Untitled 1959

Editor: This untitled work by Richards Ruben from 1959, done in coloured pencil and pastel, has such a dreamlike quality. It almost feels like looking at a memory of a landscape rather than a realistic depiction. What stands out to you when you look at it? Curator: The way the landscape conventions are subverted is what I find most engaging. Landscapes, historically, have been tied to ideas of nationhood, ownership, and even divine right. Here, Ruben offers us something far more ephemeral. This almost dissolves traditional power dynamics embedded within the genre. Do you see how the lack of clear definition challenges those notions? Editor: I do. It's almost as if Ruben is asking us to question our relationship with the land, or at least, our preconceived notions of how we depict it. But was this kind of deconstruction common for landscape art in the late 50's? Curator: Precisely. The 1950s were a period of significant social and political upheaval. Abstract Expressionism, which heavily influenced Ruben’s contemporaries, provided a visual language to express anxieties surrounding the Cold War, societal expectations, and a growing sense of disillusionment. Ruben's ambiguous figuration can be understood as part of this broader cultural movement challenging established norms through art. Who do you think had access to such abstract art then? Editor: I imagine it would have largely been intellectuals and people connected to galleries and museums. So, access itself plays a role in how we interpret its meaning. Curator: Absolutely. And understanding who the audience *was* then shapes our understanding of how the art *functioned*. Editor: That's really fascinating. I hadn't considered how much the historical context could influence the meaning of such an abstract piece. Curator: It's a great example of how art both reflects and critiques the society from which it emerges. I appreciate your insightful questions!