Anthony van Dyck (1599-1641). Schilder 1711

Editor: So this is "Anthony van Dyck, Schilder", a self-portrait rendered in oil on panel, dating to 1711. The small scale of the piece draws me in, it feels quite intimate. What are your initial thoughts? Curator: I'm struck by the labour involved, both in Van Dyck's original execution and Richter's later engraving. Oil paint allowed for a level of detail and blending impossible in fresco. Consider the cost of pigments then and now - what choices did Richter make when creating this print, and what societal pressures would drive him to reproduce this particular image? Editor: I hadn't thought about the engraving process that much. What was the social status of a printmaker versus a painter at this time? Did reproducing someone's likeness affect their value? Curator: Exactly. Think about the implications of reproducibility, about access. Paintings were for the wealthy. Prints? These democratized images. Richter is creating a commodity from van Dyck's labour and talent, and in doing so both celebrates and alters its inherent worth. What kind of consumption would these prints have enabled or spurred? Editor: That's a perspective I hadn't considered. The process of replication changes the function, even the 'aura,' of the work. Curator: Precisely! We can ask similar questions to contextualize art and making: what raw materials were readily available, what skills were in demand, and what socioeconomic hierarchies were involved? Editor: I find myself thinking very differently about the artistic production involved after understanding materiality. Thanks. Curator: A materialist approach reframes familiar works! Seeing art this way allows you to think beyond individual genius to the vast network of human and natural resources necessary for its creation and dissemination.