-Piggy Bank (large)- still bank c. 20th century

Editor: Here we have a "Piggy Bank (large) still bank" by Anchor Hocking Glass Co., dating from the 20th century. It's made of ceramic and glass. The smooth, slightly textured surface and amber hue give it a kind of vintage, almost ethereal quality. It really makes me think about the elusiveness of money. What do you see in this piece, considered purely from a formal perspective? Curator: From a formalist lens, this work presents a fascinating interplay of form and material. Notice how the artist has taken the archetypal shape of a pig—traditionally a symbol of earthly abundance—and rendered it in transparent glass. What is the impact? Editor: I guess it completely changes the symbolism of what the piece is supposed to represent. You expect the form to be something more solid, and the glass sort of cheapens the concept. Curator: Precisely. The transparency, which contradicts the idea of "saving", becomes central. The ridges on the surface of the glass give texture and alter the way light reflects, distorting the shape depending on your point of view. This instability of vision is heightened by the object being hollow. And look at how the artist emphasizes the horizontality of the coin slot versus the roundness of the body: there's an inherent visual tension there between function and form. Editor: So, by focusing on the material and form, you can unpack complex relationships within something seemingly simple. It's like the object itself is posing questions about value and visibility. Curator: Indeed. By reducing our focus to the formal elements—line, shape, texture, and the inherent properties of the glass—we reveal a conceptual depth. In that respect, we appreciate art in a whole new way. Editor: That really opened my eyes to considering not just what an object *is*, but *how* it is. Thank you!