Spring 

Editor: Here we have "Spring" by Adalbert Erdeli, an oil painting with, wow, some serious impasto. I’m struck by how heavy the paint makes everything feel, almost like a sculptural landscape. What’s your take on this, particularly the physicality of the paint itself? Curator: The physicality is precisely where our entry point lies. Note the impasto – the sheer volume of oil paint. This isn't just representation; it's about the act of applying the material, about labor itself. How might Erdeli's working conditions, the availability and cost of materials, influenced the composition? Editor: That’s a great point. It makes me think about where and when he was painting. If the paint was a valuable commodity, perhaps the heavy application speaks to something beyond just aesthetics. Curator: Precisely. Consider plein-air painting, too. Dragging materials out to a location is a feat of labor in itself. Was he directly engaging with the changing landscape and, in doing so, commenting on mankind’s own efforts to mould, change, manage or perhaps take resources from that natural land? Does the "impressionist landscape" designation, then, tell the whole story? Editor: I see what you mean. It's not just about capturing a fleeting moment of light; it's also about the material process, the labor, and maybe even the politics embedded in representing that landscape. It brings a whole new layer to "Spring." Curator: It complicates a romantic, easy interpretation of nature. It asks us to consider production, the means, and our own consumption of images, nature and artwork. Editor: This has made me rethink how I see landscape paintings. It’s not just about pretty scenery; it’s about understanding the materials, the labour, and the social context. Curator: Exactly. The “how” is often as important as the "what." Looking closely at materiality has enriched our view of the artwork.