Hat c. 1937

Editor: This pencil drawing from around 1937, simply titled "Hat," presents a curious, unfinished quality. The face is blank, almost like a mannequin. I’m struck by how this absence affects my reading of the symbolic weight of the floral wreath. How do you interpret this work, especially in light of that vacant space where a face should be? Curator: The anonymity is precisely the point. This isn't a portrait of an individual, but an exploration of adornment and its psychological implications. Consider the rose—a universal symbol of love, beauty, and even secrecy, the “sub rosa”. Here, it sits atop a laurel, traditionally signifying victory or status. Does the absence of a face allow us to project our own desires or expectations onto this image? Editor: That’s a really interesting point, projecting desires. The classical laurel combined with the single rose creates this blend of achievement and romance… But wouldn't that be more powerful with a face? Curator: Perhaps. But the facelessness might serve to amplify the collective unconscious surrounding these symbols. We recognize the cultural memory embedded in the rose and laurel irrespective of the individual wearing them. Whose victory is it? Whose love? Is it an archetype, a stand-in for anyone or everyone? The hand below suggests careful selection. Editor: So, it’s less about personal identity and more about the broader language of imagery… I hadn’t considered that. Curator: Exactly! It invites us to examine how we interpret and internalize symbols, recognizing their power regardless of a specific context. And perhaps to question, even subvert, those pre-existing notions. What emotional significance do you now attribute to this composition? Editor: I’m starting to see it as a blank canvas for symbolic meaning, which is far more engaging than a literal portrait might have been. Thanks, I’ll think of it differently now. Curator: Precisely. Sometimes what isn't there speaks volumes.