Portrait of a Woman c. 1911

Curator: Jawlensky's "Portrait of a Woman," from around 1911, is an arresting image. There’s something unsettling about the palette... How do you react to it? Editor: It feels...unfinished, perhaps? The application of the paint is quite visible. The figure herself seems almost swallowed by the brushstrokes. I'm curious – what stands out to you about the materiality of this piece? Curator: Precisely! Notice the visible texture of the canvas, the heavy impasto in the subject’s hat, and the way Jawlensky lets the strokes themselves build form. This deliberate focus on the *application* challenges academic painting conventions. He’s exposing the labour. It begs the question: what social conventions might he be rejecting through his choice of materials and method of working? Editor: I see what you mean. Instead of illusionism, we're confronted with the artist's *process*. So it's not just about *who* the sitter is, but *how* the portrait came into being. The materials and act of creation themselves become central. Curator: Exactly. Think about the price of materials, the shift towards industrially-produced paints... Even the accessibility of art training plays a role. Who had the luxury to create and consume images like this in 1911? What sort of value system elevates this kind of handmade piece over mass-produced imagery? Editor: I hadn’t considered the economic and social factors influencing his artistic choices so directly, or even access to creating such art. That’s fascinating. Curator: Considering the materiality really roots the piece in its historical moment, doesn't it? It becomes a record of not only Jawlensky's artistic vision but also the means and conditions of its production and viewing. Editor: It's given me a whole new lens to view artwork through. Thank you.