Cross c. 1937

Editor: Here we have Manuel G. Runyan’s "Cross," a watercolor and ink drawing from around 1937. It depicts an ornamental iron cross, but also what seems to be a blueprint for an entrance. The piece feels both reverent and technical at the same time. What do you see in this piece that I might be missing? Curator: Well, placing it in the late 1930s, we have to consider the context of the Works Progress Administration and its Federal Art Project. This may have been a design proposal for public works. It also makes me consider Runyan’s potential background – was he part of a specific religious community that influenced the design and his commissioning possibilities? How did he navigate being an artist perhaps tied to a religious institution and his own individual expression? Editor: That's fascinating, I hadn't considered the socio-political element at all! So the cross isn't just a religious symbol; it's potentially a public artwork proposal within a specific historical framework. The blueprint element also signals an artistic transaction. Curator: Precisely! Also, consider how museums shape perception. If this drawing were in a museum versus an architectural archive, wouldn't it change how we perceive its function and intent? The location informs its art "status". Editor: Absolutely, displaying it here reframes its potential role as design object versus art object. Curator: Exactly! Furthermore, the ironwork is a visual reference to working class labor during the era, something the WPA sought to memorialize. Who controlled the image-making is also a worthwhile avenue to analyze. Editor: So much to consider. The intersection of public art, religious iconography, and socio-economic factors in a single drawing is so exciting! I'm certainly rethinking the simplicity I initially saw. Curator: And I am reminded about the beauty and power of functional art that also bears cultural weight. Thanks for opening my eyes!