Vase c. 1936

Editor: We're looking at "Vase" by John Tarantino, made around 1936. It's a watercolor and drawing on paper, depicting exactly what the title suggests. It's simple, almost stark. What strikes me is the almost clinical observation of the form, yet softened by the watercolor. What do you see in this piece? Curator: What intrigues me is precisely this tension between artistic depiction and industrial documentation. Tarantino's choice of watercolor – traditionally aligned with craft, domesticity, leisure – to portray an object, likely mass-produced, asks us to reconsider the boundaries of art, craft and industrial production. The cool blue might refer to the chemical processes of glass making, perhaps hinting at factory conditions. Editor: I hadn't considered the industrial aspect. I was stuck on the vase itself as a sort of symbol, forgetting the artist’s labor and its possible origins. Do you think the medium downplays a connection with, say, fine porcelain production? Curator: Not necessarily downplays, but re-situates. Porcelain is often valued for its refinement, the artist’s skilled touch. The democratized medium of watercolor brings us closer to a more generalized, accessible mode of artistic labor. Who was Tarantino? Where did they learn to do this work, and what kind of consumer are they aiming at? These material questions shift our attention. Editor: That is very insightful. Considering the context of its production reframes the vase, quite literally, as something more than just a beautiful object. Curator: Precisely. We’re looking at an artifact born of specific materials, labor practices, and economic conditions. I’ll have to reconsider my preconceived definitions! Editor: This definitely broadens how I will look at still lifes. Thanks!