Panel c. 20th century

Editor: This is a cotton textile panel from the 20th century. It features a geometric pattern of deep red against a darker red backdrop. The repetition is striking, creating a powerful visual effect. What’s your take on this, seeing as how there is no credited author? Curator: Well, that anonymity is key, isn’t it? We’re immediately positioned to consider this panel outside the cult of the individual artist, pushing us to consider its cultural function instead. The piece gestures toward the Pattern and Decoration movement. This challenged the art world’s hierarchy that privileged painting and sculpture. It pushed against the minimalist aesthetic of the 1970s by embracing ornamentation and “craft” media traditionally associated with the domestic and the feminine. Who was making this piece, and what social structures defined their place in art history? Editor: That's fascinating. I hadn't thought about the rejection of minimalism. Do you think the artist was intentionally making a political statement? Curator: Intention is difficult to ascertain without further information, but consider the subversive potential: the elevation of textile work – often dismissed as ‘craft’ or ‘women’s work’ – to the level of fine art is inherently a political act. Furthermore, repeated geometric shapes create their own language. What stories do they tell, especially knowing the historical suppression of women and people of color in design? Editor: It is thought-provoking how something seemingly decorative can carry such powerful cultural weight. The concept of reclamation here is powerful, to think about its historical implications and future potential. Curator: Exactly. By centering traditionally marginalized art forms, the artwork compels us to consider who gets to define “art” and what kinds of narratives get told in our museums. Editor: I’m walking away with a broader understanding of the cultural politics at play!