Earrings 1936

Editor: This watercolour drawing from 1936 depicts a single earring; its warm metallic tones against the plain paper evoke a sense of simple elegance. What’s your take on this design, especially considering it was made in the 30s? Curator: The drawing offers us a glimpse into the aesthetics of the 1930s, a period of both economic hardship and evolving tastes. This earring, rendered with such care, represents an intriguing tension. Consider its display here. Does showcasing this rendering of applied art in a gallery space today elevate or perhaps even inadvertently change its original societal role and perceived cultural value? Editor: That's interesting. It was originally intended as a design, but now it's an artwork on its own. How does that change our interpretation? Curator: Precisely. Does it reflect the increased acceptance and appreciation of craft and design in art institutions or does it serve another purpose? How does this object comment on the economic circumstances of the era? Was it accessible or was it reserved for elite circles? Editor: It feels more special knowing that someone took so much time rendering this piece, perhaps by hand. Curator: A very tactile response. The watercolor medium itself connects us to the artist’s hand and intention. But let’s remember how museums act as cultural gatekeepers. What kind of historical narratives are we choosing to tell by highlighting decorative arts like this, and what message do we hope to convey about women, labor, and adornment during the Great Depression? Editor: That adds a lot of depth to this drawing. I wouldn't have considered those social factors on my own. Curator: It's through questioning and analysis that we uncover hidden layers. Each artifact acts as a mirror reflecting our shared history, cultural values and the ways institutions mould them.