Figure 1935 - 1942

Curator: Here we have Vera Van Voris’s “Figure,” a painting likely created sometime between 1935 and 1942. It seems to be watercolor and drawing media on paper, featuring a standing figure in a sort of whimsical realist style. Editor: It strikes me as… unsettlingly playful. The man’s figure is boldly rendered, even caricatured. But then it sits atop what look like children's toy wheels. It’s an unsettling juxtaposition of serious portrayal and whimsical construction. What should we make of this? Curator: It's compelling how Van Voris uses familiar symbols – the figure dressed in what looks like hunting garb, including the rifle – yet presents them in an atypical manner, almost defamiliarizing these American archetypes. The wheels disrupt any clear narrative; are we seeing the artist questioning established forms of masculine identity during a shifting social landscape? Editor: Exactly. The placement of the figure on wheels suggests a critique of the era's ideals, an attempt to question mobility and stasis. This was painted during the depression era into WWII—the country was anything but stable! Is it also about a loss of control, being carried by forces you don’t understand? Curator: Absolutely. The small size of the wheels versus the solid boots and figure generates a sort of cognitive dissonance, questioning how society’s roles and values balance, or *don’t* balance, during times of social upheaval. And notice how the dark, outlined bag he wears also has this inflated sense of weight and dimensionality... What might that symbolize? Editor: A haversack full of social baggage, perhaps? Burdens of expectations or perhaps guilt that he has to haul. Also the hat color matching his cheeks giving it an exaggerated flushed feel makes him look out of place. Maybe this painting invites conversations around accountability and how easily historical events can get “wheeled” into modern life, for better or worse. Curator: Precisely! Van Voris provides a means to dissect the complexities of a time through imagery, suggesting that we question the accepted cultural meanings assigned to our societal roles and symbols. By portraying what we know but tweaking how it operates, Van Voris nudges us to think more critically. Editor: Looking at “Figure” then gives one more than meets the eye—challenging cultural archetypes from the past. I'm intrigued by this intersection between societal role-play and critique, I feel compelled to keep examining my own context.