Landscape II 1988

Editor: This is Ruth Fine’s “Landscape II” from 1988, an etching in ink. It strikes me as a really interesting take on landscapes, so abstract. What’s your perspective? Curator: This piece presents us with an opportunity to delve into the very labor involved in art production, doesn’t it? An etching requires immense physical effort, controlling pressure on the plate, acid strength and timing. How does Fine use this laborious process to evoke "landscape?" Editor: So, you are looking at the work required to get that effect on the paper, that is an interesting idea. I see what you mean. It makes me think of factory workers making those materials. I did not consider that at all! Curator: Absolutely. We see a blurring of the line between industrial labor and artistic creation, which fundamentally challenges the historical art canon's division between "high art" and "craft," even in a landscape. The marks have weight, a presence related to both the scene represented and the effort put into representing it. How do you see the composition of the mark-making playing into the meaning of the landscape itself? Editor: Well, the way the lines build on each other suggests depth but also maybe… disorder. It almost makes me question what a landscape should even look like. The whole method pushes on what the idea of landscape truly is! Curator: Precisely! It invites us to consider the social contexts of art creation, and in the end, understand value and purpose behind these mediums. This is such a rich exploration of the materials themselves, how the production process inherently ties to socioeconomic questions. Editor: Wow, I had not really considered looking into that deeply on an art piece. This new lens is really amazing to reflect on. Curator: Glad to share and explore it with you. It highlights how an object's worth and function emerge from complex material processes.