Glass Pitcher c. 1940

Editor: Here we have Elisabeth Fulda's "Glass Pitcher," created around 1940, rendered with pencil and watercolor. There’s something so delicate about it, yet it also feels incredibly ordinary. How should we approach interpreting a piece like this? Curator: We must consider its materiality. What does glass, as a material, represent within its social context? This isn’t just about a pitcher; it’s about industrial production and the democratizing of domestic objects. The choice of pencil and watercolor further emphasizes accessibility. Editor: So you're saying the value isn’t necessarily in the pitcher itself, but in its availability to a wider public due to manufacturing processes? Curator: Precisely! We must also examine the means of production for both the glass and the image itself. The artist isn't just depicting an object, but participating in a cycle of creation and consumption. How might the accessibility of the artistic materials—pencil and watercolor—comment on the broader consumer landscape? Editor: I never thought about it that way, focusing on how everyday objects are produced and become accessible! Curator: What I find most fascinating is the link between the glass pitcher and the artistic means used to represent it. What can these combined material processes reveal about consumer culture and production in the 1940s? Editor: Looking at it that way, I can appreciate that it is much more than just a simple depiction of a glass pitcher. I suppose focusing on the means of production gives you an entire new way to discuss art history. Thank you. Curator: Indeed. Focusing on material production makes us consider social context and questions long-held beliefs around artistry. It challenges preconceived notions of consumer culture.