Portrait of Jacob Willemsz. de Vos c. 1795

Editor: Here we have a painting, “Portrait of Jacob Willemsz. de Vos,” circa 1795. It’s an oil painting by an anonymous artist, falling into the portrait style. It feels quite serene to me. What catches your eye? Curator: As a materialist, my gaze is drawn to the materiality of the piece. Oil paint itself, as a medium, signifies a particular type of artistic labor and economic structure. Consider the pigments used – where did they source them, and what did the supply chains look like in 1795? Each layer reveals social dynamics and the movement of materials. Editor: That's fascinating! I hadn't considered the origins of the paint itself. The clothing too must have required an elaborate manufacturing process for the time. Curator: Precisely. And the sitter’s garments aren’t just a visual detail, but evidence of textile production, trade, and social class. Look at the tailoring. Who made that coat? Were they paid fairly for their labour? Art objects conceal all the material circumstances of their making. Editor: So, you're saying that this portrait, beyond being a likeness, is a record of material culture and production practices? Curator: Exactly. It's easy to see art as divorced from labor, but even portraits are fruits of countless hands. Consider how the rise of neoclassical portraiture parallels the expansion of mercantile capitalism and global trade. How might we rethink the “genius” of the artist through this lens? Editor: That's really opened my eyes. I’ll never look at a portrait quite the same way again! Thinking about all those hidden hands... Curator: Indeed! By focusing on materiality and production, we can unveil the hidden histories embedded within even the seemingly most straightforward images.