Aeneas und Dido in der Höhle 

Editor: So here we have "Aeneas and Dido in the Cave," a drawing attributed to Peter Paul Rubens. It's done in ink, charcoal, and gouache on paper and the level of detail really draws my eye. The lovers in the foreground, a storm raging in the background, there is just so much happening! How would you interpret this piece? Curator: The materiality really strikes me. Look at how Rubens uses readily available materials - ink, charcoal, paper. This speaks to art production not as some rarified act but rooted in common labor and the available resources of the time. Editor: Interesting! The supplies are pretty standard, I suppose. Curator: Exactly! Think about the social context. Rubens was part of a workshop, producing for a market. This isn’t some solitary genius working in isolation. The drawing is a product of labor, part of a larger economic system. The consumption of the work itself further integrates it to the system. Editor: I see what you mean! I never thought about the creation of art as a kind of labor. How would the materials used also contribute to its historical significance? Curator: Consider the "cheapness" of drawing medium: paper and ink was less prized than preparatory drawings in painting that led to finished commissioned art for elite. So we ask ourselves how this seemingly simple form might still address narrative in light of consumption for classes/markets other than the top elite, and whether such distribution has to consider an art piece complete versus in process. It questions boundaries between the work and the marketplace. Editor: This definitely gives me a lot to think about! So many questions, yet this different lens definitely helped me notice some aspects of it. Curator: Precisely. Materiality reveals the conditions of its making, the social relationships embedded within its creation.