Portret van Daniël Mytens de Oude 1787

Editor: Here we have Aert Schouman's 1787 portrait of Daniel Mytens the Elder rendered in charcoal and graphite. The man's gaze is striking; it feels both intimate and slightly confrontational. What strikes you most about it? Curator: Well, immediately, the question arises: what function did portraits like this serve? In 1787, Aert Schouman recreates a portrait of Daniel Mytens, who was active in the 17th century. Why look back? Editor: Almost like historical fan art? Curator: Exactly! But 'fan art' flippantly skips the socio-political power these images, even copies, could hold. Portraits signaled status, lineage. Copying Mytens was Schouman associating himself, and his patrons, with that legacy. Do you notice how Mytens is 'Fecit 1624', he made it, versus Schouman 'AS 1787'? One created power, one…what? Editor: Reproduced it? Curator: Yes! And consider who *commissions* these reproductions. This wasn’t about mere artistic skill; it's about reinforcing social hierarchies through visual representation. Editor: So, it’s less about the individual depicted and more about the social statement being made by owning the image? Curator: Precisely. And understanding *that* transforms how we view seemingly simple portraiture. Schouman revives that association, a deliberate act of aligning with a past, perceived as…superior? Editor: That makes me rethink the entire act of portraiture! Thank you for sharing that lens. Curator: The politics of imagery are always at play, whether we see it or not! It shifts my reading as well.