Candlestick c. 1745

Curator: This silver Candlestick, from around 1745, showcases beautiful Baroque craftsmanship. Its elegant curves and the way light plays across the metal are just captivating. What catches your eye about it? Editor: The material itself. It looks heavy, durable...more like a functional object than a purely decorative one, despite all the ornamentation. How much would the price of silver itself have factored into the piece, beyond the artisan's labor? Curator: Exactly! We should think about this candlestick in terms of resource extraction, trade routes, and colonial economies. The value isn't just in the crafted object but in the material itself, ripped from the earth, transported, and transformed through labor. Does the chasing change your impression? Editor: It does, slightly. The detail definitely elevates it from the purely functional, adding value, so it becomes both an object of utility and of status. Does this period's decoration carry some kind of meaning in it? Curator: It certainly does, but meaning is often constructed through display and consumption, reflecting the social status and aspirations of its owner. A piece like this speaks to a whole network of craftspeople. Goldsmiths, silversmiths, those mining the silver… Can we truly separate artistic expression from those networks? Editor: No, I suppose not. I hadn’t thought about the mining aspect. The process of making art isn't just the artist, it’s deeply social. I am wondering now about its relationship to class... Curator: Precisely! And how the production and consumption of such an object reinforces class distinctions. That’s the heart of a materialist reading, connecting aesthetics to economic and social realities. I think about those laborers often overlooked when the candlestick is looked upon... Editor: I never would have looked at a candlestick through that lens. Thank you, this new perspective is deeply illuminating.