Bouton d’or 1896

Editor: Here we have Maurice Pillard Verneuil’s “Bouton d’or,” created in 1896. It looks like a linocut print, and I’m struck by the delicate flower patterns. It's lovely, but very different from some of the more bombastic Art Nouveau pieces I've seen. What's your perspective on this, looking at it as a whole? Curator: Consider the production. Linocut prints allowed for the mass dissemination of designs, bringing aesthetics into everyday life, into the hands of more consumers. The 'Bouton d’or' wasn't just art, it was a pattern, a product waiting to be applied to textiles, wallpaper, or ceramics. It dissolves that old, high-low art divide, doesn't it? How does that mass production aspect influence your reading of its “loveliness"? Editor: That’s interesting. So the intended purpose shapes our appreciation. It moves beyond simple aesthetics; the point isn't just what it looks like, but what it could *become*. But why these buttercups specifically? Was Verneuil making a statement? Curator: Not a direct statement, no, but consider the socio-economic climate. Urbanization was exploding, distancing people from nature. Art Nouveau, including designs like these buttercups, provided a controlled, aestheticized return to the natural world. They’re bringing idealized nature into the factory-made world. This complicates a simplistic pastoral view. The making of the art— the how and the why and where it ends up - transforms how we might engage it.. Editor: I see! The linocut technique made it possible to engage with the natural world on a large scale. I've definitely learned a lot, specifically regarding how art is related to materiality, consumption, and the production process. Curator: Absolutely! Focusing on the materiality and production methods unveils so much more about the intent and reception of artworks. A buttercup becomes more than just a flower when you consider the labor and distribution involved.