Schipbrug van Parma over de Schelde opgeblazen, 1585 1588

Editor: This is "Schipbrug van Parma over de Schelde opgeblazen, 1585" by Frans Hogenberg, an engraving from 1588 here at the Rijksmuseum. The sheer detail in rendering the exploding bridge is fascinating, almost gruesome. What's your take on it? Curator: Well, first off, it’s an engraving. Hogenberg wasn’t just illustrating; he was crafting a political statement through material means. Printmaking allowed for the mass production of this image, distributing a specific narrative widely. Editor: A political statement? What do you mean? Curator: The image depicts the destruction of a ship bridge during a time of war. Consider the labour involved in creating and destroying such structures. It highlights the cost—both human and material—of conflict. It speaks to the instability of power, how infrastructure can be both built and demolished to control resources. Look at how Hogenberg represents the explosions—almost ornamental, obscuring the actual violence. It almost feels like… propaganda. Editor: Propaganda, using printmaking? Curator: Precisely. The choice of engraving made it accessible. Hogenberg transformed the material reality of war into a consumable image, shaping public opinion through a careful manipulation of medium and subject. Consider who commissioned the print, and for what purpose. What audience was this made for, and what was its likely impact? Editor: That really shifts my understanding. I was focused on the "art," but you've made me realize this isn't just an image; it's a product of labor, materials, and deliberate social action. Curator: Exactly! Understanding art through a material lens invites us to question how it functions within power structures. It opens up avenues of inquiry beyond aesthetics alone, considering consumption, distribution, and intended manipulation.