Untitled 1969

Editor: This is an Untitled piece from 1969 by Ronnie Landfield. It seems to be made primarily of acrylic paint, maybe even with an impasto technique. It's so vibrant and fluid; what I immediately notice is this really energetic movement from all these circles, it gives the work a definite dynamism. What do you see in this piece? Curator: Considering Landfield’s Untitled, 1969 through a materialist lens compels us to investigate the “how” more than the “what.” Let's think about acrylic paint itself in 1969. It was relatively new. A manufactured, mass-produced material enabling a shift in artistic labor. What does using acrylic allowed Landfield to achieve that oils perhaps didn’t? Editor: Well, the faster drying time, maybe, facilitating those layers? But also the cost of acrylic, and the industrialization, could also impact how accessible it became, right? Curator: Precisely. And it influences how the final work engages with its audience. The accessibility changes art consumption itself. Note also the size of this work. Does this industrial production potentially encourage larger pieces? What is the economic imperative to produce something grand or small? Editor: I hadn’t thought about how the very accessibility of the materials changes things that much! So you’re saying, looking at the paint itself – the *stuff* of the artwork – gives a window into how society was changing around the artist? Curator: Absolutely. It makes you wonder: were commercially-produced acrylic paints seen as less prestigious at that time, than the traditional oil paints favored by art academies? Did their work subvert high art expectations through these everyday and commercially viable production options? Editor: So, by understanding the materials, we’re actually understanding a shift in art production and even perception. I'll definitely be thinking about the 'stuff' behind the art from now on.