Chair 

Editor: This watercolor, titled "Chair," seemingly by Mark Rothko, presents such a jumble of form and color! The identifiable element, the chair, is almost lost in the abstraction. How should we begin to interpret the production of this kind of representation? Curator: We must begin by interrogating the very notion of representation and artistic labor, mustn't we? Consider the context: Expressionism was about disrupting conventional modes of seeing and portraying interior states. Look closely at the watery materiality of the watercolor. Do you think Rothko was thinking about how easy it would be for art to slip through the grasp? Editor: Yes! It's as if the chair is dissolving before our eyes, becoming pure feeling rendered in fluid pigment. So, he selected watercolors to underscore instability? Curator: Precisely! The material itself informs the meaning. Watercolors weren't historically "serious" art materials, usually sketches for later artworks. But this reappropriation elevated them, challenging traditional hierarchies between craft and "high" art. Where do you see a blurring of labor across disciplines? Editor: I hadn’t thought of it that way! Perhaps the quickness and spontaneity inherent in watercolors are mimicking an expressive freedom – making the emotional output itself become the object of display, rather than the traditional polished 'artwork'. Curator: Indeed. And what does this democratization of materials imply about Rothko's attitude towards consumption and the art market of his time? Was he providing art only for those who understand labor in creative and non-creative forms? Editor: I think I understand that now. Seeing the watercolor less as a picture *of* a chair, and more as an exercise and reflection *on* material. Thanks! Curator: My pleasure. Reflecting on artistic expression this way leads us to question art's place within the wider culture of labor, production and reception, isn't that stimulating?