Sous-Bois 

Editor: So, this oil painting, "Sous-Bois" by Léo Gausson, it’s undated but I'm immediately struck by the sheer physicality of the paint. You can practically feel the texture of the forest floor. How do you approach a piece like this? Curator: It's precisely that tactile quality that grabs me. This impasto technique speaks volumes. Gausson's application of oil paint, dabbed on so thickly, moves us beyond mere representation. It’s not just *of* a forest; it's a constructed, material forest. We have to consider the labour involved, the sheer amount of pigment used, and how that might have impacted its value and reception. Think of the Impressionists’ move to painting *en plein air*. Editor: Yes! And painting *en plein air* surely connects with the process... it also suggests that the materiality of what's immediately available might be impactful. It is also Impressionist-inspired work, and this movement brought paintings to modern people, modern topics... It doesn't quite strike me as revolutionary, however. Curator: Good. "Revolutionary" can be a trap. Instead, consider the context. Who was buying landscapes like these? Were they for an emerging middle class eager to display their refined tastes through consumables such as "art", and that this artist here may also attempt at redefining what *fine art* really is. Gausson's "Sous-Bois", made with such tangible substance, offered a *taste* of the countryside—but pre-packaged and easy to exhibit as if one was collecting trophies after hunting season. In any case, why would the consumer rather pay for a realistic depiction, if there was one, rather than the Impressionist representation here? Editor: So it's not just about *seeing* nature, but owning a piece of it, a processed and easily exhibited piece that also questions existing high art conceptions. It does give me something to ponder. Curator: Exactly. By focusing on materials and the social dynamics of production, we can dig beyond the surface prettiness.