Brooklyn Bridge 1981 - 1983

Editor: This is John Shaw’s "Brooklyn Bridge," a woodcut print from 1981-83. It's so stark, the black and white creating sharp, almost aggressive contrasts. How do you interpret this piece, especially considering it's a print? Curator: The choice of woodcut is significant. It's a process demanding physical labor; carving away at the wood block to reveal the image. This resonates with the monumental, industrial nature of the Brooklyn Bridge itself. Shaw's work acknowledges the means of production. Do you see how the heavy, dark masses suggest the weight and scale of the bridge's structure? Editor: I do, now that you point it out. I was initially focused on the purely aesthetic impact. So, the choice of printmaking influences meaning? Curator: Absolutely. Printmaking allows for multiples, for wider distribution. Consider the historical context: 1980s New York. What does it mean to reproduce this iconic image within a landscape increasingly defined by mass production and consumption? Editor: So, it’s not just about representing the bridge, but commenting on the bridge’s role in society. Curator: Precisely. The negative space is also crucial. It emphasizes the solid mass of the bridge, contrasting the industrial with the void. How does that interplay affect your perception? Editor: It makes the bridge feel imposing but also disconnected, isolated even. The printmaking process, then, becomes almost a political act of making something reproducible and thus consumable. Curator: Exactly! And that’s the essence of examining art through a materialist lens. We aren’t just admiring beauty; we’re interrogating its production and circulation. Editor: I never thought about the implications of printmaking in this way. Now I am very excited to do more material analysis of artworks.