Mirror c. 1936

Editor: Here we have Arthur Johnson's "Mirror," created around 1936 using watercolor. It's remarkably detailed. The woodwork seems to evoke opulence and a very distinct historical period, yet the mirror itself is empty. What do you see in this piece, particularly regarding the empty reflection? Curator: It's compelling, isn’t it? While seemingly a straightforward depiction of a domestic object, "Mirror" opens avenues to explore identity and representation, or rather the lack thereof. What does it mean to present an ornate frame around a void? The artist might be questioning societal expectations surrounding reflection and self-perception. What does an ornate frame promise versus what a mirror usually gives back? Editor: So, it's about the expectations around "seeing" oneself, and what happens when that expectation is not met? Curator: Precisely. Think about the period – the mid-1930s – a time of great social and economic upheaval. Traditional roles were being challenged. Could Johnson be subtly commenting on the fractured or obscured identities of individuals during this period? How might ideas about class, race, and gender impact who has the "right" or the access to be represented in a favorable "light", and the social implications of that representation? What statements is this mirror actually reflecting? Editor: That is an interesting perspective shift, thank you! I hadn't considered how those societal elements factored into the very concept of reflection. It gives me a lot to consider beyond just its surface appearance. Curator: Indeed! By understanding the broader context, we can view "Mirror" not just as a simple depiction but as a poignant commentary on the complexities of identity during times of cultural shifts and social questioning.