Since my last few posts have been about creatures taking their pants off, a look at this shaker set seems appropriate:
As a set, they have an interesting binary-oppositional relationship. I’m tempted to suggest that they replicate the insistence of the shaker miniverse on dividing things into opposite pairs: salt and pepper, black and white, male and female. They might be doing so in this case by suggesting a gender opposition: one of the object depicted is used, usually, only by males, and the other is depicted in a position that makes it convenient for females. And in that way, they might represent the common tendency in shaker sets of distinguishing the two components of each set in terms of gender: by dressing one cute bear in a blue shirt and the other in a pink dress, for instance.
The objects depicted in this set, however, are not wearing dresses or shirts (although, as a hardened veteran spectator of the salt and pepper miniverse, I can all too easily imagine someone producing a set that did show cute toilets in clothing and with smiley faces). So maybe I’m just imposing that whole gender thing on this set. After all, if you’ve decided to depicted plumbing fixtures that aid in human elimination in a salt and pepper shaker set, are there really any other choices of two objects to depict? I can’t think of any offhand–it’s hard to imagine how you might go about depicting a hole dug in the floor of the forest. Perhaps you could include an old-fashioned outhouse? So maybe the manufacturer of this set, having chosen to do sanitary facilities, was merely lucky enough to be confronted with just two possibilities, one of which is usually associated with males and one which isn’t, a difference which then makes them suitably oppositional enough to act as subjects for tabletop containers of salt and pepper.
I am, once more, taken aback by the idea that you might get some pleasure out of putting miniature representations of sanitary facilities on your dinner table. A momento mori sort of reminder of our essentially animal nature, perhaps? Nor do I get the pleasure of symbolically shaking the contents of a toilet and/or a urinal on your food. It somehow seems to be implying a reversal of the usual order in which the processes of eating and digestion take place. You put what was once food and rink into toilets and urinals; you don’t usually put what was once food and has now been deposited in toilets and urinals on food. And call me an old-fashioned conservative, but really, why would you even want to?