Blank 1902 - 1903

Editor: So, this is "Blank," created between 1902 and 1903 by Niels Larsen Stevns. It's a drawing on paper, using watercolour, ink, pencil and graphite. My first impression is that it is unsettlingly empty. It’s hard to find anything that grounds me. What do you see in this piece? Curator: It's a compelling choice. At the turn of the century, artistic experimentation was booming, fuelled by socio-political upheaval and the burgeoning avant-garde. A work titled "Blank" at this time challenges the very idea of what art *should* be. The “lack” of obvious imagery, coupled with the presence of art making material defies viewer expectation. Does it make you think about institutional critique? Editor: Institutional critique? Could you say more? Curator: Consider the context: This work now resides in the Statens Museum for Kunst, a prominent national art museum. By presenting something titled "Blank," Stevns implicitly questions the museum's role. Is the museum simply a space for finished masterpieces, or can it also house works that are questioning, unresolved, perhaps even critical of its own function? Also consider the history of Danish art from that era, are there many other similar artworks that have been added to public collections? Editor: I hadn't thought of it that way. It’s like the title itself invites you to question what is *not* there, and why. Maybe Stevns intended it as a commentary on the art world. Curator: Precisely! It uses absence to speak volumes about the structures surrounding art, about visibility and invisibility, power, and perhaps even value. A work doesn't have to be grand or detailed to be impactful. What have you gained thinking through it like this? Editor: It definitely gives me a new perspective. I’ll be thinking about the art world's influence on what gets shown—and what doesn’t!