Rol met donkerrood zijden satijnlint c. 1925

Editor: So, this is "Roll of Dark Red Silk Satin Ribbon" from around 1925, here at the Rijksmuseum. The photographer is Gustav Schnitzler. It's...well, it’s literally a photograph of ribbon. What strikes me is how this mundane object is elevated by the focus on texture and presentation. What are your thoughts? Curator: Indeed. Consider the materials. Silk, a luxury product even then, signifies a specific social class and industry. The very act of photographing it, of *making* art from commercial fabric, blurs the line between art and craft, production and consumption. Doesn’t the meticulous lighting also speak to the material value, emphasizing its sheen? Editor: That's interesting. It does feel almost… exploitative in a way? Like advertising pushing a consumer desire. Was this how such items were marketed then? Curator: Precisely. The image functions as a commodity fetish, obscuring the labour and resources required to produce the silk. And think about the photographic process itself: the chemicals, the paper, the photographer’s labor. All of this contributes to the final ‘artwork,’ a presentation of idealized consumer goods. Does that change how you view the ribbon itself? Editor: It does. I was initially just seeing a pretty ribbon, but now I'm thinking about the workers, the global trade... everything that goes into making it, and the layers involved in selling that lifestyle. Curator: So we see that it's not *just* ribbon; it's a whole network of processes, labour, and aspirations distilled into one object and image. This complicates simple aesthetic appreciation, doesn't it? Editor: Absolutely. I never considered still life photography this way before. Thanks for your insights! Curator: My pleasure. Examining materiality offers a powerful lens for interpreting even the most unassuming artworks.