Monhegan (study) 1922

Editor: Here we have Nicholas Roerich's "Monhegan (study)," created in 1922 using pencil. It’s a simple landscape, and the sketched lines give it a raw, immediate feeling. What's your take on this piece? Curator: This drawing speaks volumes about artistic labour. Roerich's rapid strokes capture not only the likeness of Monhegan's landscape but also his direct interaction with the material world. Consider the humble pencil, the instrument of production here. It's a mass-produced item, yet in Roerich's hand, it becomes a tool for transforming the natural world into an aesthetic object. Editor: I see what you mean about the pencil itself. It’s almost easy to overlook something so commonplace. Does that relate to the "study" aspect of the title? Curator: Precisely! The term "study" suggests a preliminary stage, a work in progress. It pulls back the curtain on the art-making process, exposing the labor involved in translating observation into art. What was Roerich *doing* with this work? Was he planning a larger composition, exploring forms, or just *present* in this landscape, *with* his humble, mechanical pencil in hand? Editor: So, by focusing on the materiality and process, you're suggesting that even a seemingly simple sketch like this challenges traditional notions of artistic skill and value? Curator: Exactly. It asks us to consider the value not just in the final product, but also in the artistic labor and the relationship between the artist, his materials, and the social context in which he is working. Editor: That gives me a completely different way to appreciate it. Thanks! I was really focused on how spare and somewhat bleak the drawing looks but knowing more about the process highlights the value of everyday items used in the landscape-creation act. Curator: Right. Roerich highlights how common materials shape our view of grand landscapes. A simple thing to keep in mind.