Untitled 2019

Curator: Materially, this 2019 "Untitled" piece by Thomas Riesner appears to be executed with ink on paper. It certainly has a visceral quality. Editor: Absolutely, it does! It features these almost cartoonish skeletons, but the dripping red ink makes it much darker than the simple lines suggest. It almost feels satirical, but also disturbing. What strikes you when you look at it? Curator: I immediately consider the conditions of its production. Ink is a readily available and relatively inexpensive medium. The thin linework, combined with the stark contrast of black and red, screams accessibility. Do you think this ease of production informs its potential critique of high art? Editor: I hadn’t thought about it that way. It is definitely in stark contrast to the complex and costly creation of, say, an oil painting. But do you think the accessible medium necessarily dictates a critique? Maybe it’s simply a stylistic choice. Curator: Potentially, but I wonder if that “choice” isn’t informed by an implicit understanding of the art world’s hierarchy. Consider the "doodle art" tag. This challenges what constitutes fine art. And consider what using thin linework versus broader brushstrokes brings to bear. Do you notice it almost democratizes the creative process, allowing the "artist" or maker to be one in the same with his viewer? Editor: That’s an interesting idea. By using simpler materials, he lowers the barrier to entry for artistic expression. Curator: Precisely. So it’s not just what is depicted, but the very act of creation that speaks to a broader social commentary. Editor: I hadn’t considered how the materials and process were so linked to the overall message. It changes the whole perspective, for me. Curator: It’s fascinating, isn’t it? Seeing how deeply the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of creation are embedded in the art itself.