Montmartre van een grote afstand 1773 - 1843

Editor: Here we have Georges Michel's "Montmartre van een grote afstand," created sometime between 1773 and 1843, a delicate pencil drawing. It feels very sparse and raw, almost unfinished. What stands out to you about it? Curator: Considering its materiality, notice the artist’s direct engagement with the landscape. The pencil, a relatively accessible and portable tool, allows for an immediate record of the observed. The “unfinished” quality you note underscores its nature as a study, revealing the labor and process behind Michel's landscapes. How do you think its status as a drawing rather than a finished painting impacts its value? Editor: That's a good question! Does it make us appreciate the artist’s skill more, seeing the bare bones of the composition? The ephemeral nature of pencil makes it feel…humbler, maybe. Curator: Exactly! It disrupts the traditional hierarchy of art forms. Oil painting, often associated with wealth and permanence, versus drawing, typically seen as preparatory. Michel's choice elevates the everyday landscape and the immediate act of sketching, democratizing the artistic process. We might ask ourselves: who had access to this view of Montmartre, and who was afforded the leisure to depict it? Editor: So, you're saying the medium itself challenges the social order somewhat? By using simple materials, he's also drawing attention to a landscape accessible to many. Curator: Precisely. The rough quality speaks volumes. It acknowledges labor, the artist's, certainly, but also the implied labor shaping the landscape itself, a landscape viewed not from aristocratic privilege but perhaps from the perspective of those who toiled within it. Editor: I never would have considered the pencil as making a statement about art and class! Thank you, it’s truly interesting to consider art this way. Curator: Indeed, thinking about the means of production, access, and the labor inherent in artmaking reveals so much about an artwork's cultural and social context.