Refugee 1935

Editor: This is William H. Johnson’s painting "Refugee" from 1935. The brushstrokes are quite visible in the oil paint, almost raw in their application. It's a powerful, yet unsettling image. What strikes you when you look at it? Curator: It's precisely that raw quality I find compelling. Look at the materiality, the deliberate brushwork. This wasn’t just an artistic choice; it was Johnson confronting the stark reality of displacement. Consider the social context: the Depression era, the rise of fascism in Europe… how might those materials and method serve as commentary? Editor: It's interesting that you focus on the Depression era because initially I didn't connect it, the image is sort of timeless in a way. The materials he chose… do you think they cheap or standard for the period? Curator: Good question! Probably fairly standard, but his handling of them speaks volumes. He doesn't attempt to mask the process, there is little illusion of a polished scene. He foregrounds the making of the image itself, in a way emphasizing the labour, its manufacture in relation to suffering. Is this supposed ‘naïve’ handling strategic, I wonder? Editor: So, it's less about depicting a refugee in a classical style, and more about showing the *process* of creating art *about* refugees during that time, making us conscious of that labour. Do you think audiences at the time were conscious of the process in that way? Curator: Some undoubtedly were. It disrupts the conventional, comfortable consumption of art. Think about who might have been the audience for this: was it shown in galleries patronized by those untouched by hardship, or was it circulating among more radical communities? Editor: I'd not considered it that way. I will remember to look at the labour when engaging with a work of art. Curator: Yes, and question whose labour sustains that art, always!