Why am I interested in The Object?

I have been reading The Object, edited by Antony Hudek, published in 2014.  There is some interesting stuff in there.

Hudek writes about how objects define us.  Ordinary mundane objects carry a variety of "disguises, concealments, subterfuges, provocations and triggers".  They give multiple messages to different people. Objects exist before us and without us.

Dieter Roelstraete differentiates between Things and Objects.  A thing has an earlier evolution than the object, as a thing has not acquired any relationship with a subject.  The object has a more evolved status because it does have a relationship with a subject.  An object has elevated status as it implies knowledge, control and ownership via possession and the ability to buy, sell trade or own it, by a subject.

Ob-ject - is derived from 'thrown against'.  So does this mean the meanings we "throw against" it?  Does this give the ob-ject 'worth'?
Ab-ject - is derived from "thrown away".  Does this mean the ab-ject is denied of worth or has worth removed from it?

So as Walter Benjamin says, the artist "liberates things from the bondage of utility".  This presumably indicates artists allocate a meaning to a thing, which elevates its status to an object. This give the artist a privileged position in rerouting, appropriating, and altering the object.  Hudek reflects that as subjects with an extensive network of objects, we use them to learn about how to live, interact with others and organise ourselves publicly and privately. Provided this is accurate, the subject may be ready to accept that "Objects define us".

Stephen Willats, wrote about Transformers in 1989.  Transformation is the taking of an object and the changing of its purpose, thereby creating another object.  Its new meaning and function means the cultural references around it also change.  The person or transformer who does this, recognises the underlying psychological possibilities by changing an object.

Objects hold a deep significance in modern Western society, in that objects signify the social power of the possessor and thus their authority.  The object becomes a vehicle for society's desires and becomes an icon of a wider lifestyle choice.  The creativity of the Transformer (artist) gives the object a new purpose which is other than its pre-determined role.  When working in a standardised environment which restricts personal expression, tiny innocent transformations are notable, showing a rejection of imposed values.  These transformation to the use and purpose of an object within a highly controlled environment are significant.

OK, so that is a bit of theory about The Object.  If I try to apply this to my samplers, where do I get?    If I think of a sampler as a thing, which had the bondage of utility of teaching girls to sew, and to learn their letters and numbers.  I want to Transform it by using the sampler as a vehicle to publicise the actions of women who I respect.  The traditional sampler was worked in a standardised format, but by articulate, specific expression of the values of the artist, a notable transformation could be achieved.

I am starting to change the way I feel about samplers.  I had been quite surprised at my liking for such a traditional format, with its very simple stitch technique.  I had been worrying about it being seen as old-fashioned, frumpy and unimaginative.  But it does give the opportunity for a powerful social narrative, cogent with the technique, and demonstrating my understanding of the transformative power of the artist.