Road in the Cuyamacas 1934

Editor: This is Charles Reiffel’s "Road in the Cuyamacas," painted in 1934. It’s an oil painting and strikes me as a classic landscape, yet there’s something…sturdy about it. The paint is laid on thick, almost like the rocks it depicts. What do you see in this piece? Curator: I see a potent connection between material and subject. Reiffel doesn’t just depict a landscape; he builds it with the same substance – earth pigments suspended in oil – that comprise it. Consider the visible brushstrokes, the impasto; the labour is apparent, connecting the artist's physical effort to the arduousness of traversing such a terrain. Editor: So, the visible process is key? Like we’re witnessing the actual making, the labour, not just the image? Curator: Precisely. And in 1934, during the Depression, that emphasis on labor would resonate. The Regionalist style is a conscious choice, reflecting a turn away from European modernism and towards distinctly American scenes and, implicitly, American workers. Look at how the road itself is rendered: less as a picturesque path, more as a hard-won intervention in the landscape. What materials do you think contributed to this particular effect? Editor: The thickness of the paint, definitely. Maybe even a deliberate use of coarser pigments to evoke that sense of roughness? Curator: Exactly. He’s using materiality to express not just the look, but the feel, the *reality* of the Cuyamacas. The consumption is removed. Editor: That makes me think about the viewer, too. We're not just passively observing; we're invited to consider the process, the land itself, and its place in society. Curator: Absolutely. It's a far cry from romantic landscapes designed purely for aesthetic consumption. This engages with the realities of making and being in a specific place, at a specific time. Editor: That gives me a totally new perspective on landscape painting. It’s not just pretty scenery; it’s about material engagement and social commentary. Thanks!