Kroning van Willem III en Maria II Stuart 1689

Curator: Editor: Here we have a metal medal from 1689 depicting the coronation of William III and Mary II Stuart, made by an anonymous artist. It seems like a very official object, something mass-produced for distribution. What are your thoughts on it? Curator: I find the very medium telling. Metal endures, speaks of power, and facilitates replication. This isn't simply an image; it’s a material assertion of power distributed through the economy. It speaks volumes about the societal value placed on permanence and propagation of the image. Who were these given to, and what social stratification did the ownership of such object reveal? Editor: That’s interesting! I hadn’t thought about the choice of metal as inherently tied to power and dissemination. So, are you suggesting the medal is more than just a commemorative object? Curator: Exactly. Think about the labor involved, the mining of materials, the skills required to strike these medals in multiples. This speaks of organized production, reflecting the centralized control associated with royalty. What statement does this level of production send to the working population of that time? How are the costs for that paid for? Editor: So it is a symbolic representation of power and the material evidence of its distribution. The cost becomes a declaration. Curator: Precisely! Consider the metal itself: where did it originate? Was it locally sourced, or was it extracted from colonial territories? The answers inform us of how power operates on both national and global levels. The consumption is what drives the symbolic association we now have, and which the Royalty benefited from. Editor: This medal really has made me rethink how to analyze an artwork as a form of material power. Curator: Indeed, it's a fascinating case study in the intersection of art, industry, and social authority. I never quite realised the impact it would have when delving deeper into art's raw components.