Water Pitcher c. 1936

Editor: This is John Dana’s "Water Pitcher" from around 1936, done with watercolor and drawing. It's striking how the artist captured the texture of glass. How do you interpret this piece, especially given its materials? Curator: It's fascinating to consider this "Water Pitcher" through a materialist lens. A seemingly simple still life becomes much richer when we examine the process of its making. What kind of labor went into producing the pigment for the watercolor paint itself? Consider also, where would Dana have acquired this paper in 1936? Editor: That's a good point! It does make me think about where everyday materials come from. Did artists in the 1930s think much about the consumption involved in making art? Curator: Absolutely. During the Depression era, issues of labor and consumption were at the forefront of American consciousness. Looking at a humble object like a water pitcher rendered in watercolor encourages us to contemplate not just its aesthetic qualities but the socio-economic systems that allowed for its creation and distribution as an image. This challenges the traditional boundaries between "high art" and the realities of everyday life and labor. How do the slight imperfections or handmade qualities of both the original glass pitcher and Dana's artistic rendering, play into this? Editor: I see what you mean. The imperfections and texture underscore the human element in both the creation of the glass pitcher and the painting itself, reminding us of the labor involved. It shifts the focus from pure representation to a deeper engagement with materiality. Curator: Precisely. By acknowledging the process, labor, and consumption embedded in even the simplest of artworks, we gain a more complete understanding of its cultural value. Editor: I hadn't thought of it that way before, but considering the materials and their context really enriches the experience of viewing this "Water Pitcher." Thank you.