Waterviolier before 1893

Editor: Here we have Willem Wenckebach's "Waterviolier," created before 1893 using pen and ink. It's a striking botanical drawing. What really grabs me is the stark contrast. What stands out to you? Curator: For me, this image immediately speaks to the materials and labor involved in its production. Before photography fully took hold, botanical drawings like this were essential for scientific study and dissemination of knowledge. It’s about a very specific type of work being done. Editor: So, the drawing becomes a document as much as a work of art? Curator: Precisely! Think about the labour required for a pre-photographic world to meticulously document this specimen using pen and ink, and the artist's technical skill as a type of cultural capital. What do the simple materials—pen, ink, paper—suggest to you about the availability of these goods and to whom? Editor: I hadn’t considered the economic side. I suppose ink and paper, even then, would be relatively accessible materials, suggesting a potential for wider dissemination or study, even beyond the scientific elite. Curator: Indeed. And how might this impact how we assess traditional notions of "high art" when skilled labor, materiality, and a more democratic mode of creation are at play? Does it challenge these boundaries at all? Editor: It definitely makes me rethink what qualifies as 'art'. The intention seems less about personal expression and more about objective recording. Curator: Which, in itself, is a fascinating material process shaped by a unique time, purpose and place, blurring traditional art distinctions. A different kind of making that perhaps has more value than first meets the eye. Editor: That's a very interesting point. Thanks for making me think about it differently.