Stilleven met zilveren schenkkan 1847 - 1889

Editor: Here we have William Unger's "Stilleven met zilveren schenkkan," an etching printed between 1847 and 1889. The stark contrast between the shadows and the light gives it quite a dramatic feel. What do you see in this piece? Curator: This still life, beyond its aesthetic qualities, speaks volumes about the society that produced it. Think about the symbolism of the objects—a silver jug, fruit. Who had access to such items, and what did they represent in terms of social standing? Consider the power dynamics inherent in who is depicted, and who isn't. The still life, often seemingly benign, is far from apolitical. How does this connect with other works of that period that overtly depicted people and social activities? Editor: So, the choice of objects is a commentary in itself? Curator: Precisely. During the mid-19th century, increased industrialization impacted people's living conditions. Still lifes like this one celebrated domesticity, and perhaps acted as a visual escape, or even propaganda, of comfort during times of intense social change. Where would this "comfort" come from, though, when so many members of the laboring classes suffered through miserable living conditions? Can we celebrate images of bourgeois wealth, when its acquisition necessarily depended on working-class oppression? Editor: It makes me reconsider the purpose of realism in art from this period. It’s not just about depicting reality, but choosing which reality to depict. Curator: Exactly. And who benefits from that depiction? Looking at art with a critical eye helps us to understand the biases and power structures embedded within. It helps us consider a new question: What still needs to be overturned and destabilized in the art historical canon? Editor: I never thought about a still life being a political statement! I'll definitely look at these works in museums with new eyes.