Donkey Beside a Tree, Hampstead 

Editor: So here we have "Donkey Beside a Tree, Hampstead" by John Linnell. It appears to be a drawing, perhaps with watercolor as well. It's a rather unassuming piece, very simple in its composition and quite muted in color. What do you see in it? Curator: It's fascinating to consider Linnell's work through a materialist lens. This drawing, so seemingly straightforward, actually speaks volumes about the labor and economic context of art production. Hampstead was a popular spot for artists seeking the picturesque, but it was also a working landscape. What kind of paper do you think Linnell employed? Was it readily available, a commercial product? Editor: It looks like simple drawing paper. Nothing fancy. Curator: Exactly! And why watercolour? It's cheap, portable, and quick. Linnell probably aimed for a readily marketable sketch, capitalizing on the demand for rural imagery. How does the portrayal of the donkey, as opposed to say a prized horse, challenge notions of elevated subject matter within art? Editor: The donkey seems to highlight the everyday, maybe even the lower class, instead of idealised beauty. It is part of a certain rustic aesthetic linked to agricultural labour. Curator: Precisely. Consider, too, the accessibility of drawing as a medium compared to, say, oil painting. The labor required is different. The skill level maybe too, or it at least appears so to the eye. The “drawing” invites a broader audience to attempt it. Do you think that is fair? Editor: I hadn’t thought of it that way. It really brings attention to who could *make* art and who its audience might be. Curator: Right! It makes you wonder who exactly bought these images. Reflecting on all these subtle layers helps me consider what it truly meant to depict labor and materiality in art at this time. Editor: I can see how considering the medium and context completely changes my understanding. Thanks!