Portrait of Harriet Hubbard Ayers 

Editor: Here we have William Merritt Chase’s "Portrait of Harriet Hubbard Ayers," an oil painting that I find rather charming. What's interesting is the visible brushwork and the way the paint seems almost casually applied, which I wouldn't immediately think is a portrait technique. What’s your take on this? Curator: It’s essential to look at the socio-economic factors here. The impressionistic brushstrokes and the ‘unfinished’ feel—are they really casual, or do they reflect something about labor and the production of portraiture at this time? Editor: So, you're suggesting that the apparent casualness may actually be deliberate? Curator: Precisely. Chase was working at a time when industrial production was rapidly changing social structures. Could this painting be viewed as a commentary on mass production versus individualized craftsmanship, even within the sphere of high-society portraiture? The way he handles oil paint, thick impasto, against looser underpainting... It asks us, what kind of labor went into making this image? Was it truly made from 'oil-paint'? Or can it be understood more broadly as having also been 'made' by socio-economic forces? Editor: That makes a lot of sense! Seeing it in that light, I'm starting to reconsider the materiality of this piece. Curator: And, how the art market treats portraiture in general: is it a status symbol and commodity, or can there be sincere reflection on someone's lived experience? Think about how consumption and representation play into our perception of this piece. Editor: That’s given me a lot to consider regarding the processes and systems in art production, thank you. Curator: A different view on labor changes everything! It’s a constant reminder to look beyond just the surface image, always considering how art, its creation and its value is deeply interwoven with social and material conditions.