As the painting movement gained momentum in early 1971, artists sought whatever materials they could find. This work is created on a scrap of fibro-cement once used as a construction material for a home. Designs such as these led Bardon to assume that they represented a “hieroglyphic” system that could be read like a book and decoded using a key chart of “archetypes” or symbols. This theory was important in making non-Aboriginal viewers recognize that these designs were more than merely decorative, but it also led to misconceptions and oversimplification. Sometimes artists use the same symbol to mean different things, or one symbol will have multiple layers of meaning. The symbols used are part of a deeply layered understanding of the world, and artists often provide interpretations of their work to communicate its significance. As the artist and subject of this painting are unknown, it is impossible to determine the precise subject, and yet it shows the excitement of artists exploring their traditional designs in a new medium.

Even though the painter’s name and the story of this painting are not known to us, this humble work reveals much about his urge to record important knowledge using whatever materials were at hand. It carries us back to Papunya where, in 1971, the materials available to artists could not keep up with the demand. . .  Lack of quality materials was not sufficient to diminish the enthusiasm of Papunya’s early painters, who worked feverishly to document their extensive knowledge of country and Tjukurrpa (Dreaming). And, as if one side of this small board was not sufficient to contain the grandness of the story being represented, the artist also painted the other side. This raw and vivid painting looks as if it were manifested from little more than its maker’s own will and knowledge. Professor Fred Myers says Pintupi men often remarked “Tjukurrtjanu mularrarringu” (from the Dreaming, it became real), when discussing their artworks; this painting captures that concept exactly.