Egbert Benson 1791 - 1794

Editor: So here we have John Vanderlyn’s “Egbert Benson,” painted with oils sometime between 1791 and 1794. The crispness of his ruffled collar really catches my eye. It looks incredibly delicate. I'm curious, what stands out to you about this painting? Curator: I find myself drawn to the materiality of the portrait. Consider the canvas, the oil paints – these were not simply commodities, but products of complex systems of labor and trade. The linen likely originated in Europe, where flax cultivation and weaving were deeply embedded in specific social and economic relations. And how would Vanderlyn even aquire these specific materials in his time? Editor: So the materials themselves are a story? Curator: Exactly. Look at the darkness of Benson’s coat, achieved through specific pigments, some of which might have been rare and expensive. This connects directly to notions of class, power, and even global exploitation, right? Benson can show wealth through the work involved to have that dark shade of expensive cloth. Editor: Wow, I never thought about it like that. What about his ruffled collar? You can tell it's lace by just looking. Curator: A detail that also tells a material story. Consider the skilled labor involved in creating such fine lace and the access someone needs to acquire it. It wasn't simply a fashion statement but a visual marker of economic status made from expensive goods that involve an enormous manufacturing. Editor: So, analyzing the materiality isn't just about the paint on the canvas, but about unpacking a whole network of production, labor, and value? Curator: Precisely. And in doing so, we can challenge the notion that this is simply a portrait of an important man; it is a artifact enmeshed in broader systems of production and consumption that defined this era. It's important to recognize Vanderlyn’s social class when painting it, too! Editor: I'll never look at a portrait the same way again. There's a whole hidden world embedded in the materials!