Sugar Bowl c. 1938

Editor: This is Elmer Kottcamp’s "Sugar Bowl," created around 1938, rendered with watercolor and colored pencil, and seemingly depicting a ceramic object. The composition, showing the bowl and its lid separately, almost feels like a technical drawing. What do you see when you look at it? Curator: I see more than just a sugar bowl. I see the artist engaging with the prevalent styles of the time. Consider the influence of industrial design principles even on something seemingly domestic. What was the intended market, and what materials were being used at this time for mass production of such objects? Editor: So you're focusing on the production context rather than purely the artistic skill? Curator: Exactly. This isn't just about the aesthetic qualities of the piece, it’s about its materiality. Watercolor and colored pencil offer an illusion of ceramic, pointing us toward consumerism. What class of consumers are we looking at and what might have inspired them? Editor: So the choice of medium plays into understanding consumer aspirations of the time? That makes sense. It almost presents this idealized version, removed from the messy realities of the pottery being manufactured. Curator: Precisely! Consider too the labor involved, even in rendering this image. What does that tell us about artistic production versus industrial processes? It highlights the hand, while simultaneously pointing to the machine. What would it mean if they had an original Sugar Bowl instead of its imitation? Editor: I'm starting to see how examining the materials and intended function pushes beyond just appreciating the artwork's visual appeal. Thank you. Curator: And I'm glad that this pushes beyond the aesthetics. Looking at the material and construction makes the viewer dive deeper in history.