Purse c. 1937

Editor: This is a drawing of a purse, dating to about 1937, by an anonymous artist. It's made with pencil, and it looks like a really detailed rendering of a beaded purse. The texture is so interesting. What strikes you about it? Curator: Well, it makes me think immediately about the labour involved, doesn't it? The original object, even more so than this drawing, represents countless hours of meticulous beadwork. Consider the social context: who would have made such a purse in 1937? Was it a product of a sweatshop, a craft made by an individual, or something in between? The material itself - beads, thread, potentially even the lining - tells a story about accessibility, about the flow of materials in the pre-war economy. Editor: I hadn't thought about the manufacturing at all, actually. I was just admiring the craftsmanship the drawing represents. Curator: Exactly. And what kind of value was placed on the artisan’s labour? What was considered a reasonable wage for creating such an intricate design? The "anonymous" attribution only reinforces the erasure of the individual maker within a larger system. Is the drawing itself perhaps a study or blueprint? Or is it celebrating handicraft as mass manufacture gained prominence? Editor: So, seeing the drawing as a record of labor challenges my assumption that it’s simply a decorative object depicted with care? Curator: Precisely. We often separate “art” from “craft,” creating hierarchies. But looking at this piece through a materialist lens, we can see how both the purse and the drawing of it are tied to production and social relations. Editor: I see! Thanks to your perspective, I see much more beyond just its appearance now. Curator: It's amazing what a material perspective can reveal about social practices!