Table (Pedestal) c. 1937

Editor: So, here we have Bernard Krieger's "Table (Pedestal)" from around 1937, rendered in watercolor and drawing. I'm struck by its...almost dainty elegance. It's clearly designed to be beautiful, but it feels very fragile. How do you read this piece, thinking about its purpose as decorative art? Curator: The fragility you perceive speaks volumes about the intended audience and social context. Decorative arts like this table, especially in the late 1930s, often represented aspirations of refinement, almost an escape, in a period marked by economic hardship and the looming shadow of war. Does the table’s careful detail and delicate form perhaps hint at the role of craftsmanship and artistic labor in reflecting social and economic hierarchies? Editor: That's a compelling point. The detail almost seems to reject the functional. Does its impracticality relate to power structures? Curator: Absolutely. Who gets to decide what is considered "functional" and who has the luxury to prioritize aesthetics over utility? Also, consider who owned, commissioned, and had access to view art like this table design. It tells us a great deal about class, gender roles and access to resources and the art world. What materials would be needed for a table like that, and how were those sourced at this time? Editor: So the artistry isn't just about the artist’s skill, it is tied to economic systems and colonial histories as well? The table, an ordinary object, becomes a statement. Curator: Exactly! By unpacking the seemingly simple aesthetics of a table, we can reveal the intricate web of social, economic, and historical forces that shape our understanding of art and its role in society. Editor: This really makes me rethink how I look at even seemingly simple decorative pieces! It becomes a historical object. Curator: Indeed, it is an archive, telling tales of its time if we just ask the right questions.