Tea Table c. 1936

Editor: This is a drawing entitled "Tea Table," around 1936, by Bernard Krieger. It's essentially an architectural plan rendered as line drawing. What strikes me is the combination of functionality and ornamentation—the precise measurements juxtaposed with the decorative legs. What do you find most compelling about this piece? Curator: Well, the explicit details about the "Mahogany" wood, the location and timeframe, really stand out. Given that this is a drawing from around 1936 depicting a Philadelphia Tea Table, third quarter of the 18th century, the historical context of production is interesting. Is this simply a technical drawing, or does the draughtsman aim for something more? Editor: It does seem unusually detailed for a purely functional plan. Do you think the drawing itself becomes a commentary on craftsmanship? Curator: Precisely! Look at how the drawing privileges a plan from Philadelphia while explicitly specifying its production, in this case woodworking using mahogany. It’s not simply about the design, but the whole story from material sourcing to final piece, what can be sold as luxury good. How does this detailed specification, compared to other pieces in the exhibition, comment on craft traditions versus mass manufacturing? Editor: That's a really insightful way to see it. I initially saw the drawing as simply a preliminary step, but I now recognize the level of embedded historical consciousness within the specification. Curator: Exactly! Thinking about who commissions such works, which social strata values artisanal skills – it opens up a much wider set of issues than the aesthetic dimensions only. Consider for example the labour associated to source "Mahogany", the different possibilities about colonial implications and supply lines… Editor: Thanks, I’ve got to reconsider this now thinking about materiality and social implications beyond surface aesthetics, from the economic networks shaping it.