Crock c. 1936

Editor: Here we have Charles Caseau’s "Crock," circa 1936, rendered in watercolor and drawing with some ceramic elements. It’s interesting how a functional, everyday object gets elevated to an artistic subject. I wonder what Caseau was thinking. How do you see this piece, from a curator's viewpoint? Curator: Well, as a materialist, my gaze is drawn to the transformation of raw earth into a crafted object, and then further transformed into a representational image. Think about the labor involved – digging clay, shaping the vessel, firing it... and then the artistic labour of representing that process. What does it tell us about the values placed on craftsmanship versus fine art in the 1930s? Editor: That's a side of it I hadn't really considered. So you're thinking about it less as a still life and more as documentation of craft production? Curator: Precisely. And the blue decoration—seemingly folksy and perhaps even mass-produced at that time– complicates this notion. It begs the question of authenticity. Was Caseau interested in preserving a disappearing skill, or examining the commodification of rural aesthetics? Notice, too, the detail in the drawing itself. The watercolor captures the glazed surface, giving it a sense of weight and reality. Is that in tension with the crude illustration of the bird motif? Editor: So, the value isn't necessarily in the aesthetic quality, but in what the materials and methods reveal about the culture? Curator: Exactly. By studying its materiality, we uncover clues to the social, economic, and cultural forces at play during its creation. It asks, what constitutes “art,” and who decides? Editor: Wow, that’s a very different way of seeing it! I now have a lot more to ponder about this deceptively simple artwork. Curator: Indeed. The ordinary, when viewed through a materialist lens, speaks volumes about the extraordinary circumstances of its making.