Beach Blossoms c. 1920s

Editor: Here we have Katharine H. McCormick's "Beach Blossoms," likely from the 1920s, created with watercolor and possibly colored pencil. It's so cheerful! All those bright umbrellas and beachgoers evoke a carefree summer day. What stands out to you about this work? Curator: It's the materiality that really speaks to me. Consider the context: early 20th-century leisure, and the accessibility of watercolor as a medium. Who had the *time* and resources for such pursuits? And, looking at the printmaking qualities here, who consumed this kind of imagery and where would they get it? It challenges notions of "high" art by engaging in printmaking practices usually assigned to commercial production. Editor: So, the *process* of making and distributing it is as important as the image itself? Curator: Absolutely. Think about the labor involved, not just McCormick's, but potentially printers and distributors as well. The consumption of this image—who is buying, seeing and responding to this? Further, this scene depicts a very specific moment in American history, with particular populations accessing beachside leisure activities. Who has access to a “Beach Blossom” existence, as represented? Editor: That makes me think about how the subject matter—a leisurely beach scene—reflects a certain social class with the means to enjoy that lifestyle. And how that relates to access to art making or purchasing art. Curator: Precisely. The subject isn’t separate from the materials or even McCormick’s position as artist and patron of the arts. What do you think, does the work still evoke “a carefree summer day" considering this angle? Editor: I think so, but it's now a more *informed* kind of carefree feeling, knowing more about the cultural factors shaping it. Curator: Agreed. Seeing how material conditions and class affect artistic creation enriches the experience, rather than detracting from the beauty.