Monument van de tetrarchen aan de gevel van de San Marco te Venetië c. 1882 - 1892

Editor: Here we have what's titled "Monument van de tetrarchen aan de gevel van de San Marco te Venetië", an image, probably a print of a sculpture from around 1882-1892. They look pretty stoic. I’m curious how we can analyze such an artwork? Curator: Considering its materiality and context, it's key to investigate not just *what* is depicted but *how* and *why*. These sculptures, the originals in porphyry, represent shared power. What implications arise when we examine the process of extracting, transporting, and carving such a material, and how that impacts their political function? Editor: The material as a symbol of power… Interesting. Does the fact that it's shown in print format later, almost as documentation, affect this in your eyes? Curator: Absolutely. A print democratizes access, but simultaneously abstracts the material reality of porphyry. Consider the labor involved in both the original carving and the subsequent printing. Does the print become a commodity, disassociated from the original power statement? Editor: So, are you saying that by analyzing the production and reproduction of this work, we are actually challenging its original message of power, shifting our focus towards the makers involved at different levels? Curator: Precisely! We are interrogating the hands involved, the economic structures that facilitated its creation and dissemination, thereby highlighting social context as it has changed across time. What’s your perspective on it now? Editor: I see now that it’s not just about the emperors and their shared power, but also about the labor of those who made that statement possible, both then and in its printed form. Thanks! Curator: Indeed, the materiality and methods leave traces of labor and economy embedded within its reception throughout history. A good materialist question.