Mrs. Charles Gratiot 1829

Editor: This is Thomas Sully's "Mrs. Charles Gratiot," painted in 1829 using oil paints. I'm really struck by how delicate her dress looks. What can we infer from the materials and style in this portrait? Curator: Let's consider the context. Oil paint, readily available and relatively easy to manipulate, was becoming increasingly utilized in portraiture for the emerging middle class. This points to an interesting shift in accessibility and consumption, wouldn’t you say? Editor: So, the rising middle class impacted the art world, shifting the types of materials used to portray subjects like Mrs. Gratiot. How else did materiality shape our understanding? Curator: Precisely. Think about Mrs. Gratiot’s attire. The delicate fabric, possibly imported, suggests access to global markets. The style of dress also dictates movement, daily actions and ultimately, her societal role. Consider how this limits the female subject. Editor: The labor needed to create these goods is interesting to note. That means both Sully’s labor creating the art and the textile worker laboring over her dress reflect status and contribute to meaning, right? Curator: Absolutely! And let’s not forget the pigments used. What do the availability, sourcing and application tell you about Sully's process, skill, and access? The whole process from conception to display involved multiple layers of labor, commerce and artistic decisions. Editor: This has given me a new appreciation for how materials themselves can be rich sources of meaning about an artwork, going beyond aesthetics. Curator: Indeed! Examining the materials and the making allows us to consider art less as isolated aesthetic objects, and more as products deeply embedded in their specific social and economic conditions.