Shoe c. 1938

Editor: So, this is Arlington Gregg’s "Shoe," made around 1938 using watercolor and drawing techniques. It’s quite a simple image, just a single shoe depicted. It feels…ordinary, almost like an advertisement, but I wonder about the choice to isolate a single object. What jumps out at you when you look at this piece? Curator: Immediately, I'm drawn to the process. Consider the socio-economic context: it's 1938, during the tail end of the Great Depression. Labor, access to materials, and methods of production were undergoing massive shifts. To focus so intently on a single shoe, rendered with accessible mediums like watercolor and drawing, is quite telling. It asks us to consider the labor involved in its manufacture and repair, as well as its potential as an emblem of personal resilience in harsh circumstances. Editor: That’s a good point; focusing on materials as reflective of a time makes a lot of sense. Does the style, Realism, impact your view? Curator: Absolutely. Realism isn't just about representing something 'as it is.' It's about grounding art in everyday experience, often spotlighting objects and lives that might be otherwise overlooked or devalued. How might the material and cultural value of such a shoe changed between the time of its use and Gregg’s choosing to represent it this way? The buttons, for instance: are they the marks of skilled labor or a kind of superficial ornament? Editor: I didn’t think about the button detail; thanks. So it is an ordinary object representing ordinary people and labor of the era, shown with everyday media? Curator: Precisely. It blurs the line between 'high art' and a kind of material record. How much can an object, even rendered simply in watercolor, tell us about the cultural currents of its time? Editor: Thanks! That has shifted how I understand artistic subject matter as a record, both simple and significant. Curator: A beautiful artifact – and record – isn't it?