Untitled 

Editor: Here we have Imre Reiner’s “Untitled” print, we think a woodcut monoprint. I’m really drawn to the tactile quality, the rough, almost folksy texture. How do you see the making of this piece impacting its meaning? Curator: Well, let’s start with the materials themselves. Woodcut demands a direct, physical engagement. The artist is literally carving away at the material to create the image, it is a very subtractive process. That repetitive removal of the wood itself creates this aesthetic you have noticed. How does the texture influence your view? Editor: I suppose it challenges the conventional idea of a refined “still life.” The roughness kind of grounds it, makes it less about illusion and more about process and the physical labor involved. Curator: Exactly. The material dictates a certain aesthetic, pushing back against a clean, academic finish. Think about the wood itself, where it comes from. This links to questions of value – what is typically considered craft versus fine art? What kind of skill is seen in mass printing instead of labor to print with fine tools? Are we placing labor, or a lack thereof, on a pedestal when we engage with art? Editor: So it’s not just about the objects depicted but also about challenging our assumptions about skill and artistic production, right? I suppose the "monoprint" label, which would make this a one-off unique impression made with a block, adds an additional layer? Curator: Absolutely. A monoprint would also mean only the artist made it once with no easy means of immediate reproduction. We see the print engaging with that friction that you observed at first glance with material. That adds value to labor in artistic production that pushes against industry itself. What have you found engaging in thinking about that? Editor: That it completely changes my thinking about the still life. Curator: Mine, too! I love how thinking about materials can reveal layers of social and artistic value in even the simplest still life.