The Brush House 1916

Editor: We’re looking at Childe Hassam’s "The Brush House," created around 1916. It seems to be an oil or watercolor piece, maybe painted en plein air? I’m struck by how the building material blends almost seamlessly with the surrounding foliage. What aspects of this piece stand out to you? Curator: Notice how Hassam deploys the watercolor medium to challenge traditional notions of "finish." The visible brushstrokes, the paper showing through, it all draws attention to the labor of production, to the making of the artwork as a constructed object rather than a mere representation. Editor: So you're saying the materials themselves and how he used them become the subject in a way? Curator: Exactly. Consider the period – 1916. The US was rapidly industrializing. Mass production was transforming everyday life, changing our relationship to objects and labor. How does Hassam, through his careful attention to craft and materiality, respond to or perhaps critique that shift? The choice of watercolor and a looser, more 'sketch-like' style over the more academic, finished style reflects a turn to valuing process and artistic labor itself. Editor: I see. So by emphasizing the handmade nature of the piece, he is almost commenting on the rise of machine-made goods. But wasn’t impressionism typically associated with the bourgeoisie? Curator: Yes, but within that framework, artists like Hassam engaged with evolving relationships to material production. Was he romanticizing pre-industrial modes of making? What message does he convey by focusing on the "how" as much as the "what" of the scene before us? Editor: It's fascinating how focusing on the materiality of the artwork opens up entirely new avenues of interpretation. Thank you! Curator: It's through these material traces that we understand how artistic practices respond to and reflect broader societal transformations. It allows us to reconsider our understanding of 'landscape' itself.