Coster House c. 1936

Editor: Here we have Meyer Goldbaum's "Coster House," a watercolor and drawing from around 1936. What strikes me is the almost diagrammatic feel of the landscape layout compared to the softer rendering of the house itself. It's like two different modes of representation are in play. What's your read on this? Curator: Immediately I look at the means of production here. Watercolor as a medium speaks to me. Its accessibility, compared to say, oil paints, positions this work in a particular social and economic context. The layout suggests a carefully planned upper-class space, and how does the rendering challenge traditional boundaries between high art and design/architecture? Editor: That's interesting. So, you see the materials and the almost blueprint-like composition as clues about the social sphere of the subject being depicted? Curator: Exactly! We must examine the labor involved. Was this Goldbaum’s concept of the house's design, or someone else’s and how would it be altered. Is it commissioned work for promotional purposes? Moreover, watercolor’s portability suggests art made for a certain type of engagement with the world. How does this method capture labor or the environment? Editor: So it's not just about the beautiful building, but about what it says about the society and the means to produce its image? Curator: Precisely. I'd want to know more about who commissioned it, where it was displayed, and how it functioned within the larger economy of art and architectural representation at the time. These considerations are fundamental to interpreting "Coster House." Editor: I never really thought of landscape painting like that, thinking of the process rather than the pictorial meaning. Thanks for your perspective. Curator: My pleasure. Focusing on the material conditions of art can open up entirely new avenues of understanding, right?