portret van Koning Willem I naar schilderij c. 1849 - 1920

Editor: Here we have "Portrait of King Willem I after painting," by M.M. Couvée, dating from around 1849 to 1920. It looks like a photograph, probably after a painted portrait, featuring muted sepia tones. I’m curious about the somewhat stiff and formal nature. What catches your eye, looking at this, and how do you interpret this image? Curator: What immediately tickles my fancy is that 'after painting' detail. It's like looking at a copy of a copy, the original artist's interpretation, now filtered through the lens and eye of the photographer! It reminds us how obsessed the 19th century was with documenting everything, even art itself. But tell me, what does this layered remove do for *you* as a viewer? Does it feel more or less authentic? Editor: I think it definitely adds a layer of complexity. Knowing it’s not the original artwork encourages me to think about what gets lost and what gets gained in translation, how photography at the time impacted perceptions of the monarchy or other famous portraiture. Curator: Exactly! And notice how the photographer composes the shot; he almost places more importance on the symbols of royalty, the crown and the ermine cloak, rather than Willem himself. Almost hinting at a slight removal or shift in power, even? Of course, I might be projecting. But, that’s what’s amazing about art, it is about feelings isn’t it! What new appreciation do you think you have found of such art, today? Editor: I'm appreciating how photography could democratize art. This made those symbols accessible beyond the elite circles of the time. Thank you for such wonderful information! Curator: My pleasure. It's always invigorating to mull over these whispers from the past, see how they echo in the present, no?