Untitled (Boulder Series) 1962

Editor: Here we have Lorser Feitelson's "Untitled (Boulder Series)" from 1962, made using acrylic paint and ink. I find it quite striking how these simple, almost geometric shapes in pink, grey, and purple create such a bold visual statement. How would you interpret this work? Curator: As a materialist, I’m immediately drawn to the use of acrylic and ink – distinctly modern materials for the time, wouldn't you agree? Notice the flatness achieved; this isn't about illusionism but about presenting the materiality of paint itself. The "hard-edge" style evident here emphasizes crisp lines, showcasing a meticulous process, demanding a certain discipline in its making. What considerations about labor do you think were involved here? Editor: I see what you mean. It looks like such a simple design but creating those clean lines consistently must have been painstaking work. Almost like a printed image, despite being made by hand. So it is celebrating the hand but denying the gesture? Curator: Precisely. Feitelson walks a tightrope between celebrating the means of production and undermining traditional artistic expression. Also, think about what those colours signify within 1960's pop-art context, what values they project? Editor: It seems very bold. A clear statement. Given it’s titled “Boulder Series,” could he be trying to reduce this organic form, boulders, into basic shapes for easy consumption by mass media and advertising? Curator: Indeed, the title draws nature back into it. Perhaps suggesting not just formal reduction for easier production, but an implied comment on our industrial appetite which breaks down raw resources for immediate consumption. Thank you, that gave me much to think about regarding mass production. Editor: I agree. Considering the materiality and the process really opened my eyes to a deeper meaning about consumption within something so seemingly simple.