Whistle c. 1940s

Editor: This is “Whistle,” a sculpture from the 1940s by an unknown artist, made from wood and fibre, at Mia. It feels almost ceremonial to me, like it was crafted for a ritual. What do you see in this piece? Curator: I’m drawn to the materials and the labor involved in its creation. The wood and fiber suggest a deep connection to the environment. The process of shaping these materials, potentially through techniques passed down through generations, highlights the role of making art. Editor: That’s fascinating. I was so focused on its visual form that I missed thinking about the actual creation process. The repeated patterns imply extensive labour. Curator: Exactly! Consider the societal role such objects played. Were they commodities? Were they meant for practical use, or something more symbolic? The fact that it's called "Whistle" gives us a starting point, but also raises more questions about its function within the community and if it's literal use affected it's symbolic power. Editor: It makes me think about craft versus art. Are we assigning it a Western idea of ‘art’ that wasn't originally intended? Does this affect how we look at objects from other places? Curator: Precisely. The distinction often rests on the social context, how it was produced and distributed. The value is in the hand of the artist. Does the artist create alone? Or with a larger collaborative production effort? Editor: I never considered approaching art this way! Thank you, it completely changed my perspective. Curator: Indeed, looking closely at material choices and the means of production helps us unpack power dynamics and broader cultural meanings embedded within the art.