Jug c. 1936

Curator: Looking at "Jug," a watercolor on paper from around 1936 by John Dana, what immediately strikes you? Editor: The gentle, almost muted, palette really speaks to me. There's a quiet, utilitarian beauty here, a subtle appreciation of the everyday object. It also seems like a technical drawing due to the multiple perspectives included, what were your thoughts? Curator: Well, Dana worked as a designer, and you see the remnants of that in this rendering. It's not just a depiction; it's an almost diagrammatic presentation, observing all sides of the jug from multiple perspectives. The artist considers this jug a valuable tool. Editor: Absolutely. It brings into question the socio-economic value that it held in a rural society, the role these jugs played in communal gatherings, harvests, storing water for example. What are your insights into the process itself, considering Dana's professional history? Curator: Dana's technique emphasizes the labor embedded in creating everyday ceramics, especially those meant for the domestic sphere. There is the understanding of material use which reflects consumption, accessibility, and a record of both social life and economic exchange during the Great Depression. Editor: It makes one consider who used these jugs in their daily life, too. These sorts of items were not necessarily fine china on display. Curator: Exactly, a reminder that artistic inspiration doesn't only spring from rarefied circles; it can also be found in the objects of everyday life and work. What you might call humble, are rich with historical information. Editor: So true, what this teaches us about form, function and accessibility is far more intimate. Curator: Precisely, making it an intersection where aesthetics, utility, and cultural value converge. It also gives one more pause to consider our own modern "tools".