Witch Ball c. 1936

Editor: Here we have John Dana's "Witch Ball," created around 1936, a drawing made with watercolor. I'm immediately struck by its realism and, despite being a simple object, a peculiar sense of unease. What can you tell me about it? Curator: Well, focusing on the materiality, consider what a "witch ball" actually is. These were common, relatively inexpensive, blown glass ornaments. Look closely at how Dana renders this particular one. Brown, white, swirling—it mimics common designs available in the mid-1930s. Editor: So, you're saying he's depicting something ordinary? Something mass-produced? Curator: Exactly! Dana is deliberately engaging with everyday materials and objects. How does realism, in watercolor no less, function in representing the commonplace, versus elevating grand historical themes? The technique almost celebrates mass-production and the culture surrounding it. What do you make of the "witch ball" label? Editor: I see, so this isn’t just about the image of an object, but about commenting on production and culture. “Witch ball” does hint at folklore, maybe superstition influencing even the marketplace? Curator: Precisely! It speaks to the social function these objects held – protection against bad luck, decorative flair – intertwined with emerging consumerism. This wasn't some unique art object, but part of daily, even magical thinking accessible through the market. Editor: Fascinating! I never thought about it in terms of accessibility and consumption rather than just art or craft. I'm starting to see how examining materials can lead to bigger questions. Curator: Absolutely. Focusing on material conditions brings attention to wider networks that the "art object" inhabits and actively produces.