Studieblad met rups, Amphidasis Betularia 1824 - 1900

Editor: Here we have "Studieblad met rups, Amphidasis Betularia," made sometime between 1824 and 1900 by Albertus Steenbergen. It's a watercolour drawing of a moth caterpillar on a leaf. It feels almost scientifically clinical in its observation. What strikes you about this piece? Curator: Immediately, I'm drawn to the artist’s chosen media: watercolor and drawing. What social circumstances fostered the perception of such work as scientifically accurate, not artistic? What kind of labor went into procuring the materials to even *make* such art? Think of the paper, the pigments... Who had access? Who did not? Editor: That’s a very interesting perspective; I never thought of it that way. Are you saying that even this simple study raises questions about consumption? Curator: Precisely. What does it mean to 'consume' nature, to observe and record it so meticulously? What systems of power enabled Steenbergen to acquire the means to produce this image, while others likely did not, and with what goal in mind? Consider also, how mass-produced colour prints changed the perception and role of watercolours during the 19th century, altering what watercolour meant as a medium. Editor: So, even a simple image of a caterpillar can open up larger questions about society and the availability of resources. Curator: Absolutely! And about changing social roles. Perhaps that level of detailed observation and recording also provided an emerging professional opportunity for certain groups in society? Look closer. Is this image merely 'realistic' in your view? Consider what goes unsaid. Editor: It’s fascinating to consider the economic factors behind this piece. It definitely provides a different viewpoint! Curator: Indeed. Reflecting on the accessibility and societal status assigned to materials gives insight into the production of art during any historical era.