Petroglyph - Signs 1935 - 1942

Editor: Here we have Lala Eve Rivol's "Petroglyph - Signs," created between 1935 and 1942, a drawing showcasing abstract figures reminiscent of ancient rock art. I’m really struck by the visual language employed and how the artist translated petroglyphs into this work on paper. How does a Materialist approach inform our understanding? Curator: Focusing on materiality allows us to consider how Rivol engages with Indigenous art. The drawing, with its linear quality, emphasizes a process. What sort of tools were employed here, and what of paper itself as an industrial commodity. The labor required for the entire lifecycle and how this labor intersects with Rivol’s project to reinterpret petroglyphs as commodity aesthetics. Editor: That’s a very interesting point, reframing something we view as “art” from the get-go to understanding how commodity production impacts the images' meaning. Curator: Absolutely. It challenges the boundaries of high art versus craft. The use of line also directs our focus to process and the relationship between her labor and the artistic traditions she invokes, bringing up questions of cultural appropriation and translation into capitalist production methods. Editor: So, considering that, are we viewing more so a "representation" of indigenous art through a colonial, economic lens? Curator: Precisely. And what does it mean to depict this subject using paper and drawing—how do these media mediate the ancient and industrial contexts, in turn reflecting or obscuring these petroglyphs? Consider what the drawing's potential consumption entails - gallery shows, publications. These processes fundamentally affect and redefine their original, physical context. Editor: I see, understanding that shifts everything. I didn't even stop to think how modern supplies such as paper, inform and affect meaning, here, or, even worse, dilute it. Thank you. Curator: A materials-based investigation urges that we reconsider these issues.