Phantastisches Stillleben 1917

Editor: Here we have James Ensor’s "Phantastisches Stillleben," painted in 1917. It's an oil painting featuring vases of flowers and a figurine. The brushwork seems loose, almost hazy. What are your initial thoughts looking at this painting? Curator: The way Ensor deploys oil paint here is striking. It’s less about illusionism and more about the materiality of the paint itself. The underpainting seems to fight for dominance with the top layers, denying the viewer a smooth, seamless surface. Note the way the objects – the vases, the figure – are delineated not so much by sharp lines but by juxtapositions of different, thickly applied colours. Editor: That makes sense, now that you point it out I see all of that labor in creating it. It seems to be more of the "stuff" than the subject matter. How do the materials speak to a broader understanding of Ensor’s work? Curator: Ensor, working in Belgium, would have been keenly aware of the increasing industrialization of art materials. This painting feels like a deliberate act of reclaiming artistic labor. He's not hiding the 'hand' of the artist. The vibrant colours were also becoming increasingly accessible through industrial pigment production, think about what using them at this scale suggests. What does the proliferation of readily accessible material do to the perception of skill in art? Editor: It's interesting to think about how access to new materials influenced both artistic choices and what art was for during this period! It feels almost revolutionary in that context. Curator: Exactly. It encourages us to see the painting not just as a representation of objects, but as a record of a specific, materially driven artistic process in a rapidly changing industrial landscape. Editor: I've learned so much. This definitely gives me a fresh outlook. Curator: Yes, seeing art through a material lens truly changes your appreciation for how things are made.