Brief aan Philip Zilcken 1911 - 1930

Curator: Editor: So, here we have “Brief aan Philip Zilcken,” a letter by Rose Imel, dating sometime between 1911 and 1930. It's ink on paper, a handwritten document, almost a delicate whisper across time. I’m struck by the density of the writing. How do you approach something like this? What catches your eye? Curator: The most immediate aspect is, of course, its materiality. The paper itself—its texture, its aging—speaks to the history of its production and consumption. Was it handmade? Mass-produced? How accessible was this material at the time? Note the ink: what kind was it and where might Imel have acquired it? How might that ink and paper influence the experience of the writer? Editor: Interesting! So, you are looking at the accessibility of material as something defining to art in its own right, even in something that would not normally be considered 'art'. Does that suggest art isn't some inherent characteristic, but something derived from societal conditions? Curator: Precisely. What was the function of letter writing, and its labour implications, in the early 20th century? The script is carefully done, clearly practiced... a daily aspect of social infrastructure and etiquette for certain groups, but a painstaking act when observed through a materialist lens. Consider the embodied labor involved in writing – the hours spent perfecting the craft. Editor: So the medium itself contains the art – the effort behind production, the consumption this spurred! Considering art in such broad terms offers insights beyond the traditional, doesn’t it? I have certainly expanded my idea about what art could entail through understanding its socio-economical context. Curator: I am glad to hear it. Thinking about the making shapes art and is fundamental to a complete assessment.