Studie til opstilling med flaske og sifon, kaldet "drukkenskab" 1932

Editor: So, this is Vilhelm Lundstrom's 1932 pencil drawing, "Studie til opstilling med flaske og sifon, kaldet \"drukkenskab\"" – or "Study for a Still Life with Bottle and Siphon, called 'Drunkenness.'" The skewed perspective and the title create a somewhat unsettling feeling. What’s your interpretation of it? Curator: It’s intriguing, isn’t it? Lundstrom created this drawing in a period marked by both economic depression and rising social anxieties in Europe, including anxieties around rising levels of alcohol use. I wonder if that socio-economic stress might play out in his deliberate distortion of these common household objects? Notice how he names the artwork, it speaks volumes about this cultural context, right? Editor: Absolutely. The 'drunkenness' element. Was he critiquing something about society at that time? Curator: Perhaps he was subtly commenting on the escapism that can accompany difficult times, and the personal and societal disruptions they might trigger. It also brings to mind psychoanalytic perspectives on the self—the ‘splitting’ of the self and anxieties around maintaining one’s own composure in times of distress. Do you get a sense of fragmentation, a loss of control when you view it? Editor: I do see that now. The sketch-like quality also gives it an unfinished, unstable feel, like something on the verge of falling apart. The heavy pencil strokes almost make them seem unsteady, even menacing. Curator: Exactly. Lundstrom is using this seemingly simple still life to tap into much larger conversations happening at the time, conversations about instability, fragility, and perhaps even moral decay. What do you make of this interplay between the personal and the political? Editor: It makes me realize how even seemingly simple subjects can be loaded with meaning depending on their historical moment and the artist's intent. Curator: It really speaks to art's power as a critical lens through which we can examine the past. We shouldn’t underestimate these “still life” subjects, should we?