Drie mannenhoofden 1891 - 1941

Curator: Looking at this rather haunting sketch, “Drie mannenhoofden” – or "Three Male Heads" – made sometime between 1891 and 1941 by Leo Gestel, one immediately notes the fragility, a ghostly lightness evoked through humble pencil strokes. Editor: Fragility is certainly present. It appears more like an incomplete rumination, as if he quickly captured men perhaps at work, the marks thin, but decisive in their modulation, their intensity varies and concentrates in areas requiring depth or shadow. It is as if we are witnessing idea generation in raw, immediate form. Curator: Indeed. What resonates most strongly for me is how Gestel renders each man distinct, even within such a minimal rendering. Note the angles of the brows, the set of the jaw in each. There's a palpable sense of individuality, as if he is capturing distinct psychological landscapes within the constraints of such a rough method. Do you think that his choice of capturing 'just' heads points towards the artist's focus, almost exclusive, on the psychological reading of these subjects? Editor: Potentially so, although I believe a closer look suggests even the medium here speaks volumes. Charcoal or ink washes could denote permanence, preciousness. This pencil sketch however intimates ephemerality and the paper's affordability suggests that Gestel's sketches are both a material engagement, and a conscious unpretentious endeavor. The lack of labor intensity means that more are produced at a given time which shifts the artwork out of preciousness. Curator: That's an interesting counterpoint; I was so focused on reading into the expressive capabilities of the heads themselves that I initially overlooked how Gestel’s very methodology – his choice of media and the swiftness of execution – informs our perception of these men. The subtle art with which the faces have been constructed adds another dimension to how we interpret each character. Editor: And how we engage with the socio-economic dynamics surrounding artistic production in turn. These rapidly produced and quickly consumed images question, implicitly, high-low art, consumption and our modern tendency to valorize precious artmaking. Curator: I agree. Now when I revisit the image, I think that you're right to highlight those contradictions and considerations and their relation with both the artist and with ourselves as spectators. Thank you for shedding that additional light, Editor: And thank you for prompting me to delve deeper. Together, perhaps, we’ve uncovered additional narratives within this fleeting drawing.