Flip Glass c. 1940

Editor: Here we have John Dana’s "Flip Glass," dating from around 1940. It’s a drawing using watercolor and charcoal, quite simple in its subject matter, yet it evokes a sense of quiet reflection. What strikes you when you look at this? Curator: Immediately, I think about the everyday object elevated to art. What does it mean to center the domestic in this way? Given the historical context – the 1940s, a period of war and shifting social structures – I wonder if Dana is commenting on the value of simple, homebound moments, especially for women. Does the glass represent sustenance, or perhaps resilience, something commonplace that nonetheless carries significance? Editor: I hadn't considered it from that angle. I just saw a glass! The idea of the domestic sphere being charged with meaning is fascinating. But is it a stretch to assume that, or is there something in the style, the deliberate ordinariness, that hints at this intent? Curator: It's about looking at the broader picture. Modernism was grappling with representing lived experience, and for many artists, this meant challenging established hierarchies that placed 'high' art above representations of daily life. Dana's choice of such an object prompts us to consider who traditionally occupies that domestic space and whose stories are often marginalized in art history. Could we even interpret the emptiness of the glass as symbolic of lack or need during wartime rationing, for instance? Editor: That’s powerful. It shifts my understanding completely. Now I see the potential for commentary, even in something so seemingly mundane. Curator: Exactly. And art's power often lies in its capacity to ignite such re-evaluations, making us question our assumptions about what's worth representing and why. Considering identity and social context encourages a more nuanced, politically engaged reading of "Flip Glass" than initially meets the eye. Editor: I'll definitely look at still life differently now. Thank you.