Candlestick c. 1937

Editor: Here we have Philip Johnson's pencil drawing, "Candlestick," from around 1937. It’s a very precise rendering, almost like a blueprint. I'm curious, what is it about the simple form of this everyday object that might have interested Johnson? Curator: Well, consider Johnson's broader interest in modern architecture. This drawing, while seemingly simple, reflects a fascination with geometric form and industrial design that permeates much of the early 20th century art world. The candlestick, mass-produced, functional, is being elevated here through close study, rendered in an almost clinical fashion. Don't you think? Editor: I see your point about the connection to modern architecture. It’s functional but also refined. But why choose something so...domestic? Was there any wider relevance Johnson wanted to highlight? Curator: Perhaps the domestic sphere was seen as a site of social change, reflective of larger shifts in cultural values. By focusing on the aesthetics of a simple household object, Johnson might be pointing towards the democratizing influence of modern design, making good design accessible to all. What is more is the rise of industrial design in institutions of art. Would you say this piece can be considered the dawn of this? Editor: That makes a lot of sense. I hadn't thought about the socio-political aspect of elevating the mundane. It seems like a deliberate attempt to redefine what's considered worthy of artistic attention. It seems like its inclusion and display elevates not just an object, but a concept and way of life as well. Curator: Exactly! This drawing can serve as a reminder that art and design are never neutral; they always reflect broader cultural and historical forces. By dissecting the commonplace, Johnson prompts us to question what – and *who* – shapes our aesthetic landscape. Editor: I’ll definitely view functional pieces in art museums in a completely new light from now on!