King Erekle II of Georgia 

Editor: So, this is "King Erekle II of Georgia," an oil painting by Niko Pirosmani. The directness of the gaze and simple application of paint are striking. How should we approach this portrait? Curator: We have to look at this piece considering Pirosmani's materials and how he acquired them. It’s likely painted on oilcloth, a cheaper alternative to canvas readily available, suggesting he tailored his practice to his environment. How does that inform our reading of royalty here? Editor: It makes the subject, a king, seem… less grandiose? There’s a humbleness imposed by the material. The artist isn’t using precious materials. It seems like the labor is what matters. Curator: Exactly. The flatness, the minimal use of shading... These choices democratize the image. He challenges the traditional understanding of portraiture. Instead of flawless technique, we see the marks of its creation and labor. What kind of oil paint do you think Pirosmani used? How would access affect availability of paints in this area? Editor: Probably whatever was available, locally made? So that rustic appearance… is that the constraints of access to material that influence what’s visible? It reflects limited consumer resources and highlights an economy that the King rules. Curator: Precisely! And notice how he layers the oil paint without too much blending. You see the brushstrokes as a trace of Pirosmani's actions. In a way, that puts the *painter's* work at the center, instead of *the King's image*. What do we do with that shift? Editor: I never considered that. This makes me consider the painting as less about the King and more a demonstration of labor within those resource and economic limits. It puts materiality at the forefront. Curator: Right. We went beyond the King's idealized image and touched the reality of its making. Hopefully we shed light on an undercurrent where resources and creation define everything else!