Opera Bag c. 1939

Curator: This delightful artwork is John H. Tercuzzi’s “Opera Bag,” likely made around 1939. It's a watercolor and drawing on paper. Editor: It's so delicate! The colors are soft, almost ethereal. I am getting a very tangible sense of a bygone era of opulence. Curator: Indeed! Think about the context. Such bags, these *necessaires*, weren't merely decorative. They held the essentials of a privileged social life: opera glasses, perhaps a fan, maybe even calling cards. Editor: Absolutely. But look at the materials. The interplay of watercolor and fine drawing elevates the depiction beyond a mere object. It begs questions about access, labor, and production during that era. Was this Tercuzzi's only artwork, a demonstration of craft by an unknown artist, or just one sample? Curator: An interesting perspective. Museums of the time, you know, displayed very few objects of functional art, like purses. Most artworks of decorative use like this ended up categorized outside the boundaries of “high art”. Editor: Precisely! These divisions are arbitrary. It appears functional, but if this “Opera Bag” wasn't meant to be touched or used...if its purpose was only display, what is its material role? Is the piece performing the status it once symbolized? Curator: Good point. Considering that most museums prioritize traditional artworks over decorative, is the context missing, maybe? This little treasure’s place within institutions reveals the historical and contemporary role of decorative arts. What it meant to then possess it, compared to now? Editor: It does makes one ponder the implications. Curator: It makes you reflect on changing value systems related to what's "worth" viewing. Thank you for this exchange. Editor: It's been very interesting indeed to reflect upon these intricacies together, and I do thank you too!