Candlestick c. 1937

Editor: Here we have "Candlestick", a drawing by Philip Johnson, circa 1937. The academic style and warm tones give it a very studied and deliberate feel, like a blueprint almost. What's your take? Curator: It is reminiscent of architectural renderings. Johnson’s training emphasized rigorous draftsmanship. These precise drawings served as a testament to an architect's skill. But why create a highly-rendered drawing of something so commonplace as a candlestick? Editor: Good question! It's almost elevating the ordinary... Could it be Johnson experimenting with form and presentation before his architectural fame? Curator: Perhaps, but the very act of depicting a candlestick this way positions it within a cultural context that elevates it. The presentation on paper lends the object significance beyond mere utility. How might viewers in Johnson's circle, people steeped in architectural debates and modernist principles, receive such a drawing? Editor: I guess they might see it as Johnson trying to make a statement, finding beauty in simplicity and functionality... Maybe even rebelling against the idea that art has to be grandiose to be valuable? Curator: Precisely. And in that sense, this drawing, a seemingly simple depiction, engages directly with the cultural politics surrounding art's purpose and audience in the 1930s. Were you expecting that depth from a candlestick drawing? Editor: Definitely not! I'll look at design drawings much differently now. Curator: As will I, considering their historical and social weight. Thanks for sharing.