Surf, Nantasket 1905

Editor: This is "Surf, Nantasket" by Maurice Prendergast, made around 1905. It looks like watercolor on paper. I'm really drawn to the loose brushstrokes and the almost dreamy quality of the scene, but I'm curious about the materiality of that dream. What should I be thinking about when considering this piece? Curator: Let's consider the paper itself, the cheapness and ready availability of watercolor paper at the time would have provided an accessible medium for depicting leisure and the everyday lives of people at Nantasket Beach. How does that inform our understanding of "high art" and who gets to create it? Editor: So, by using accessible materials like watercolor and paper, Prendergast democratized artmaking in a way? It wasn't oil on canvas for a wealthy patron. Curator: Precisely. Think about the societal shift: increased leisure time, rise of the middle class. This is reflected in the subject matter but also facilitated by readily available materials and techniques. Watercolors allowed him to rapidly capture impressions of this beach scene, rather than laboring on a single oil painting in a studio. Editor: I never considered the connection between materials and leisure! Does the speed of watercolor versus oil have anything to do with why this is Impressionistic? Curator: The quick, gestural strokes certainly lend themselves to the immediacy prized by Impressionism. And it is worth considering the labor, what’s been called “women’s work” and Prendergast's chosen medium; how it reflects broader societal structures, and preconceptions of 'high' and 'low' art forms. Editor: So, his material choices, particularly watercolor, place him within a complex network of societal values and biases related to artistic labor. Thanks, I have lots to consider now about how that accessibility impacted art. Curator: Indeed. Material choices speak volumes about an artist's context, and by understanding them, we understand the art more fully.