The arch of Titus, Rome before 1877

Curator: This etching, "The Arch of Titus, Rome," dating from before 1877, is striking. It freezes a moment in time. What captures your eye about it? Editor: Well, the arch itself is so imposing, even in this small print. It feels grand, almost… defiant. How do you interpret this work? Curator: I think we need to consider the socio-political implications. Rome, even as a historical echo, represents power, empire, and conquest. The Arch of Titus was erected to commemorate a military victory—the sack of Jerusalem. Who are the victors writing this history, and whose voices are excluded? What’s celebrated, and what’s silenced? Editor: That's a heavy lens to apply, I guess. I hadn’t thought of it in terms of… who it excludes. Does every artwork demand that kind of questioning? Curator: I believe that any cultural product—be it a triumphal arch or an etching of it—reflects the values and power structures of its time. Questioning those structures is how we, in the present, begin to understand their continuing legacy. The gaze, the very act of reproduction and documentation, holds implicit biases. Editor: So, it's not enough to just appreciate the artistry or the historical significance? We need to consider who benefited from its creation and who was potentially harmed by it? Curator: Precisely. It’s about acknowledging the complex tapestry of human experience, the intertwined narratives of dominance and resistance that art, consciously or unconsciously, reflects. Editor: That's… a lot to take in. I see it now, it's not just an arch, it's a statement. Curator: And like any statement, it needs to be critically examined. This helps us challenge accepted norms and foster more inclusive narratives within art history. Editor: Thanks, I will consider that going forward.