Untitled 1963

Editor: Looking at John McLaughlin’s Untitled print from 1963, I’m struck by the starkness. The three white rectangles set against the black ground are so simple, almost like doorways. What’s your take on it? Curator: I see a commentary on industrial production. This isn't about artistic skill in the traditional sense; it’s about the industrial capacity to create perfectly uniform shapes. How does the repetitive nature of these forms – easily replicable through printing – speak to the changing landscape of art in the 1960s, with its increasing mechanization? Editor: That’s interesting. I hadn’t considered the means of production itself. Do you think that takes away from the artistic value then, the fact it could be easily reproduced? Curator: Not at all. Instead, it forces us to question where value lies. Is it in the unique artistic gesture, or in the commentary on societal structures and material conditions? This print challenges us to think about the labor involved in making art, even when that labor is largely automated. Consider too the socioeconomic context – what was being mass-produced at that time, and how might that have informed McLaughlin's choices? Editor: I suppose thinking about mass production also makes you consider the cost, and how many were printed, and where they ended up… Curator: Exactly. And the impact of easily disseminated art. Was it a rejection of Abstract Expressionism's focus on the individual? A democratisation of art or a commentary on the increasing uniformity of modern life? Editor: I never thought I’d consider that Minimalism was actually about consumerism and industry. Thank you! Curator: It's a lens that can unveil a great deal. We’ve gone beyond formal aesthetics, exploring labor, the impact of production, and societal meaning – a much richer engagement.