Kangchenjunga 1937

Editor: So this is Nicholas Roerich’s “Kangchenjunga” from 1937, a watercolor painting. There's something ethereal about it, a sort of layered, dreamlike quality. How would you read this artwork? Curator: Focusing on Roerich’s artistic practice here, it’s critical to consider watercolor as more than just a medium; it’s a choice reflecting a specific process and materiality. The transparency and fluidity, coupled with the subject matter of Kangchenjunga, invite consideration of the labor involved in its creation and circulation. Where do we see evidence of cultural consumption or specific labor practices embedded within its visual presentation? Editor: That's a perspective I hadn't considered. I was mainly focused on the spiritual themes usually associated with Roerich's landscapes. Curator: But even those themes are material! Think about the pigments used. Are they locally sourced or products of global trade networks? What social structures enable Roerich to create and disseminate this vision of the East? Consider that Orientalism is embedded into the choices regarding colors, representation of landscape and its use by specific audiences. Editor: So, instead of just seeing a romantic landscape, you are asking us to consider how this painting functions as a material object, influenced by trade and the cultural values of its time? Curator: Exactly. And further, how does its existence and accessibility shape and get shaped by labor? The paper, the pigments, even the water… everything is tied to systems of production. Who benefits, and who is exploited in bringing this image to us? Editor: That makes me think about the commodification of spiritual experiences. It's definitely shifted how I perceive the artwork. Thanks. Curator: Precisely! Considering artistic materiality provides concrete avenues for deconstructing prevalent mythologies related to spiritual enlightenment and/or fulfillment often surrounding exotic landscapes like Kangchenjunga.