Kwitantie voor Charles Rochussen Possibly 1865

Editor: Here we have "Kwitantie voor Charles Rochussen," possibly from 1865, made by Frans Buffa en Zonen. It's ink on paper, a receipt, almost like a beautiful handwritten document. The calligraphy is amazing. How should we look at something like this? Curator: I think focusing on the materiality helps us understand its value. It’s not just about what the receipt *says,* but how it was *made*. The paper itself, the type of ink, the penmanship – these are all indicative of a specific social context and labor. Editor: Labor? You mean the act of writing it out? Curator: Exactly. Think about the labor involved in creating this document. Someone had to have the skill to create calligraphy, demonstrating mastery, precision and training in artisanal skill. Consider the paper, probably handmade. It invites the question: What social structures afforded the production and consumption of such things? Editor: That's interesting. I was just seeing it as a pretty old receipt, but now I am also thinking about it more critically. How does that all elevate it from functional document to a work we might consider art? Curator: Precisely! By questioning the traditional hierarchy that separates ‘high art’ from craft. The labor, materiality, and purpose aren't just background - they're integral to our understanding. Who profited and at what cost were pieces like these produced? It requires critical insight into production and maker to understand our values then, versus now. Editor: That completely changes my perception. I had initially skipped past the "receipt" aspect and gone directly to calligraphic aspects, without realizing labor had as much of a role. Curator: Well, considering all of these aspects now offers so much more appreciation, wouldn’t you say? Editor: Absolutely, I’ll definitely keep all this in mind moving forward.