The article is devoted to the philosophical and aesthetic analysis of the materials presented at the exhibition of V. Arkhipov “Objects of Pride and Shame” in Perm in 2021. First of all, it was necessary to establish as strictly as possible the boundaries of the phenomenon that Arkhipov discovered and embodied in his famous collection of characteristic self-made objects ("contraptions"). Then it was important to explain under what conditions and under what circumstances could these objects be transformed into an art object or if they were originally such. Following the example of V. Podoroga, we also consider Arkhipov's collection as an opportunity for broader philosophical generalizations on the theme of art and things. The result of our analysis may be summarized as follows. First, the handicrafts in Arkhipov's collection emerge at the intersection of various kinds of praxis and are deeply integrated into the system of anthropological preconditions and conditions of human activity; this explains the fluidity of the boundaries of Arkhipov's phenomena (from technical amateurism to exotic kunststuekes). Secondly, the world of handicrafts discovered by Arkhipov undoubtedly bears the traces of social influences (from the squalor of poverty to respectable upcycling). The article shows the relative and local nature of all aspects of "social grief" and "social happiness" in Arkhipov's phenomena, for their nature is much broader. As abstract as Sartre's term "lack of being" sounds with regard to Arkhipov's things, it can be used to show that the "things" represent rather an experience of making up for being in a situation of its lack. Third, the text presented reveals various aspects of the author's impartiality in relation to the things he creates. The property of the artist's non-involvement ("transgendence") in relation to the hyletic composition of his actions is, in our opinion, the initial, "ontological", condition and source of the artistic work. Arkhipov's pieces are, for the most part, deeply ironic in relation to "normal," "signature" things. Their fate from the beginning to the end is determined by their creator, they are pro-products of their creators. And finally, fourth, we consider it fundamental to look at the world from the perspective of, in a certain sense, the absolute factuality of the things that fill it. Everything else is drowning in the infinite perspective of the possible.