Pin c. 1939

Editor: We are looking at "Pin," a watercolor drawing from around 1939 by Frank Fumagalli. At first glance, they strike me as studies for jewelry design – or perhaps they are objects presented as relics or treasures. What's your initial take on it? Curator: It's fascinating how the mundane, like a pin, can become an object worthy of artistic study, isn't it? Given the context of the late 1930s, it is worth considering what an artwork like this represents during the interwar years and rising concerns about European fascism, as the choice and depiction of imagery took on distinct political tones. Editor: That is insightful. So how does it function as a kind of... political artifact? Curator: Think about the public role of design at the time. Design objects, like this potential pin, became powerful tools for nations to present themselves. What does a deliberately unostentatious object say about cultural aspirations at the time? Is Fumagalli perhaps suggesting a rejection of over-the-top artifice as war broke out in Europe? What visual cues support that? Editor: I see your point about political and cultural imagery. Perhaps its simple execution makes the “pin” feel like something for everyone, not just the elites, even despite its precious materials. Curator: Exactly. Consider too how something mass-produced for popular consumption can also function as a highly individualized piece of art or expression, both public and intensely private. This reflects larger themes of identity during that era. Editor: It makes me think differently about the design’s intentions. I'm now curious about who would wear these hypothetical pins. Curator: And, isn't it fascinating to consider its cultural aspirations at the time? I’m glad we could examine this further! Editor: Definitely. I learned a lot about design and socio-political functions today.