Untitled Landscape, Woodstock (No.3876) 1960

Editor: This is Arthur Pinajian’s "Untitled Landscape, Woodstock (No. 3876)" from 1960, an oil painting with a very thick impasto. The canvas is alive with energetic brushstrokes and dripping paint. There's a chaotic feel, yet the colors feel almost playful amidst the darker shapes. How do you interpret this work? Curator: Looking at Pinajian’s impasto technique, the physicality of the oil paint becomes paramount. The sheer volume of paint deployed reflects, in a materialist sense, the consumption of art supplies – itself tied to the mid-century art market boom. I am curious, how does the 'landscape' title juxtapose with the near total abstraction we see on the canvas, in your view? Editor: I guess I assumed it was supposed to represent…something in a landscape? But now I see it could be almost ironic. Maybe he’s highlighting the *idea* of landscape, or the commercial expectation of recognizable subject matter, even when the reality of production pushes toward abstraction. Curator: Exactly. Consider also Woodstock as a location—a site increasingly associated with art colonies and bohemian lifestyles during this period. The 'landscape' then becomes less about representation and more a commodified idea, a desirable product of leisure and artistic production consumed by the masses. Are the materials used available locally, is he responding to that fact by painting a familiar, or a non-familiar subject using local supplies? Editor: That makes so much sense! So he is both making a physical painting *and* commenting on the economics of making art in that place and time. It definitely gives the piece a deeper layer of meaning than I initially appreciated. Thanks for pointing that out. Curator: Indeed! By investigating material application alongside production site and historical context we can unlock greater social relevancy to abstract expressionism. A pleasure!