Blank side 1832

Editor: We’re looking at “Blank side,” a drawing from 1832 by Martinus Rørbye, crafted with watercolor on paper. Initially, it just looks… blank. How do you interpret this work, considering the artist's usual subject matter? Curator: It’s easy to dismiss this as ‘nothing,’ but let’s consider the materiality. What kind of paper? Handmade, likely, given the date. The watercolor wash – uneven, hinting at the artist’s hand, the pressure, the absorbency of the paper. This wasn't mass-produced; it involved labor, choice, skill. The “blankness” becomes a record of production itself. Editor: So, the value isn't in a depicted image, but in the process of creating the surface itself? Curator: Exactly. Rørbye often depicted scenes of travel and daily life, reflecting the bourgeoisie. Yet here, he presents a deliberate absence. What's being consumed, then? The labor, the materials. Is he challenging traditional ideas about skill, representation, and the role of the artist? How does that choice engage with or subvert the expectations of his patrons? Editor: That's interesting! I hadn't considered the blankness as a conscious statement about the art-making process itself, the artist choosing to showcase a piece that questions the value of their own practice. Curator: Precisely. Think about the market forces at play even then. Artists made objects for consumption. What does it mean to offer, essentially, an un-object? Perhaps it is to call attention to the physical reality, the cost, of art making. Editor: I see how analyzing the materials and the production challenges the conventional focus on artistic skill, making us reconsider value and intention. Curator: Yes. It encourages us to shift from aesthetic judgement to understanding the means of art production in 19th-century Denmark. Food for thought.