Each year, the Art Institute of Chicago hosts University PartnerFest, an open day of programming and networking opportunities for university students interested in museum careers. As part of PartnerFest programming, students are invited to give gallery talks about chosen works of art on view at the Art Institute. On February 21, 2026, Block Student Associates Ethan Bledsoe and Isaac Lageschulte represented Northwestern with their gallery talks.
Ethan Bledsoe (Environmental Science, 2026) took a moment to reflect on touring Peter Blume’s The Rock (1944–48)
I learned a rather unexpected lesson from Partner Fest. I had originally planned to present Madawaska — Acadian Light-Heavy. I was instantly drawn in by the brushwork and the strong, physical figure at the center of the composition, but what really captivated me was the queer undercurrent in the work: the way it plays with masculinity and desire in ways that felt personal and resonant. When I found out the gallery would be closed and I’d have to choose something else, I was genuinely disappointed.
A friend in the BMSA program suggested The Rock by Peter Blume, and with a short timeline, I decided to go with it. My research didn’t particularly excite me at first. The painting was commissioned for the owners of Fallingwater, the famous Frank Lloyd Wright home, at the end of World War II. While this is an interesting context, it didn’t grab me personally the way my first choice did. Seeing it in person didn’t help much either. I love paintings where you can see the brushwork up close, and The Rock is so carefully rendered that there’s almost no visible texture at all.
But as I started presenting, all the research I had done fell into place, and I found myself engaging with the work in a way I hadn’t expected. In the moment, I was crafting the story as I went, talking to dozens of people who passed by. Some saw the central form (which I’d always read as the rock) as an egg or even a planet cracking open. The conversations were rich: the iconography of the Coke sign, the tension between Europe and America in the aftermath of WWII and the Blitz, the difference between seeing destruction or reconstruction in the image. Many conversations also centered on viewing the work through a modern lens and on what the piece said about environmental devastation and climate change.
“I loved the polarization that comes with discussing a work that is not universally liked — the opposing viewpoints, the different interpretations, the tension between perspectives.”
I also had a lot of fun with the simple question of whether people liked it….and many didn’t. While this may seem like a disappointing response after spending many hours researching the piece, guiding them through careful close looking, connecting key historical facts, and posing critical questions was itself rewarding. The truth is “liking” wasn’t my job, and I didn’t even fully like it myself.
And yet, it was my favorite art talk I’ve ever given. So often, I find myself moving through museums superficially, only engaging with works I immediately connect with. I loved the polarization that comes with discussing a work that is not universally liked—the opposing viewpoints, the different interpretations, the tension between perspectives. Most of all, I loved that people spent time with a work they didn’t even like, something they might not have considered otherwise. Partner Fest served as an important reminder that you don’t have to love a work to find something meaningful in it.
