Prompt: "Can it be argued that there is something in the abstract--some aspect of form--that defines an art object as a ritual object?"
Considering my own limited experience, I believe it could be argued that something in the abstract defines an art object as ritual, but I am reluctant to make such an argument myself. My readings in Freedburg and in Clunas have given me a diverse but rather sparse set of examples to draw upon. While Freedburg would likely (and perhaps does so later in his book) claim that there is some formal element which connects the ritual elements of the Italian Renaissance and ancient China, I don't see the connection in form so clearly myself. Secondly, I find it very difficult to make generalized claims about form when Clunas is good enough to remind his readers that among the ancient Chinese artifacts we have, it is quite likely that most of them are ritual objects. How can we make generalizations about form without something to compare to? How can we tell that it is something formal that makes something what it is when it is the only example of its type? To choose an example, if we know that a decorative wine vessel is a ritual object because of the context in which it was found (beside other ritual objects, for instance, or in an actual burial site) then it seems to be more speculation than reason that leads one to find the object's "ritualness" abstractly, in its form.
Ranting aside, I do understand that there are formal elements that contribute to how we understand an object as a "ritual" object. By combining elements of the spiritual and the quotidian, the form gives the sense that the object straddles two worlds, the material and the spiritual, the living and the dead, the real and the fantastic. The image to the right is entitled "Mythical Beast" and is from the Portland Art Museum's permanent collection. The beast it represents is clearly mythical, but it is probably better and more specific to say that such a beast with all of these features does not exist and never has. Yet certain features of the sculpture resemble different animals that do happen to exist, combining to figure a creature definitely related to this world, and yet not of it. Its feet and legs are like the limbs of a dog. The torso has the proportions of a bull, and the way the head bends down supports this analogy. The position of the horn on the head does not correspond to any animal I can think of, but its shape and size are not unusual. The wings are only suggested at, more a part of the torso than a separate form. The tail, however, is completely otherworldly, resembling more a blade like a sickle or an axe than any animal part. Finally, the beast's posture is balanced and resembles a position a dog or bull might take. It is not entirely clear to me whether the beast is supposed to be preparing for attack, or kneeling in submission, but that either of these actions seem appropriate and plausible only heightens the sense of familiarity combined with otherworldliness.
This next image, also from the Portland Art Museum, the mixture of elements that refer to a real world with those that refer to a spiritual one is even more acute. The Museum calls this piece "Two Headed Earth Spirit." The quotations that the museum offers suggests that it is not in any real sense the object's given name, but more a descriptive title. It is easy to see how the object would acquire such a name. The protrusions that rise up out of the base on either end resemble deer or elk antlers so well that it might be that they actually are antlers of this type. They connect to wooden relief carvings which resemble a face more by virtue of being connected to the antlers than anything else. The faces are decidedly fantastic, spiritual, or otherworldly. The combination of familiar and unfamiliar forms that are yet comprehensible as representation help us to understand this work as a ritual piece.
The idea and study of ritual helps us to understand "that thing we call 'art'" by pointing towards the roots of artistic expression, its role in societies and how it was originally conceived of against non-ritual objects and other forms of representation, like language. Although we live in a secularized society, and the study of art is largely secularized as well, that representative objects were originally harnessed because of their connection to other worlds suggests a field of meaning to which only the art object can refer.
