Egypt, Day and Night: No. 135 1978

Editor: Okay, here we have Keith Achepohl's "Egypt, Day and Night: No. 135," made with watercolor and drawing in 1978. I find its use of geometry and color really striking – almost like looking at an abstract temple. What's your interpretation of it? Curator: The "temple" you see isn't far off. Abstraction became a powerful means for artists in the latter half of the 20th century to explore spirituality and to evoke a sense of the monumental without directly representing it. Considering its date and title, it makes sense to see the work not only as a modernist formal exercise but as a commentary on cultural heritage viewed through the lens of personal experience. Given its socio-political context, it questions what aspects of ‘Egypt’ are shown and circulated? Editor: That's interesting. So, it's not just about geometric shapes, but also about how Egypt is portrayed, and *who* gets to do the portraying? Are you saying that museums or art institutions are shaping the way we view “Egypt”? Curator: Exactly. Think about which artists and artworks are selected for display. Whose version of "Egypt" are we seeing? And whose voices are being left out? This can powerfully shape public perceptions. Perhaps Achepohl here presents a deliberately pared-down, abstract version, subtly pointing towards the constructed nature of any representation. Editor: So, by abstracting it, he is actually highlighting the potential biases of more representational depictions. I hadn't thought about it that way. Curator: It encourages us to consider the social and institutional forces behind what we see and understand. The artist seems to be making his own quiet intervention into the established narratives. What does all of this bring to light, in your view? Editor: This makes me realize there's so much more than just what's on the surface with abstract art. The history behind why an artist abstracts something, and the conversation that begins… it is definitely illuminating. Thanks!