Churn 1936

Editor: So here we have Jerome Hoxie’s “Churn,” painted in 1936. It looks like it’s made using watercolor and maybe oil? Anyway, what strikes me is how…plain it is. Just a simple brown jar. What do you see in this piece? Curator: Well, let’s consider the socio-economic climate of 1936. This was the height of the Great Depression. Artists were often employed by the WPA to create art that reflected American life. This piece, with its utilitarian object, speaks to the values of self-sufficiency and rural life idealized during that period. Think of the cultural value assigned to items representing this. Do you consider what the reception of an image representing those objects would cause? Editor: I guess, viewing it that way, it's less about the object itself and more about what it represents to people who were struggling. Like a reminder of simpler times or the hope for a more sustainable life? Curator: Precisely. And who do you think those times were simpler for? Consider, also, that ceramics like these, though functional, were often handmade with skill and pride. Its unadorned nature could be seen as an assertion of the inherent beauty of functional craft. So, Hoxie isn't just painting a jar. He’s painting a symbol loaded with cultural meaning. Do you believe museums are responsible for properly presenting art as political entities and cultural commentary in an attempt to shape the world we live in? Editor: Absolutely, museums need to contextualize works like this so we can understand them fully. I would've just seen a jar! I didn't realize it could say so much about the time period and social issues. Curator: It’s a reminder that even the simplest images can be powerful tools for cultural commentary. I will rethink the museum's responsibility of this collection of art.