De mislukte aanslag op Duinkerken 1699 - 1703

Editor: Here we have "The Failed Attack on Dunkirk," a bronze medal created by Jean Mauger between 1699 and 1703. It looks like it's depicting a historical event, maybe a battle at sea? The detail is pretty impressive for something so small. What can you tell me about it? Curator: From a materialist perspective, the very creation of this medal points to a complex interplay of power, labor, and representation. Consider the bronze itself—where did it originate? Who mined it? What processes of smelting and casting were employed? The medal isn’t just a depiction of an event, but an artifact imbued with the physical traces of its production. Editor: That’s interesting. So you’re saying the material itself tells a story? Curator: Exactly. Bronze was often associated with authority and permanence. How does the choice of this specific metal shape the narrative? And what about the act of minting? This medal isn't just documenting history, it's actively participating in the construction of Louis XIV's image and power. It’s designed for distribution and consumption, creating and reinforcing a specific understanding of this historical "failure". Editor: It's strange that a medal would be made to celebrate a 'failed' event. Is it trying to make it seem like something else? Curator: Precisely! Was this commission actually attempting to sanitize or re-frame what actually occurred? These medals circulated; consider how people interacted with and consumed it. This reveals more about the material realities of early modern Europe than many history books. Editor: I never thought about it that way. Seeing it as something actively involved in shaping perceptions is really eye-opening. Curator: Indeed. Focusing on its materiality allows us to unpack a broader story about labor, resources, and the manipulative potential embedded within seemingly simple objects.