Studie c. 1916

Editor: Here we have "Studie," a pencil drawing from around 1916, by Reijer Stolk, held at the Rijksmuseum. It's so delicate! It really feels like we are looking over the artist's shoulder at a quick sketch. What catches your eye when you look at it? Curator: For me, it is the immediacy afforded by the pencil medium. A sketch is raw potential, where we see the labor, and decisions around line and form, as they develop. This allows the "high art" of portraiture to intersect with the craft inherent in drawing, reflecting a challenge to those boundaries that characterized early modernism. Editor: So you're saying the medium itself, the pencil, democratizes the portrait, making it more accessible? Curator: Precisely. The ephemeral nature of the pencil also asks questions about the perceived value of art objects. Is this study less 'important' because it's not a finished oil painting? Or does its unrefined nature reveal more about the artist's process? Editor: That's a really interesting point! I'd always assumed sketches were inherently lesser than 'finished' pieces. Does the context of its creation change how you view the work? Curator: Absolutely. Consider the early 20th century context, a time of massive social and industrial change. Cheap pencils and paper become readily available. The consumption of art shifts alongside production – art becomes more personal, like a page from a personal sketchbook, and drawing democratizes artistic creation and access. How might that alter its meaning? Editor: So thinking about it that way, it’s not just a preliminary study, but a reflection of broader shifts in artistic production and consumption. Thanks! I'll never look at a pencil drawing the same way again. Curator: Indeed! By examining the material conditions and production of the work, it really reshapes how we value the final product.