Temple of Hyphaestus 1890

Editor: So, this is "Temple of Hyphaestus" by Themistocles von Eckenbrecher, made around 1890. It's a print, which feels interesting. It's so detailed, almost photographic in its precision, but it’s a landscape drawing of a cityscape. How should we interpret this? Curator: Look at the marks, the lines repeated to describe architectural elements, the varied strokes to simulate foliage. What kind of labor goes into reproducing a "landscape" of a historical site as a mass-produced print in the late 19th century? Think about who consumes this image and what their relationship is to classical antiquity and to Athens. Editor: Well, prints would be accessible, maybe more democratic? It could bring the image of the Temple to a wider audience than, say, an oil painting would. Curator: Precisely. So, consider the socio-economic context: the rise of the middle class, the expansion of tourism, the market for “artistic” reproductions. How does the print’s status as a commodity, manufactured and consumed, influence our perception of the depicted "temple?" And even more than the Temple - how much attention does Eckenbrecher give the labour of rendering the natural setting, perhaps valorizing a type of "primitive" labour of making by hand? Editor: I never thought of it that way. I suppose it’s not just about showing the temple, but the act of producing the image of the temple itself is what gives the artwork some significance. What the physical creation of that art object really means in our consumerist landscape, or its own time! Curator: Yes! This "drawing," mechanically reproduced and disseminated, reflects not just an aesthetic ideal, but the industrial forces shaping the artistic landscape. That opens the possibility for the integration of art and the everyday object, doesn't it? Editor: Definitely. Looking at the artist, materials, and social setting of production has really changed my appreciation of this landscape, turning it from just a view of a cool temple.