Untitled [seated female nude reaching with left hand] [verso] 1955 - 1967

Curator: This is an ink drawing by Richard Diebenkorn, titled “Untitled [seated female nude reaching with left hand] [verso]”. It’s estimated to have been made between 1955 and 1967. Editor: It’s sparse, immediate. The ink line is confident, but the figure feels introspective, maybe a little world-weary. Curator: The rapid, almost impatient line work is certainly characteristic of Abstract Expressionist figuration. Note how Diebenkorn uses only a few strokes to suggest volume and shadow. He seems more concerned with the gesture of the pose than a highly rendered depiction of the body. Editor: But who gets to be this blasé about representing the nude? A male artist, obviously, one unconcerned with the historical baggage of objectification. I wonder how the model felt, represented with such...casualness. It's like the drawing itself is turning away from the viewer. Curator: I see it more as an experiment with line and form. The figure occupies a shallow space, created entirely by the suggestion of planes rather than perspectival depth. Consider the dynamism of the limbs and the economy of mark-making; he seems interested in pure structure. Editor: And yet, the gesture is anything but neutral. The reaching hand, the slightly downturned mouth… it speaks to a mood, a state of mind perhaps. We see a glimpse of vulnerability. Even though it’s unfinished, the gesture is powerful. Curator: Agreed. Though not overtly sexualized, it invites our gaze but frustrates our desire for anatomical accuracy. Diebenkorn prioritized conveying an experience, which explains his enduring presence in American Modernism. Editor: The piece prompts one to consider who the artwork prioritizes: the artist? the model? the viewer? Its place in contemporary art demands we ask ourselves, are we implicated in that original, and now historical, act of looking? Curator: His treatment pushes the boundaries of the established tradition. Regardless of subject, line is ultimately the key here. Editor: It invites both careful seeing and uncomfortable questioning about our relationship with the artistic canon.