Kaart van de slag bij Malplaquet (1709) 1735

Curator: Let's examine this "Kaart van de slag bij Malplaquet (1709)," dating to 1735. It’s a print that uses both watercolor and coloured pencil to depict a historical event. My first impression is that the chaos of war is neatly, even aesthetically, rendered. Editor: Indeed, a fascinating tension there! It’s not merely a record of the battlefield, is it? Look at the lower right section. What are those classical figures doing in this map? Is that an allusion to some mythic battle? Curator: Good question. Observe how the map section contrasts with the allegorical scene. The map is meticulous, focused on spatial relationships and troop deployments. It seems the creator attempts to reduce war to geometric components. Editor: So the map tries to strip away emotional and physical turmoil. But look at those figures wrestling at the lower right. I am wondering if these mythological characters, poised as combatants, are representative of an enduring psychological phenomenon wherein conflicts are inevitable facets of civilization, or if they are simply glorifying warfare itself? Curator: Or is it commentary? The cool detachment of the map contrasts starkly with the emotional drama in the allegory. Observe also the palette of muted greens, browns, and reds within the battlefield compared with the almost lurid tones highlighting those mythological figures. A sharp formal contradiction, if you agree. Editor: Precisely. Red, after all, has served throughout history as a powerful symbol. That simple act of coloring, highlighting, or, in the parlance of the battle perhaps “red flagging” is key in unlocking both conscious and unconscious interpretation here, wouldn’t you say? It gives dimension to those clashing figures on the right side of the plan and offers insight into interpreting a history, no doubt teeming with multiple symbolizations. Curator: True. Overall, this image strikes me as a deeply self-conscious creation. Editor: Yes. An interpretation layered like the colored pencils on the original paper; food for thought, indeed.