Portret van Pierre du Moulin 1576 - 1614

Editor: Here we have Thomas de Leu's "Portret van Pierre du Moulin," made sometime between 1576 and 1614. It’s an engraving, a print. I'm struck by how much detail Leu managed to get in the face using such a precise and laborious method. What draws your eye in this piece? Curator: I'm immediately drawn to the materiality of the engraving itself. Think about the labor involved: the artist meticulously incising lines into a metal plate, controlling pressure and angle to create the varying depths and tones we see here. The *means of production* dictates the aesthetic. Consider the consumption aspect too; prints like this democratized portraiture. Editor: Democratized? How so? Curator: Well, previously, commissioned paintings were really only for the wealthy. Engravings allowed for wider circulation of images, thereby offering access to portraiture – albeit mediated – to a broader audience. This challenges that 'high art' versus 'craft' distinction we often hear about, doesn’t it? This object circulated as commodity but required skilled labor. Where do we situate its value? Editor: That's interesting, because I always considered engraving to be more technical than artistic. I hadn't thought about its accessibility or labor implications. The inscription at the bottom about skillful hands now seems especially pertinent. Curator: Exactly. Think about who Pierre du Moulin was too – a protestant theologian. This portrait could have served as a vital visual representation circulating within religious and intellectual networks, influencing and even solidifying his social standing through readily produced, widely distributed prints. That’s not something we often consider in Art History classes. Editor: So, it’s more than just an image, it’s a carefully manufactured object within a complex social context. It reframes how I'll consider the cultural impact of printmaking in general. Thanks!