Fish Series, No. 5 1917

Editor: Here we have Charles Demuth's "Fish Series, No. 5" from 1917, done in watercolor. It's dreamlike, almost like an underwater scene observed through fog. What can you tell me about this painting? Curator: The loose application of watercolor in "Fish Series, No. 5" is really telling. Demuth, often associated with Precisionism, surprises us here with its apparent spontaneity. But look closer at the pigments used, at the very material of the work. The diluted washes of color would have been readily available, a manufactured product accessible even then. How does this accessibility impact the perceived value of the piece, when compared to the laborious craft traditions of, say, oil painting? Editor: That's an interesting perspective. So, you're suggesting the chosen medium reflects something about value and access? Curator: Precisely. Consider also the 'subject matter' – fish, a readily available, consumable object. The act of depicting them in a 'high art' format, using mass-produced materials, blurs those artificial boundaries. This subversion challenges traditional artistic hierarchies. Think about where Demuth purchased these materials. Did that vendor offer a singular source of products? What conditions were those products assembled within? Editor: I see what you mean. It’s not just about the fish, it's about how accessible art-making was becoming and what materials the market had to offer. I'd never considered that the means of production played such a prominent role. Curator: And further, this wasn't a singular study, or rendering, Demuth called it "Fish Series, No. 5." Which leads one to infer an intentional pursuit of an objective, one born within the materials and the making. Editor: Wow, I'm definitely seeing this piece in a new light. Thanks for sharing your materialist perspective! Curator: My pleasure. Art history isn’t just about dates and titles, but the economic realities that shaped the very creation of the object.