Farvestudie efter Delacroixs maleri Dante og Vergil i underverdenen, Louvre 1930s

Editor: This watercolor is "Farvestudie efter Delacroixs maleri Dante og Vergil i underverdenen, Louvre" made by Edvard Weie in the 1930s, and it’s currently housed at the SMK. It feels quite abstract, but with the title, I’m assuming it’s a study of Delacroix's painting? How do you see the materiality of this piece informing its meaning? Curator: The looseness of the watercolor application is striking. Notice how the fluidity of the medium mirrors the theme of the underworld itself, blurring the lines of definition and form. Weie isn't simply copying Delacroix; he's interrogating the original through the very substance of paint. Consider the cheapness and portability of watercolor – a far cry from Delacroix's grand oil paintings. What does this shift in materials suggest about accessibility and the consumption of art? Editor: It democratizes it, maybe? Watercolor feels more immediate, less precious. But why this choice of abstraction when copying? Curator: Abstraction, here, can be understood as a kind of material reduction. By stripping away detail, Weie is left with pure color and form, the very essence of the painting. He is delving into the process of *seeing*, questioning how we construct meaning from the visible world, especially regarding famous paintings anyone can see on a postcard. The materiality allows for quicker reproduction but does it give viewers agency? Editor: I guess it shifts the focus from the narrative to the physical act of painting and perception. Curator: Exactly. This challenges traditional hierarchies between "high art" and artistic study and rethinks its socio-economic impact on society, since cheaper tools were more widely accessible. Editor: So, by focusing on the materials and the process, Weie is commenting on both art history and how art is consumed? That gives me a lot to think about. Thanks!