Stephan Schlick, graaf van Passau, gevallen in de slag bij Mohacs 1526

Editor: So, this is a bronze relief engraving from 1526 commemorating Stephan Schlick, Count of Passau, who died at the Battle of Mohács. It's small, coin-like, and somewhat somber given its historical subject. What strikes you about this piece? Curator: For me, it’s about considering this object's function and the socioeconomic conditions of its creation. Who commissioned it? How would bronze production influence its dissemination? Editor: That’s a good point. I was focusing on the artistic merit, but who made it, and for whom, surely dictated its design. Did its being bronze impact how many people would have had access to it? Curator: Absolutely. Bronze wasn't cheap. This wasn't mass-produced; each would've been carefully crafted, and likely intended for display within a specific social sphere. Consider too the labour involved – mining, smelting, engraving... How does that change our view of Schlick’s death being memorialized this way? Editor: It frames it less as personal grief, and more as a political or social statement, doesn't it? Like the material itself elevates him even in death. So this isn't just about Schlick; it's about power, industry, and memory carefully mediated through the materials used. Curator: Precisely. The very stuff it's made of tells a richer story. Considering that this historical figure lost his life on the battlefield, it creates an intersection of consumption, labor, loss, and power within this single memorial object. What will you take away from that? Editor: I hadn't thought about the socioeconomics inherent in art, but viewing its production and reception in this light uncovers the intricate narratives it presents. Now, seeing the human hand involved at multiple levels brings another level of appreciation. Thanks!