Inname van de schans bij Zutphen, 1591 1591 - 1593

Curator: Let's consider the engraving, “Inname van de schans bij Zutphen, 1591”. Look at how this image itself was made, its materiality: copper plate, ink, the printing press, all technologies shaping and disseminating knowledge about war. Editor: Right, this print depicts the siege, seemingly focusing on the details of the attack itself, a moment in history captured, right? I mean, how else could you explain the value of the intricate landscape other than it being...historical? What do you see? Curator: Not only historical but ideological. The printing of images like this—who owned the means of production, who controlled the narrative, who benefitted from its circulation? Notice how the landscape itself is carefully rendered, emphasizing Dutch control. We see the siege as a moment in an on-going historical class struggle, reflected through labour of production, printing and engraving techniques which is made reproducible and consumable. The scale of that labor... Editor: So, you're saying the print itself isn’t just *showing* a moment, but *participating* in the ongoing construction of national identity and dominance. Is the visual storytelling serving a kind of political messaging? Curator: Exactly! The physical making and dissemination of this print solidified particular narratives of Dutch strength. Do we see here, not only a capture of physical locations, but the consolidation of historical authority through the reproducible image. Even consumption patterns of such prints, their ownership and circulation contribute to the narrative power it possessed. Editor: It's really amazing how this materialist perspective shifts our understanding from just the event depicted, to understanding who commissioned, manufactured, consumed and benefited from representing this "victory". Curator: Precisely, it grounds our understanding. Editor: It gives a new way to see this engraving. Thanks for shining the spotlight.