Hollyhocks 

Editor: Looking at what we have here, which I believe is Mariano Fortuny's painting "Hollyhocks", done probably as a plein-air study with oil paint. It really strikes me how thick the paint is, almost like he's sculpted the flowers. How would you interpret this work? Curator: It’s interesting to note the materiality of this piece, as you pointed out. Consider the implications of Fortuny, known for his detailed Orientalist scenes, turning to something as seemingly simple as hollyhocks. The thick impasto you mentioned, visible labor, removes it from the slick academic paintings he often produced. How might this shift in materials and process be read in terms of artistic production and perhaps a changing market for art? Editor: That's a great point! So, you're saying that by using a more visible, textured technique, Fortuny might be responding to a shift in what people valued in art? Showing the work, the materiality, almost making it a commodity in itself? Curator: Precisely! Think about the rise of Impressionism and its emphasis on capturing fleeting moments and the artist's subjective experience. This method of production, so focused on the application of the paint itself, makes you wonder: Is this simply a study, a product, or something else entirely within the rapidly shifting art world? Also, the garden wasn't an established topic for such artworks. It does pose an interesting view on labour class that took care of gardens for wealthy people, so this scene might have deeper, even though it may be unintentional, political tones. Editor: That gives me a completely new way of thinking about it. The shift from detailed scenes to, essentially, focusing on just the "making" of art opens a lot of possibilities. Curator: It’s about questioning what constitutes ‘art’ and examining the means of its creation. Editor: Okay, that really helped to unpack the materials and context to deepen my understanding of this work!