Untitled 1945

Editor: This "Untitled" oil painting, created by Mark Rothko in 1945, features ambiguous forms in muted tones of grey and black. It feels somewhat unresolved, like the end of something, or perhaps the tentative start of something else. What's your read on this piece? Curator: For me, Rothko’s early work like this begs examination of the materials. Consider the canvas: how readily available was it in 1945, immediately post-war? And the oil paint itself. Notice how Rothko thins the pigments, allowing for layered washes. The gesture is clearly visible. We’re seeing the labour, the act of making. Does that influence your interpretation of "unresolved?" Editor: Yes, that definitely reframes things. I hadn't considered the scarcity of materials influencing the artist's hand. Does this connect at all with abstract expressionism being born in New York? Curator: Precisely! New York’s ascendance as an art capital was deeply entwined with the materials available, the influx of European artists, and the socio-economic landscape. Consider the support systems in place – who bought these paintings, and how were they consumed? This wasn’t solely about artistic genius; it was about networks and material conditions. Editor: So, the materiality and the societal factors of production shape what we perceive as “art”? It sounds like what is at stake isn't solely the aesthetic choices that are made, but the larger social and economic conditions. Curator: Absolutely. Even in what appears abstract, we can trace the material and social forces at play. Looking closely at how the piece was made, when, and with what resources – helps dismantle the myth of the solitary genius, I would argue. Editor: Thanks, it seems that every brushstroke tells more than one story! This focus gives me an appreciation beyond mere visual impression. Curator: Exactly! Keep questioning those narratives; it’s a productive approach, definitely.