Beach 

Editor: This is John Miller's "Beach," rendered in watercolor on paper. The stark simplicity is quite striking. The flat expanses of color make me wonder, what do you see in the artist's choice of these materials? Curator: It's crucial to consider the materiality here. Miller's selection of watercolor and paper inherently challenges the notion of high art. These materials were historically relegated to studies, sketches, or craft, not considered worthy of serious artistic pursuit. What impact does that context have for you? Editor: That's interesting! So, by choosing watercolor, he's already making a statement about the value we place on certain materials over others. Curator: Exactly. Consider the social context of artistic production. Watercolor was often associated with amateur artists, women, or the working class. Miller's elevation of this medium forces us to confront these embedded hierarchies and the labor often obscured within the art world. Do you see a challenge to the marketplace with the use of these materials? Editor: I hadn’t considered that. The easy availability and affordability of watercolor perhaps democratizes art-making, pushing back against the idea of art as solely a commodity. It feels…accessible. Curator: Precisely. And how might the very process of watercolor application – its fluidity, its dependence on chance – influence our understanding of control and authorship in art? Editor: So it makes you consider the whole industry around art production. Thinking about the "Beach" in terms of materiality has really broadened my perspective. It's more than just a pretty picture. Curator: Indeed. Focusing on the materials reveals a commentary on value, labor, and the very definition of art itself. It’s fascinating to peel back those layers.