Portret van Louis Moritz c. 1819 - 1921

Editor: Here we have a pencil drawing, "Portret van Louis Moritz," thought to be from around 1819 to 1921, by an anonymous artist. There's a certain formality to the subject, but the medium gives it a relaxed, almost intimate feel. What do you make of it? Curator: It's interesting how the perceived anonymity of the artist shapes our viewing. A portrait from this period immediately invokes questions of patronage and social standing. Who was Louis Moritz? And why was he drawn, but not, apparently, by a known artist? The ambiguity, in fact, could be a deliberate commentary on class. Editor: Commentary on class? How so? Curator: Well, think about the rise of the middle class in the 19th century and their aspirations. Portraiture had traditionally been the domain of the aristocracy. An 'anonymous' artist producing a likeness like this, perhaps lacking in the polish of academic painters, hints at a democratization of the image, accessible to a wider segment of society. The pencil medium lends itself to this accessibility, no? Editor: That's a great point; I hadn't considered how the *means* of production plays into the message itself. Does the looseness of the sketch play into this? Curator: Precisely. The less formal approach signals a shift away from rigid societal hierarchies. This ‘sketchbook drawing,’ as some tag it, reflects a desire for familiarity rather than imposing grandeur. And this was produced possibly at a moment when photography was developing which democratised art-making in other ways. What’s your sense of this? Editor: That certainly changes my initial read. I thought it was just a quick sketch, but seeing it as a potential social statement...I’m going to look at similar portraits through that lens now. Thanks! Curator: Indeed! Consider the sociopolitical currents, and you unlock a whole new layer of meaning in even the simplest sketch.