Salmacis en Hermaphroditus 1708

Editor: Here we have Bernard Picart's engraving "Salmacis en Hermaphroditus" from 1708, housed in the Rijksmuseum. I’m immediately struck by the contrast between the serene landscape and the almost frantic embrace in the foreground. What should we make of that, historically? Curator: The scene depicts a moment from Ovid's *Metamorphoses*. Considering Picart's context, it is crucial to consider the socio-political role this print would have played. Remember, these images were circulating widely. The explicit portrayal of bodies, the very depiction of the gods, all served a purpose. How does Picart negotiate these elements in light of the era’s cultural norms, specifically those related to public imagery? Editor: So it's less about the emotional narrative and more about what its visibility signifies? The very act of illustrating such a story. Curator: Exactly. What did it mean to reproduce this tale? Note the strategic use of light and shadow to emphasize certain forms while obscuring others. It’s about power, access to classical knowledge, and the performance of status through visual culture. Editor: So, you’re saying the distribution of these images was also limited, perhaps confined to educated audiences. I guess it isn't really realism, despite how lifelike it looks? Curator: Precisely! The image's circulation would largely depend on those networks. What is particularly fascinating is thinking about who consumed images like these, how they were interpreted within their specific social context. Remember, every choice reflects the prevailing ideology, or potentially subtly critiques it. Editor: This engraving reveals more about 18th-century society and power dynamics than I initially thought. Thanks. Curator: The power of imagery resides not just in its beauty, but its ability to communicate unspoken codes of society. The real subjects are those implied social and cultural conventions.