Water Cooler c. 1937

Editor: Here we have Frank Fumagalli’s “Water Cooler,” created around 1937. The texture and color give it this almost sepia-toned, aged appearance. The image feels…archaic, almost. What draws your attention when you look at it? Curator: The “Water Cooler” immediately makes me think about the labor involved, both in its depiction and in its likely existence. Consider the materials. What looks like watercolour, possibly charcoal on aged paper - these suggest limited resources. Was it preliminary design, maybe? How would the water cooler, the *object*, have factored into social dynamics around labour at the time? Editor: You're right, it's easy to forget how the object represents so much more. Curator: Exactly! Its production—was it factory-made or handcrafted? The bird motif etched into it—is that folk art? It gives the piece social context. Consumption and utility play important roles here; what does it mean for workers to gather and share water from such a vessel? Editor: I didn't consider how the image is commenting on manufacturing as well. Curator: Think about its accessibility. A shared water cooler democratises something basic to living, regardless of someone's social status; this is especially important for working people who need access to water and who might be facing very different social and economic pressures otherwise. Editor: That’s a great perspective. I was initially drawn in by its simplicity, but now I see the layers relating to material conditions and labour practices. Curator: It challenges our assumptions about design and fine art itself. What value did this artist or the object's user see in representing everyday functional pieces such as this one? What is "art," versus craft versus daily labour, becomes an even harder, but far more relevant, distinction to parse when using that approach. Editor: Definitely a different angle than I usually take, but very insightful! Thanks!