Portret van Nicolaus August Rulandt 1710 - 1717

Editor: So, here we have a portrait – an engraving to be exact – of Nicolaus August Rulandt by Johann Adam Seupel, created sometime between 1710 and 1717. It has this, almost, performative formality about it, wouldn’t you say? How do you interpret this work, especially considering the medium? Curator: Performative formality… I like that. It conjures images of powdered wigs and societal theatrics, doesn't it? Now, this engraving, a "print" as you correctly pointed out, acts almost like a baroque-era Instagram post. Before photography, these prints circulated widely, solidifying someone's image and, therefore, their power. I wonder, what does the *act* of engraving – of painstakingly carving this image – tell us about the value placed on representation back then? Do you think that manual creation adds weight? Editor: That’s interesting! The labor adds value to the image. It makes it feel much more *deliberate* than a snapshot. What's your take on his expression? He doesn't exactly look thrilled to be immortalized. Curator: He looks...resigned, perhaps? Or is it the stoicism demanded of leaders back then? Think about the symbolism – the elaborate wig, the oval frame that confines him. Are these signs of power, or prisons of expectation? His clothing tells of belonging, so belonging and societal roles appear strongly interwoven, what does it mean for the “me” to be on display in that time? Editor: So, maybe the "performative formality" isn't just about showing off, but about playing a part… a necessary constraint? Curator: Precisely! And it makes you think about how much we create and perform who “we are” in modern life. Food for thought. Editor: Absolutely! I came into this thinking "old portrait," but I'm leaving thinking about performativity and the deliberate creation of identity.