Horncastle before 1889

Editor: So, this is "Horncastle," a drawing/print by G.G. Napier, pre-1889. It seems like a pretty straightforward rendering of a building, almost architectural in its precision, though the figures add some life. How do you interpret this work? Curator: What I see is not just a building, but a document, however partial, of the era's societal structures. Ask yourself, who inhabited this building? What purpose did it serve within the community? We see figures included here – what is their relationship to the building? Are they workers, residents, owners? And importantly, what does it mean to create an image of this building at this particular historical juncture? Is it celebrating permanence or perhaps elegizing change? Editor: I see what you mean. The building does look pretty imposing. Given the date, I'm wondering if it represents some aspect of the existing class structure. Was it a home, a business, something else? Curator: Precisely. Napier has presented a specific point of view. Realism doesn’t equal objectivity. What choices have been made to present Horncastle in this way? Note the details included, or conspicuously omitted. How might we read this work through the lens of class, of power, or of access? How does the way Napier portrays the building shape our understanding of its social significance? Editor: It’s fascinating to think about the drawing as not just a depiction, but an argument. It makes me think differently about what "realism" really means. Thanks! Curator: Indeed. Every artwork offers us a way to critically engage with the world. It's a constant process of questioning and contextualizing.