Tea Cup 1936

Editor: So, here we have J. Howard Iams’ "Tea Cup," a watercolor from 1936. It strikes me as… charmingly domestic. Two views of a teacup, very delicately rendered. What do you see in this piece, from your perspective? Curator: It's fascinating to consider this "Tea Cup" not just as a still life, but as a document of material culture. What can we glean about the processes of its creation and potential consumption? Watercolors are interesting; they're often considered less "serious" than oils, so this choice of medium may be a purposeful subversion of those high/low art boundaries. What about the cup itself - do you think the artist chose a simple design or did the decorations on it mean something? Editor: I suppose it's a fairly standard floral design, but I hadn't really thought about it beyond the aesthetic. What about the act of painting itself? Does the reproduction change the object? Curator: Exactly! The act of creating this watercolor transforms a manufactured object—likely produced through industrial means—into a unique, handmade artwork. Consider also the labor involved, both in the making of the actual teacup, probably through a factory line, and in the careful rendering by the artist’s hand. There’s a tension there, wouldn't you say? A drawing from everyday life; it can say a lot. Editor: That's a perspective I hadn't considered, the layers of production. So, the drawing invites us to think about consumerism, class, the value of craft, all intertwined? Curator: Precisely. Iams' work offers a space to examine the relationship between artistic labor, industrial manufacturing, and even the domestic rituals surrounding tea consumption. It makes one really question about which production line had more work behind it! Editor: It really does change how you look at such a simple image. I'll definitely look differently at watercolours going forward. Curator: Absolutely. Looking at art with an eye on production opens doors for understanding a lot.