Crown c. 1937

Editor: This watercolour, simply titled 'Crown', was made around 1937 by Al Curry. I find the swirling details quite delicate despite the rusty color. What strikes you most about this piece? Curator: I immediately think about the social implications embedded in the making of something like this in the late 30s. Who was employed to imagine this? Who would have been in charge of the process and supply chains for getting all these materials together? Editor: Interesting! I hadn’t considered that. So you see it more as a reflection of labor than royalty? Curator: Precisely. The form implies royalty, yes. But this rendering, in this medium, demands a different reading. Was this intended as a design? A proposal? The humbleness of watercolor and drawing tools makes me consider this as more of a blueprint and perhaps its realization through manual, physical creation. Someone somewhere may have put together similar pieces, what kind of work environment would that be? Editor: It's fascinating to think about it not just as a finished object, but as part of a whole system of making. Were such sketches a normal practice? Curator: Absolutely. Consider this Crown alongside other industrial design practices of the time. This watercolor doesn’t just depict, it participates in a whole network of design, labor, and material production. We might also question if Curry himselves was someone making the design, and/or one of the manufacturer of similar artpieces, maybe by following artisanal technics of jewellery art or metallurgy? Editor: I’ll never see watercolors the same way! Thinking about the 'Crown' in terms of labor and materials gives it a completely new weight, or rather a very material, weight, thanks! Curator: Indeed! By thinking critically about the process and labor involved, we understand art, even seemingly straightforward works, as deeply embedded in social and economic realities.