Hamlet 

Editor: This graphic artwork by John Austen, titled *Hamlet*, features pen and ink drawings reminiscent of a linocut print. The images are small, almost like playing cards, depicting scenes from the play. They strike me as incredibly bleak, gothic even. How would you interpret this piece? Curator: That's a perceptive reaction. Consider the socio-political landscape when these images were likely created. Think about the public role of art then. Were illustrations like these merely decorative, or did they serve a larger purpose, commenting on the anxieties or aspirations of the era? Austen's graphic style evokes earlier woodcuts which served as popular imagery to the masses, before higher quality reproductions became available. How might the conscious echo of an "inferior" medium affect its reception? Editor: I see what you mean! So, it’s not just about illustrating Shakespeare; the medium itself becomes part of the message? Maybe Austen is using the past to comment on his present. Curator: Exactly. Also, notice how each scene isolates characters or symbolic images: Hamlet, Polonius, Ophelia... even the skull. How do these focused images and high-contrast medium reinforce a particular reading of Hamlet’s story, especially in contrast to earlier stage productions known for crowd scenes and bombastic rhetoric? Editor: That’s a good point; isolating them makes each seem alone, burdened by their individual tragedies within a larger tragedy. The lack of grand stage backdrops amplifies that, too. It makes it a story of individuals rather than history. Curator: Precisely. By employing the graphic medium and breaking down scenes, Austen provides a specific political, cultural and personal reading of a historical drama that resonates beyond Shakespeare's narrative. He puts forth Hamlet's solitariness, amidst external pressures. Editor: I hadn’t thought about how the style and medium themselves interpret the play, thank you! This changed my views about political context of it!