Richmond 

Editor: Here we have Konstantin Gorbatov’s “Richmond”, a mixed media work on paper using watercolor and colored pencil. The muted colors give the cityscape a somewhat melancholic air. What strikes you when you look at it? Curator: What jumps out at me is the architectural representation and its link to the establishment. See how the bridge visually dominates the scene. Consider the cultural and historical significance of bridges as connectors and symbols of power. Gorbatov places the viewer in a position that seems almost subservient. Don't you find the high vantage point of the architecture looming a little? Editor: I see what you mean. The bridge is so large; everything underneath feels… incidental. Was Gorbatov making a specific political comment? Curator: It’s subtle, but possibly. Gorbatov, a Russian émigré, often depicted European cityscapes. We must ask what aspects of European society he might be drawn to celebrate or, perhaps, to critique, as an outsider. The everyday life near the water juxtaposed with the imposing architecture creates a fascinating dynamic. It may offer a glimpse into social stratification, highlighting a permanent structure and a more impermanent waterside existence. Editor: So, he’s using the bridge to frame the lives of the people by the water? The figures become small. Is that because of the perspective, or a deliberate choice about social standing? Curator: Both probably contribute. Consider where and how this was displayed at the time. How does exhibition history change our understanding? Knowing who viewed this work then versus now, what sociopolitical context shapes their understanding of such symbolism. Editor: I didn't initially consider that the exhibit or venue for such a painting is critical for how a piece is seen. Thank you, it’s interesting to think about art being interpreted differently depending on these structures. Curator: Absolutely, thinking about display and interpretation helps uncover a richer experience.