Rough 

Editor: This is "Rough," an oil painting by Alan Stephens Foster. It depicts two boys engaged in a scuffle. There's a sense of everyday boyhood in it, kind of rambunctious and innocent at the same time. What strikes you when you look at it? Curator: I see more than just rambunctiousness; I see a staged performance of masculinity, a demonstration of dominance and vulnerability playing out within very specific social boundaries. Notice how the boys' clothing, while casual, is still relatively formal for play. The artist stages and aestheticizes conflict that naturalizes particular social structures. How do you see their power dynamic being presented, if at all? Editor: Well, one boy seems to be winning, pinning the other. Is that power dynamic complicated by anything else? Like the body language maybe? Curator: Precisely. Consider the victor's averted gaze and the defeated boy's exaggerated grimace. There's a performative aspect here that transcends simple aggression. Is it possible this act masks vulnerabilities within prescribed roles they are pressured to occupy? Consider how they negotiate identity within turn-of-the-century boyhood? Editor: I see your point. The composition makes the “winner” seems awkward, like it’s for show. They're both caught in a system. I was focusing on just a slice of this painting, its surface realism. Curator: It is interesting that you describe it as surface realism because that also ignores that many genre paintings such as this one omit, obscure, or aestheticize forms of exploitation such as child labor in similar time periods. This is the gaze of a very particular audience that may benefit from romantic depictions of "boys will be boys". How does your understanding of the work shift when considering the broader social milieu of the period? Editor: That shifts my whole understanding. Now I see this not just as boys playing, but as a picture reflecting social expectations and power structures, class structures of that era. It’s unsettling.