Mug 1795 - 1816

Editor: So, this is a metal mug made by Samuel Danforth sometime between 1795 and 1816. It’s surprisingly...stark. Almost brutally simple in its design. What catches your eye about it? Curator: For me, it's all about the materiality. Consider the social context of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Metal objects like this weren’t just lying around; they represented a significant investment of labor and resources. We have to remember who was likely drinking from this. Were they thinking about who mined and worked the material? Editor: Probably not at the time, but it’s an important thing to think about today. Is the material significant in any other ways? Curator: Absolutely. The choice of material itself dictates the mug's form. Metal allows for a certain robustness. It's designed for use, for sustenance. Do you think it challenges notions about what belongs in a museum? Editor: Well, sure. Is it art or craft, right? A functional mug... But thinking about the labor involved, like you said, elevates it. It becomes less about aesthetics and more about the human effort, a tangible thing shaped by society. Curator: Precisely! We see here how a mundane object can illuminate broader social structures, blurring the lines between utilitarian object and art historical artifact. Editor: It really makes you consider the lives and labor behind even the simplest objects we take for granted. Curator: Indeed. Materiality speaks volumes, if we know how to listen.