Muurbloem (Erysimum cheiri) 1790s

Curator: This piece presents two studies of wallflowers, *Muurbloem (Erysimum cheiri)* by Jan Anton Garemyn, rendered in watercolor and drawing on paper, likely from the 1790s. Editor: It's interesting how scientific it feels. Like a page from a botanist's notebook. I'm curious, how would you interpret this work? Curator: From a materialist perspective, I immediately think about the paper itself. Where was it made? Was it locally sourced or imported? Its very production involved specific labor practices, revealing trade networks of the period. How might the availability and cost of such paper impact artistic production? Editor: That's a good point, I hadn't considered the origin of the materials so literally! What about the watercolor itself? Curator: Exactly. The pigments – where did those come from? Were they natural or early synthetics? The sourcing of colour carried economic weight. Certain hues were precious and expensive to acquire, indicative of status. Who could afford this? The materiality provides insight into the socio-economic context of both the artist and the potential patron. Editor: So, even a seemingly simple botanical study reflects these complex economic systems? Curator: Precisely. Consider the artist's labor: Garemyn painstakingly applied the paint to create this illusion of nature. That dedication is its own kind of commentary of worth. It moves it beyond pure illustration. Editor: So, it’s more than just a pretty flower, it reflects its means of production? Curator: In every brushstroke, we can read elements of the labor involved and, furthermore, what meanings that labor embodies at the time it was created. It opens up avenues of inquiry beyond simple aesthetic appreciation. Editor: I see. Thinking about the paper, the pigments, and the artist’s time gives me a new appreciation for understanding the artwork beyond just what’s represented.