Tiger 19th century

Editor: This ceramic sculpture, simply titled "Tiger," dates back to the 19th century. It's currently housed here at the Met. The overall aesthetic feels very...domesticated, almost like a child's toy rather than a fearsome wild animal. How should we interpret its impact as an object? Curator: It's intriguing how the tiger, often a symbol of power and the exotic, is rendered here. We have to consider the socio-political context of 19th century decorative art. Objects like this often circulated within colonial power structures. Who do you think was the likely audience? Editor: Perhaps wealthy families wanting to show their connections to the world. But it feels almost...caricatured. Is it possible there's a critical perspective being presented? Curator: Precisely. While seemingly decorative, the "realism" – as it's termed – can also function as a commentary on power dynamics. Notice the simplification of the tiger's form, its almost cartoonish stripes. It's possible this reflects a limited or distorted understanding of the "Orient" prevalent during the colonial era. It's this very act of attempted representation and taming, even in art, that can reveal deeply rooted biases. Does this tension come through to you? Editor: I think so. I see how the art could embody, almost unwittingly, the complex and often problematic relationships between the West and other cultures. I had viewed it only as something to simply enjoy and appreciate aesthetically, now, its role in history seems very critical to the way one must perceive the piece. Curator: Absolutely! These decorative arts offer a powerful lens to understanding identity, representation, and power in the 19th century, enriching our perspective of this art form as a significant piece. Editor: I agree, seeing it through that lens truly gives a much richer sense of purpose to something I looked at initially, very superficially.