Untitled #18 

Editor: Vicente Romero’s oil painting, "Untitled #18," shows two women in a field. They seem like figures in a dream. What can you tell me about it? Curator: Looking at this from a materialist perspective, the first thing that strikes me is the artist’s choice of oil paint itself. It allows for the soft blending and almost ethereal quality. Consider, too, the labour involved in creating this vision of leisure. How does Romero's application of paint – its textures, its visible brushstrokes – connect to the broader social context of art production and consumption? What kind of relationship between production and art? Editor: It's interesting to think about labour involved in the work that depicts something so leisurely. I guess I just saw it as beautiful, and didn't think about production so deeply. Curator: Precisely. The visible brushstrokes remind us of the artist's hand, of their physical engagement with the canvas. Oil paint wasn't accessible for just anyone, who do you imagine could commission artwork like this one? Does that influence how you view it at all? Editor: Probably only the upper classes. It makes me consider it as a commodity of that class. Are the romantic overtones then, just a means to appeal to the wealthy? Curator: It's plausible. Now consider the plein-air approach: what are the socio-economic implications of transporting materials and setting up outdoors versus the controlled environment of a studio? Also, what implications might these choices have had? Editor: I hadn’t thought of that logistical side of it before! So, by examining these elements – the materials, the artist's labour, the potential patronage – we gain a richer understanding of the artwork beyond its surface appearance. Curator: Precisely, you now recognize that materials can hold many significations within the history of their usage, impacting our views in the modern day. Thank you!