Waterval met herten c. 1925

Editor: Here we have "Waterfall with Deer" by Johannes Frederik Engelbert ten Klooster, made around 1925. It’s a black and white print and it strikes me as very dramatic, with the stark contrast. How do you interpret this piece? Curator: Considering its medium—woodcut—we need to look at the labor involved in its production. The stark contrasts aren't just aesthetic; they reveal the artist's engagement with the material itself. Each line is deliberately carved away. We also must think of its place: was it a standalone work meant for sale or part of a broader set intended to circulate more widely? Who had access to the materials and the tools to make this? Editor: That's a different way to think about it. I was focused on the waterfall and the deer, the image itself. I hadn’t considered who could have even created this piece or seen it. Curator: And what does this print being, specifically, a *woodcut* imply for its social life? Woodcuts were easily reproduced compared to, say, etchings, enabling broader access. Did the artist consciously choose woodcut for this very reason – its affordability and democratic appeal – to disseminate the image of this stylized natural scene more widely? Editor: So you're suggesting that the choice of a woodcut democratizes art and its message? Curator: Potentially. We might investigate the social context of printmaking at the time. Were prints seen as ‘lesser’ art compared to painting? How did that affect artists? What purpose would this imagery serve to the consumers and owners of this work? Editor: This changes how I view it completely. Now it's not just an image, it's a document of its own making and its time. Curator: Exactly. Focusing on materiality and social context reframes our understanding of art. Editor: It gives another layer of appreciation, knowing that even the method itself is meaningful. Thanks!