Cup and saucer 1775 - 1785

Editor: Here we have a cup and saucer made of porcelain by Nymphenburg Porcelain Manufactory, sometime between 1775 and 1785. It’s lovely; the monochrome landscapes give it an air of refinement. What stands out to you? Curator: What I find most interesting is the tension between the apparent 'high art' scenes depicted and the humble, everyday functionality of the objects. Porcelain itself, historically a prized and rare material, here serves as the ground for drawings. Editor: So, you’re saying there’s almost a contrast between the fine art landscape drawings and the mass-produced material of porcelain? Curator: Exactly. Consider the labor involved in producing porcelain at this time versus the quick gesture of a drawing. And think about how these objects might have been consumed, handled, perhaps even broken, in the course of daily life. Does that not challenge traditional hierarchies within art? Editor: That’s true. These wouldn’t have been displayed like paintings. They were made to be used. The drawing almost seems secondary. So it is elevating utility? Curator: It’s muddying the waters. The scenes, referencing traditional landscape painting, become part of the wider production and consumption cycle of luxury goods. How does that relationship affect the artwork itself? Editor: I see what you mean. It encourages a whole different way of considering art. The social implications of the material and manufacture are intrinsic. It’s about more than just what is represented. Curator: Precisely! It shifts our focus from the artist’s singular vision to the complex interplay of material, labor, and consumption that defines its meaning. Editor: That definitely gives me a new perspective. Thanks. Curator: My pleasure. It’s exciting to view familiar objects in an entirely new way.