Untitled 

Editor: Here we have Ligia Macovei’s "Untitled", an oil painting, date unknown, that’s really caught my eye. The impasto is so thick, you can almost feel the brushstrokes. It's…intense. What strikes you most about the piece? Curator: The materiality itself is key here. The layering of oil paint—that physical process—is really foregrounded. Look at how the act of applying the pigment becomes the subject. This isn't just about representation; it's about the labour involved in creating the image. Consider, too, the availability of these materials, and the economic conditions that allow an artist to use so much paint so liberally. Editor: So you're saying the painting isn't just *of* something, but *about* the act of painting itself, and maybe the means to create art? I always considered the Abstract Expressionists divorced from labor concerns. Curator: Exactly! And challenging that divide between “high art” and the often-dismissed physicality of craft is crucial. How does the thick application change the way we consume the image? Does it slow us down, making us contemplate the sheer volume of material used? Think about the conditions necessary for this kind of lavish creation to exist. Editor: I see what you mean. The impasto encourages you to really get up close, to examine the physical properties of the paint, rather than just passively taking in an image. It’s almost a celebration of the medium itself. Curator: Precisely. The brushstroke and the texture serve as material evidence of artistic production and also perhaps a comment on the broader industry that makes that production possible. Editor: This has completely shifted my perspective! I'll definitely be looking at the relationship between art, labor, and consumption a lot more closely now. Thanks. Curator: My pleasure. Considering art from a materialist perspective helps ground it in its social and economic reality, I'm glad to have illuminated those ideas for you.