Overlijden van Willem II, koning der Nederlanden 1849

Editor: This is a medal, "Overlijden van Willem II, koning der Nederlanden," or "The Death of William II, King of the Netherlands," made in 1849 by Johannes Petrus Schouberg. The metal is so polished, the details stand out. I am fascinated by its commemorative purpose but can't help but feel a sense of coldness, given the subject. What story do you see woven into this piece? Curator: That chill you feel might just be the gleam of neoclassical sensibilities! The cool rationality, the emphasis on clean lines… even sorrow is framed within order. I imagine Schouberg, painstakingly detailing Willem II's profile, thinking about the legacy he wanted to etch in time. And the text – a little biography, almost, ensuring no one forgets the highlights of his reign. But is it complete, honest? Doesn’t a medal, by nature, polish the truth? Editor: So, it is less about expressing grief and more about creating a… a curated memory? Almost like state propaganda? Curator: Exactly! And notice the blank reverse side filled with precise inscriptions: birthplace, date of death. All fact, no frills. It’s interesting to consider what isn't said – what complexities of William’s reign are glossed over for the sake of memorialization. Who decided what was worthy of remembrance, and for what purpose? It whispers volumes, doesn’t it? Editor: Definitely makes me think about who gets to write history…or strike it onto a medal. Curator: Precisely. Art as a cultural artifact... Always asking: Whose story are we *really* telling? And who benefits from that telling? Medals aren’t just metal, are they? They’re echoes of power and carefully sculpted narratives. Editor: A very concise, sculpted narrative! I hadn’t considered the inherent bias. I'll look at commemorative art differently now.