Pitcher 1852 - 1858

Curator: Ah, yes, here we have a rather lovely ceramic piece – a pitcher, to be exact – crafted by the United States Pottery Company sometime between 1852 and 1858. The vibrant cobalt blue and stark white relief practically leap out at you. What's your first impression? Editor: Immediately, I see the almost unsettling smoothness of the surface. Mass-produced pottery aspiring to be Wedgwood. It's beautiful, undeniably, but with an unnerving, uncanny perfection – feels more manufactured than crafted. Curator: Uncanny, interesting. I find the Neoclassical elements quite charming. Note the figuration of embracing people, almost Grecian in their simplicity, nestled amongst the almost wildly imagined landscape. Does it tell a story? It’s almost dreamlike in the rendering, isn't it? A brief romance, perhaps? Editor: Yes, but think about that landscape too. Landscape painting is inherently political. A romantic vision masking, perhaps, an industrializing nation consuming its natural resources? Even this small-scale domestic object subtly reiterates those ideas. Curator: I hadn't considered the tension of that visual narrative – romance vs. progress! And now, even the materiality seems to take on new weight. Ceramic made to resemble something grander than it is… a kind of hopeful aspiration, perhaps? Or clever commodification? Editor: Precisely. How were these mass produced? The labour? Were they emulating higher class art for a market seeking social mobility? Each step, from mining clay to molding to distribution is imbued with its own history. Curator: Indeed. It's rather sobering when you break down the making like that, stripping away any false mystique to look at process! And this object now lives in a museum... so how is *that* transformation shaping this Pitcher's story too? Editor: It's all about layers, isn't it? Consumption, aspiration, social status and artistic labor-- captured inside one small pitcher. We all just leave our prints all over the thing. Curator: Yes! This conversation’s absolutely enhanced my understanding, nudging me beyond simply enjoying this as some lovely trinket. Editor: Well, the thing’s insistence on artificiality gets me going and challenges the canon to think through new processes of art making. Thank you for sharing, Curator.