so much
culture behind them. Due to bias thoughts one does not see the significance but
that is because we live in this society right now and find no appreciation or
use to these two tables. Luckily reading Prown’s detailed analysis of these two
tables I find more appreciation for the tables because he is very persuasive in
that aspect.

 Prown’s approach really does demonstrate the
Freudian Psychoanalytic Theory because he gives the two tables much more
meaning rather than just saying they are two tables when he actually breaks
down every corner of the two tables and gives it more purpose. Prown gives the audience
a deeper insight of the significance of an artifact while showing us also the
cultural aspect at the same time. He explains how the tables were used and who
could have possibly sat in them and really challenges us to really look into it
further rather just seeing the ordinary.