Slang 1775 - 1833

Editor: So, here we have a pencil drawing called "Slang," dating somewhere between 1775 and 1833. It’s an incredibly detailed rendering of a snake coiled upon itself. The realism is quite striking, yet something about it also feels almost clinical, like a study. What strikes you most about this work? Curator: Well, first, the term "slang" in this context is interesting. It wasn't always about language. Consider that natural history illustrations in this period often aimed for a precise, objective view of the world. Was this image intended for scientific study, perhaps as part of a larger project to categorize and understand the natural world? And if so, how might societal biases or perceptions of nature shape what’s deemed "objective" representation? Editor: That makes sense. So the choice of "slang" isn't about any sort of... conversational element with the snake? It's more to classify and present an aspect of the natural world? Curator: Exactly. How does the scientific community—then and now—frame this creature? Consider that the institutional frameworks within which art is created and consumed can profoundly influence both its content and our interpretation. The drawing might also speak to how public institutions curate and then control access to specimens. Who sees them and to what ends? Editor: I hadn’t considered that. Viewing art as evidence shaped by socio-political concerns… it reframes how I perceive everything. Curator: Indeed! And recognizing the historical contexts can then open up much broader and more meaningful dialogues surrounding art’s role within larger cultural and political systems. What new insights does this lens offer you when looking at contemporary art? Editor: I'm now thinking more about which narratives the institutions that hold artworks implicitly choose to amplify. Thanks!