Wall Stencil c. 1940

Editor: This is "Wall Stencil," circa 1940, by Ray Holden. It's watercolor and stencil on paper. It feels a little like wallpaper, aged and faded. What stands out to you about the material presence of this stencil design? Curator: For me, it's all about process. Stenciling in the 1940s offered a democratized form of decorative art. Here, watercolor brings a handcrafted quality, which might seem contradictory. Are we looking at a blurring of lines between mass production and individualized craft? Where do you see evidence of labor, or perhaps, a pretense of handcraft? Editor: I notice the variations in the watercolor washes – not every area of pink is uniform, and there are little inconsistencies in the application of the stencils too, suggesting a human touch, not pure mechanical reproduction. What about the design itself – does that factor into its social context for you? Curator: Absolutely. Geometric and floral patterns evoke the domestic sphere, a space where women traditionally exercised creative control. This stencil could be a subversive act of artistic expression within a limited realm. It would be very different to a similar design produced commercially by a manufacturer with male leadership at the time. Consider too, the consumption: How did people use this type of stencil? To what degree were they active participants, appropriating techniques to express themselves? Editor: I hadn’t considered the gendered aspect of it so directly, or the element of subversion! Seeing it as a small rebellion within the domestic sphere changes how I perceive the image. Curator: Exactly. Focusing on the means of production – the humble stencil, the accessible watercolor – allows us to consider power dynamics embedded even within seemingly simple decorative designs.