Petticoat and Pantalettes c. 1938

Editor: Here we have "Petticoat and Pantalettes," a drawing from around 1938 by Rex F. Bush, rendered in pencil. The almost ghostly depiction of undergarments gives me a sense of a bygone era. What do you make of this seemingly simple study? Curator: Seemingly simple, but rich! Think about the labor embedded in these objects. Pencil drawings such as this were crucial for mass-produced clothing, weren't they? Before computers, a skilled hand had to translate design into pattern. Notice the meticulous detail in the lace edging—it's a technical drawing, yes, but also reveals the intended level of consumerism. Does the choice of depicting *under*garments speak to anything in particular? Editor: I hadn’t considered the level of craft involved, but it makes sense given the pre-digital era. It’s interesting you bring up *under*garments too. It's definitely a different kind of artistic choice. I’m wondering if its placement underneath contributes to an invisibility? Perhaps we’re seeing a study of both construction *and* erasure? Curator: Precisely! The invisibility hints at social context. Think about the expectations of women in the 1930s: modesty, domesticity, hidden labor... These undergarments literally support the outward appearance while remaining unseen. This artwork forces us to acknowledge both the work involved *and* its deliberate obscuring. Editor: That reframes the piece for me completely! Seeing the drawing through the lens of labor and social expectations of the time opens up avenues of inquiry I wouldn't have considered otherwise. Curator: Exactly! Material culture tells powerful stories. This drawing serves as a reminder that art isn't always about the grand gesture, but also about understanding the quiet labor embedded in everyday objects.