Cup and saucer c. 19th century

Editor: Here we have an exquisite cup and saucer made of porcelain, dating back to the 19th century, made by an anonymous artist. What strikes me is the meticulous landscape painting that decorates the cup, a rather bourgeois domestic aesthetic; how do you approach understanding an object like this? Curator: I'm particularly interested in the material reality of this porcelain. Where did the raw materials come from? Who were the skilled laborers involved in its production, from mining the clay to firing the kiln? And what was their compensation for the manual labor? Editor: So, you're thinking about the larger economic systems at play here. What about the gold trim? Curator: Exactly! Gold adds another layer. Its extraction and refinement involved its own network of labor, trade, and potentially colonial exploitation. Consider, too, that while this was clearly meant for a domestic purpose, its value also represents wealth accumulation. To me, the cup isn’t just decorative art; it is a historical artifact representing networks of human activity. Editor: That makes sense, so even a seemingly innocuous object carries stories of labor and extraction. But do you think focusing solely on materials risks overlooking the aesthetic value or artistic skill involved? Curator: Not at all. The very concept of ‘artistic skill’ needs to be examined through a materialist lens. Skill isn't just inherent talent, it’s cultivated through labor, training, and social context. I'm interested in deconstructing these notions that are often attached to artworks that mystify them. Editor: Fascinating. I hadn’t really considered how deeply implicated a simple cup and saucer could be in global systems. I will reconsider porcelain when I make myself a latte in the morning! Curator: Indeed! It prompts you to really look at art and think more widely about production and cultural and class values.