Core 2014

Editor: We’re looking at “Core,” an acrylic painting created in 2014 by Rochelle Blumenfeld. The geometric shapes create a striking composition and make me wonder about underlying structures, perhaps even geological ones? How do you interpret this piece? Curator: Considering a materialist viewpoint, I find the artist’s engagement with acrylic intriguing. It’s a synthetic polymer, a product of industrial chemistry, chosen here as the very means of artistic expression. Acrylic enables particular textural effects, layerings of pigment which carry their own specific gravity and opacity. But to what end? The piece seemingly aspires to "abstraction," to non-representation, but perhaps the industrial origin of this substance cannot be so easily erased. Editor: That’s fascinating. It shifts my perspective. Is she commenting on consumerism then, by using this commercially produced medium? Curator: Precisely. We might consider what is being consumed in the practice of art making and viewing: are the synthetic materiality and non-figurative form a conscious resistance or acceptance of commodification? Look at the layering. Does it evoke depth or flatness? Consider also the scale of production. Was this a studio work intended for a gallery, or did it arise as part of the artist's experimentation with readily-available materials? Editor: I see what you mean, and now I think it raises questions about whether “high art” can ever truly escape its reliance on industrialized processes and mass-produced goods. It makes you wonder if the very notion of "pure" art is an illusion, if materials shape meaning just as much as artistic intention. Curator: Indeed. Reflecting on the "means of production," as it were, allows us to move beyond traditional interpretations that emphasize the subjective experience of the viewer alone. Every choice, from material to technique, bears witness to a complex network of social and economic forces, and "Core" certainly reminds us of this.