Toneel met keizer Frederik III, 1594 1594

Curator: Editor: So, this is "Toneel met keizer Frederik III" from 1594. It's by an anonymous artist and made using engraving, and it feels so formal, almost like a stage set for a very serious play. The architectural detail is impressive for a print. What stands out to you in this piece? Curator: The choice of engraving is quite telling. Consider the labour involved in creating such intricate detail, multiplied by the number of prints produced. It’s not just an image of Frederick III, but also an industrial artifact reflecting early printing practices and the dissemination of power. Editor: I see your point. So, you’re less focused on *who* Frederick III was, and more on the *process* of making this image of him available? Curator: Precisely! Think about the paper, the ink, the press… each element representing a form of material investment in propagating this image and, consequently, his authority. Who would have commissioned such a print, and for what purpose? Editor: Maybe it was for official documents or distributed among nobles as a symbol of imperial power? I mean, engraving was the medium through which information, and therefore power, was often shared. Curator: Exactly. It blurs the line between art and propaganda, highlighting how artistic production was intertwined with political agendas and societal consumption. Does this consideration of the material production change how you perceive the work? Editor: Yes, definitely. Before, I saw just a historical portrait, but now I see a manufactured image meant to project power using the technology available at the time. The act of dissemination, not just the image itself, is significant. Curator: Indeed. By focusing on materiality and production, we reveal hidden narratives about power, labour, and consumption. Editor: That's given me so much to think about – moving past just seeing the image to thinking about *how* that image came to be and its impact as a material object. Thanks!