Still No Title Yet 1966

Editor: So here we have Robert Grosvenor’s “Still No Title Yet” from 1966, a mixed-media installation. I’m immediately struck by the imposing form, and how it redefines the space it occupies. What elements jump out to you when you look at this? Curator: Immediately, I'm drawn to the relationship between the materials and the gallery space itself. Grosvenor's insertion acts almost as an obstruction. The 'no title' aspect becomes interesting when you consider the societal role of naming and categorizing. It almost resists easy placement in art history. What do you make of the color choices? Editor: The ochre color feels so deliberate against the neutral white of the room. It draws attention to the materials themselves and their physical presence, right? Do you think that the form being so geometric invites interpretation in some way? Curator: Geometric abstraction here can be interpreted as an attempt to break down traditional art boundaries. The raw materials—whatever they are, likely industrial—speak to a changing social landscape. Labor becomes implied by the object’s construction. One wonders about the social conditions and economic context of its production in 1966. Was Grosvenor commenting on anything about society at that moment, specifically in New York City, by refusing to give us a clear message, in essence? Editor: It definitely reframes my thinking, moving beyond simple aesthetic appreciation. Thinking about the economic and labor conditions elevates the whole artwork! Curator: Exactly! And remember, the art world and its market are themselves social constructs, aren’t they? Editor: True. Now I am curious about what informed the material choice specifically, or how the production influenced other artists at the time. Thanks! Curator: My pleasure. Looking through a materialist lens really unveils how art deeply engages with society and labor.