Editor: Here we have Chagall’s "Les deux ânes au soleil," created around 1980 using oil paint. There's such a dreamlike quality to it, almost like a memory unfolding. How would you approach understanding a painting like this? Curator: I'd focus on the materiality of its making. Notice the vigorous brushstrokes, the almost frantic application of oil paint. It isn't striving for photorealistic depiction, is it? What does the paint itself, the labor evident in its application, communicate about the subject matter? Editor: It definitely feels less about accurately portraying reality and more about… capturing an emotion, or maybe an experience. Curator: Precisely. Think about the pigments he chose - bold blues and oranges. Consider how the cost and availability of those pigments may have influenced the final work. How does Chagall's choice of inexpensive versus exclusive materials play into the accessibility, or perceived value, of the painting? What socio-economic context does the materiality evoke? Editor: That's a different way to look at it. So instead of just seeing colors as symbolic, you're considering where those colors come from and how they were available to Chagall. Curator: Exactly. It challenges the typical reading of ‘high art’ through considering material availability and labor - isn't that interesting? Is it simply a beautiful image, or does the very way it was made – the artist’s actions with often ordinary, crafted, or mass produced materials – contribute to its meaning? Editor: I guess I’d always focused on the symbolic content. But thinking about the paint itself, the labor, changes everything. I hadn't really considered those aspects before. Curator: And that is the lens of the materialist art historian! Considering how art making can be about production, challenging elitist structures by inviting labor and common material into art. Editor: I'll definitely look at art differently from now on! Thank you.
CollectMore like this
