Chair c. 1936

Editor: Here we have Magnus S. Fossum’s "Chair" from around 1936, a pencil and watercolor drawing. The aged paper gives it a certain antique charm. What's your take on it? Curator: From a materialist perspective, this work prompts us to consider the context of design and production during the 1930s. The depiction, even as a drawing, alludes to class and taste through furniture. Was this chair design meant for mass production or intended as a luxury item? What social strata was Fossum engaging with? Editor: I hadn’t considered that. I was mostly just thinking about the craft of the drawing itself. Curator: Precisely! The “craft” of the drawing simulates the craft that *would have gone into the making of a chair.* Think of it –the woodworker's labor is not directly visible but indirectly, through the artistic rendering of the form. Notice also the choice of materials used to render the design, like watercolor. Editor: Yes, the delicate watercolor technique does speak to a certain refinement. Is that relevant? Curator: Absolutely. It challenges traditional hierarchies. Why use watercolor instead of gouache for a design document? High art and design are usually presented with different materials, techniques, and intentions. Does Fossum's "Chair" reinforce those hierarchies, or question them? Editor: I see your point. The medium softens what might otherwise be purely functional. It's an object, but rendered with artistic attention, which brings a layer of socio-economic implications. Curator: Exactly! It makes you question the entire chain of production and consumption this image is just one small artifact from. Editor: Wow, I’m going to look at furniture, and drawings, totally differently now. Thanks! Curator: My pleasure. I hope you notice those hidden layers in everyday design everywhere.