Untitled 1950

Editor: This is an untitled piece by Robert Goodnough, created in 1950, using acrylic paint, it seems. I am struck by the impasto, how heavily the paint is applied. What can you tell me about it? Curator: The materiality speaks volumes. Look at how Goodnough layers the acrylic, building up these textured, almost topographical surfaces. This isn't just about representing form, it's about presenting the *substance* of paint itself. What implications might that have, considering the period it was created in? Editor: I suppose the labor that went into layering it adds to the understanding of it. It isn't just about colors, it's a construction. So the labor-intensive nature of impasto clashes with the "pure" abstraction? Curator: Precisely! It challenges that high/low art distinction by drawing attention to the *process* of making. It invites us to consider how the application of the paint is essential, and to consider not just what the final "form" is. Can we ignore the implications of this artwork during a time of post-war boom and mass consumption? How does this hand-made process relate? Editor: So, rather than seeing it as purely abstract, we should consider how it comments on the way things were made and valued at the time? The physical act of creation becomes part of the meaning. Curator: Exactly. The textures are traces of labor and the acrylic impasto embodies that physical connection between artist and canvas. It reminds us of a material culture deeply entrenched in the social milieu of production. Editor: This gives me a lot to think about - the materials used and the process definitely changed my perspective on abstract art. Curator: Indeed. Seeing art as not just an image, but as a product of materials, labour and culture offers a completely different level of understanding.