Landschap c. 1903

Editor: So, here we have "Landschap," or "Landscape," by George Hendrik Breitner, circa 1903. It's a pencil drawing on paper, and there's something really raw and immediate about the sketchiness of the lines. What's your take on it? Curator: This work, with its direct and unrefined application of pencil, provides us with insight into the artist's process, right? It pushes against the conventional understanding of finished "art." Breitner wasn't necessarily concerned with illusionism, but rather with recording his immediate, sensory experience of a landscape, and the marks become the landscape. How do we place value on this act of mark making? Editor: That's fascinating. I hadn't really considered it in terms of value, beyond the finished piece itself. How would you say the social context factors into this appreciation? Curator: Think about the early 20th century in the Netherlands. There's rapid industrialization and urbanization. An artist choosing to depict a landscape, even in this rough form, can be seen as an act of resistance or, at the very least, a commentary on a changing world. Pencil as the material is cheap and accessible. Could that be the choice to show democracy? Editor: So, the choice of something as simple as pencil elevates the act of creation, not just the result. It kind of democratizes art-making, right? And positions labor, in art terms. I didn’t think about how this connects. Curator: Precisely. It asks us to question what we deem worthy of our attention and consider the socio-economic implications embedded within even the simplest of materials. What a revolutionary notion! Editor: That totally changes how I see not only this drawing but also other sketches and preliminary works. Thanks, that gives me so much to consider. Curator: It's been enlightening for me as well, reaffirming the importance of seeing art through the lens of materiality and the act of creation itself.