Horloge van zilver c. 1700 - 1725

Editor: Here we have a silver clock, probably dating from 1700 to 1725. The silver gives it a somewhat severe, reflective appearance. What statements about social structures of its era do you think such an item can make? Curator: This seemingly simple object speaks volumes about power and control in the early 18th century. Timekeeping, once determined by natural rhythms, became increasingly regulated and privatized. This silver clock, a luxury item, represents the elite's ability to literally own time, setting a standard against which other social classes were measured, and even judged. How do you perceive its relationship to broader societal changes? Editor: That's fascinating. I hadn't thought about it that way. I guess having access to precise time was a privilege. Curator: Exactly. Think about labor, trade, and the rise of capitalism. This isn’t merely a time-telling device; it is a tool for imposing new disciplines, fostering what some might consider modes of control and standardization. How might marginalized communities, like enslaved people, have experienced this "advancement" of timekeeping? Editor: I see your point. It probably increased their exploitation. Everything was geared towards increased "efficiency." I'm getting an eerie sense that this beautiful object has something evil at its roots. Curator: Precisely! Reflect on whose time mattered, whose labor fueled the wealth to acquire such pieces, and whose time was stolen, regulated, or devalued. This helps to recognize the profound ethical issues embedded within the art object. Editor: That is something that completely escaped me at first glance. Thank you for pointing this out. I will certainly try to use intersectionality when looking at art from now on! Curator: And I thank you for your thoughts, as they serve to validate and contextualize an area often overlooked, even within expert analysis!