Portret van Pieter Bon c. 1860 - 1880

Editor: Here we have an undated, though likely from the 1860s to 1880s, photograph titled "Portret van Pieter Bon," rendered in daguerreotype and gelatin-silver print. The tones are lovely, but slightly faded. How would you approach thinking about a piece like this? Curator: Considering it's a gelatin-silver print, we must first recognize its production context. It reflects industrial advances allowing for mass reproduction of images, which profoundly democratized portraiture. What socioeconomic status might Bon have had to afford even this reproducible likeness? Editor: Presumably, he was reasonably well off. He's very smartly dressed. Curator: Exactly! This leads to questions about consumption. Who was buying these portraits? What role did such images play in constructing and reinforcing social hierarchies? Was the print itself considered precious, or was it merely functional? Think, too, about the labor involved: from the photographer’s skill in handling the developing process, to the labor in silver mining. These are material processes shaping our reading of the image. Editor: So, beyond the likeness, the photograph’s real significance lies in what it can tell us about industrialization and consumerism? Curator: Precisely. It is less about "who" Pieter Bon was and more about "how" and "why" his portrait came into being through particular production processes and systems of material exchange. What does the ability to reproduce and possess images do to the social fabric? The way they are manufactured, distributed and finally received and preserved affects our understanding of art, and culture more broadly. Editor: I never thought about the materiality of photographs so critically before, especially regarding broader social consumption. I'll definitely keep that in mind. Curator: Wonderful! Understanding production, labor and materials brings fresh perspectives on familiar art.