Interiør fra samme Ruin 1806 1806

Editor: This is "Interiør fra samme Ruin 1806," by Jes Bundsen. It’s an etching, almost like a detailed architectural drawing. I’m immediately struck by the contrast between the decaying structure and the artist's careful rendering. How would you approach an interpretation of this print? Curator: My eye immediately goes to the means of production. Consider the labour involved in etching, the repetitive, painstaking process of biting the image into the metal plate. The artist chose this medium, this method, to depict ruin, decay… do you see the irony? Editor: I see what you mean. There's an enormous amount of effort put into illustrating something that’s literally falling apart. Curator: Exactly! The act of creation is pitted against the forces of destruction. The consumption of images, the way these prints were circulated… consider them as commodities themselves. Who consumed images of ruins, and why? What needs did these kinds of artworks meet, on a societal level? Editor: That makes me think about how prints were often made to disseminate images to a wider audience than paintings could reach. Perhaps there was a market for these kinds of Romantic images? Curator: Precisely! Romanticism was deeply tied to the consumption and display of… well, things. Nostalgia becomes a marketable sentiment. Notice, too, the very material the ruin is made of, most likely stone, being slowly turned back into raw material itself. What kind of labour went into quarrying it? Editor: Wow, I hadn’t considered it from that angle. So much to unpack, beyond just the pretty image of the ruin itself. I think I have a much better grasp now of how much these kind of depictions meant to their audiences, and how art meets needs and expectations. Curator: Indeed. By focusing on the materiality and the means of production, we see how even depictions of decay are enmeshed in larger social and economic systems. There’s labour and capital everywhere!