Still Life with Lemons 

Editor: This is Renoir's "Still Life with Lemons," and looking at the thickly applied paint, I’m immediately struck by the tangible nature of the objects. They feel almost… edible. What do you make of the obvious materiality of the paint and these everyday objects, presented as art? Curator: I see here the tension between the inherent value of "fine art" painting, created by someone like Renoir, versus the devaluation of objects deemed mundane, like lemons or even the ceramic cup. This contrast makes me consider how painting flattens the distinction between the labor of artistic creation and that which produced these simple things. It suggests we also acknowledge the economic circuits that delivered them both to Renoir's table, and now to our view. What canvas and pigments were available at the time? Where were these lemons grown and who picked them? Editor: So, you are saying it forces us to think about the production beyond just the painting itself? Like, whose hands were involved in all of this? Curator: Exactly! And what value is placed on each stage of that production? For instance, notice how Renoir doesn’t disguise the materiality of the oil paint itself. The brushstrokes are clearly visible, highlighting the labour involved. Is it "worth more" simply because it bears his artistic mark? Or what of the craftsperson who originally made the cup, who remains nameless? Editor: I hadn't considered that! It really does make you rethink the typical still life. I suppose, by its existence as an object, this artwork challenges us to consider objects beyond mere aesthetic value. Curator: Precisely. Now you’re looking at how something as simple as a painting of lemons implicates wider social and economic realities.