Female Portrait 

Editor: So, this striking oil painting is "Female Portrait" by Valentin Khrushch. It has this raw, almost unsettling quality. The thick impasto makes me focus on the physical application of the paint. How do you interpret this work? Curator: I’m immediately drawn to the materiality. Look at how the paint itself becomes the subject. Khrushch uses oil paint less as a tool for representation and more as a substance with its own inherent qualities. It appears as though it was created from discarded scraps - and with intent to waste neither material nor labor. What kind of process do you think led to the artist choosing portraiture in oil? Editor: Well, given the impasto technique, it feels almost performative, like the act of painting was as important as the finished piece. I suppose the question could then be posed whether such an attitude should still be labeled "craft" or not? Curator: Exactly. And think about the societal implications. This isn’t smooth, polished academic portraiture meant for wealthy patrons. This is a portrait constructed with a visibly strenuous, almost crude process, emphasizing labor and the body of the artist. Is it a celebration or subversion of the traditional portrait's function, considering who could afford this type of craft, and who could not? Editor: That's a perspective I hadn't considered. Seeing it as a statement about labor really changes my understanding. Instead of just a face, it’s a record of its own making and that act is also one that separates its art-consumer-class from its creator-artist-class. Curator: Indeed. And notice how the “craft” or execution then shapes its accessibility (and purchase-ability). It compels one to think of how an audience could have seen this "process". The consumption is quite directly laid bare by this piece's methods and form, literally. It becomes its meaning. Editor: I see your point! Thinking about the physical process and the social implications gives the artwork a new and important meaning. Thank you.