Veiligheidspal van een geweer in twee delen before 1867

Curator: Here we have "Safety catch of a rifle in two parts", a print and drawing on paper by Edouard Magis, created before 1867. Editor: The piece has such austere detachment; it reminds me of a blueprint. So cool, precise, but with this slight antiquated, almost ghostly patina from the paper. What is your take? Curator: From a formal standpoint, what strikes me is the isolation of the mechanism. Its clean lines against the stark background emphasize its function, pure design distilled. It is about the structure and intent, the engineering aesthetic laid bare. Editor: Interesting that you should call it an “aesthetic.” As if tools of violence can somehow escape historical, socio-political accountability? How do we, as art historians today, reconcile this emphasis on precision and design with the violent purposes such a mechanism would inevitably serve? I wonder if we aren't normalizing violence by aestheticizing this? Curator: One can appreciate the objective arrangement of forms without endorsing their implications. To discuss the piece is to focus on the visual language being presented. The artist directs our focus on how component parts are structured, using subtle gradations of shade to indicate three dimensions. Editor: True, the arrangement isolates it—abstracted out of time or purpose but you could also suggest it does so disingenuously. Wouldn't engaging with the art require interrogating it, the systems, as they function in service of historical conflict? If we focus just on design we remove any human suffering. What we’re really avoiding is understanding Magis’s choices when he depicted this safety latch so artfully. Curator: And so, we each engage from our vantage point, one seeing beauty and one seeking purpose, both through form. Editor: Indeed. I think we agree, even where we differ, is what makes encountering art worthwhile!