Rush 

Curator: This print, called "Rush," is a work by Sue Coe. Immediately I feel overwhelmed by the density and claustrophobia it evokes. Editor: Yes, its graphic nature certainly pulls you in. What’s fascinating is how Coe seems to use the form of a seemingly straightforward brochure, but its actual production is quite complex, given its origins as a collage that was then printed. It disrupts any easy access for the viewer, mimicking the obstructions it’s pointing toward. Curator: I see a cacophony of distorted figures—gargoyles and menacing sprites—all seemingly drawn in this high-contrast, almost woodcut style, giving them a haunting quality. They really tap into a sense of unease. Their expressions alone convey anxiety and despair. Editor: Exactly. These aren't simply monsters. Look closer at their placement relative to the blocks of text; they create this hierarchy, highlighting how certain narratives become prioritized. This is clearly a comment on labor and even propaganda; its creation serves to manufacture a certain consent by literally “blocking” the view. This challenges our notions of objective truth and delves into manufactured experiences. Curator: The entire artwork functions like a map. But rather than offering clear directions, it plunges the viewer into a symbolic and possibly corrupt entertainment experience. The pointed language feels intentionally jarring. It forces a discomfort on the reader that they'll either be able to move through to examine what it means, or recoil from it. Editor: And if one considers the tradition of printmaking itself—historically tied to disseminating information, often for the ruling class—this piece asks some pretty hard questions about accessibility. In other words, who are these brochures *really* for, what's their provenance, and what are they distracting us from? Curator: I’ll certainly think differently about brochures going forward! The layered, critical approach invites extended reflection and discussion on exploitation and control. Editor: I agree; "Rush" compels one to question the very structure of manufactured consent and the price we pay when we become a part of it.