The Lot 1971

Editor: Here we have Joan Mitchell's "The Lot," an acrylic on canvas piece from 1971. The blues and yellows seem almost architectural, fighting with the white ground. What stands out to you in terms of how she’s handled the paint? Curator: What immediately grabs my attention is the pure materiality of the acrylic. Notice how Mitchell forces us to consider the *making* itself. It's not just about form, but about the gesture of applying the paint, the viscosity of the acrylic, the physical labor involved in building these layered surfaces. Think of it – this isn't just about 'abstraction', it’s an *action* recorded in material form. Editor: So you see the physicality as almost as important as the composition? Curator: Precisely. Look at the stark contrast between the heavily worked blues, and the comparatively untouched white ground. This difference makes us aware of artistic choices; Mitchell manipulates the acrylic paint as a raw material with different weights and values that carry inherent meanings. How does this emphasis on material production challenge the traditional boundaries of, say, more traditional painting styles? Editor: I guess it makes us question what “skill” even *means* in art. It’s less about illusionism and more about honest presentation of material and action. Curator: Exactly! And that also means that its social context shapes what we value and define as such. By emphasizing this, we can see painting and the making of paintings with very new and innovative values. Editor: This makes me look at it completely differently, beyond just abstract expressionism and into a realm of pure making and process. Curator: Right! Paying attention to the raw materials allows us to understand how social and cultural assumptions regarding "good" art were challenged through Mitchell’s approach and the means of her production. It changes our viewpoint on "The Lot" from subjective viewing to almost a historical or economical one.