Putto c. 1756 - 1797

Editor: This charcoal drawing, “Putto,” by Hendrik Willem Schweickhardt, from around 1756 to 1797, has a somewhat classical feel. The soft lines and the cherubic figure create a dreamy, almost ethereal effect. How do you interpret this work? Curator: It is quite fascinating to consider the social context in which Schweickhardt made this drawing. He would have been working in an era increasingly dominated by debates about the purpose of art. Consider the materiality of the work itself. Charcoal is such a basic substance. Its accessibility invites questions about the democratization of art production. Editor: So, you're focusing on the medium and its implications? I hadn't really thought about charcoal that way. Curator: Exactly! The artist’s choice of charcoal pushes us to reflect on the process of making itself, and how such humble materials can create forms with clear links to artistic lineage and cultural value. Moreover, putti were popular decorative motifs, readily reproduced in various media. How does the drawing differ from or echo the expectations for putti at that time, do you think? Editor: That’s true; I automatically think of Renaissance paintings, but the choice of charcoal creates a completely different, almost less formal, impression. This isn’t some grand, commissioned piece. Curator: Precisely. And by understanding the conditions of its production –the charcoal itself, the culture of reproductive images, and the labour that went into making it– we gain a richer insight into art’s entanglement with daily life. It makes you reconsider boundaries between high art and the stuff around it. Editor: I see what you mean. Thinking about the material really changes how I understand the artwork and where it fits in society. Curator: Absolutely, and that's the power of considering art from a materialist perspective.