Red Field c. 1973

Curator: George Bunker's "Red Field," made around 1973 using pastel, is really striking. The application of the material gives the entire drawing a hazy texture. I see this artwork and immediately think of land art. What strikes you first? Editor: It's so simple, yet compelling. I find the color choices bold and slightly unsettling. With that dry, chalky surface, and given that the artwork is named "Red Field," the work feels as if it evokes themes of both beauty and destruction. What do you make of his specific use of pastel here? Curator: Considering pastel’s association with sketching and preliminary work, Bunker’s choice elevates a seemingly ephemeral medium. He isn't trying to trick you into seeing a perfect rendering of nature, which would make his commentary completely distinct from prior art historical landscape traditions. Instead, he almost mocks painting by presenting something immediate, messy, and inherently unstable. Do you think this artwork reflects a shift in societal values towards art-making? Editor: I hadn't thought of it that way, but it absolutely could. Maybe a critique of traditional modes of art production. Curator: Precisely. The availability and relative affordability of pastels might also suggest a democratizing impulse, allowing access to art creation for individuals outside the established elite. And this focus on the process of creation becomes the art itself. Ultimately, this opens interesting questions about art's relationship to labor. Editor: Fascinating. It's amazing how much context is embedded in seemingly simple material choices. I hadn't considered how Bunker was commenting on labor or democratization by using such common materials to create an ostensibly elevated fine art piece. Thank you for enlightening me about this artwork's complexities!