Spotprent met de klerikale partijen als beeldenstormers, 1885 1885

Curator: This satirical drawing, “Spotprent met de klerikale partijen als beeldenstormers, 1885”, was created by Johan Michaël Schmidt Crans using ink and pen. It feels quite chaotic and busy, doesn’t it? What jumps out at you? Editor: The "beeldenstormers" wielding hammers. They're attacking what appears to be a statue of a classical figure, and books are scattered all over the floor. It definitely conveys a sense of destruction. I guess I'm curious, what's the meaning behind depicting these figures as iconoclasts? Curator: Well, let's look closer at the materials. Pen and ink allowed for mass production, right? This wasn’t some precious oil painting. The drawing circulated widely, acting as propaganda about political clashes in a readily available medium. Consider how that process enabled political commentary. What impact do you think that had on the public? Editor: So the artist deliberately chose a medium that could be widely distributed, enabling him to reach more people and engage them in this political debate. Curator: Exactly. The act of iconoclasm, smashing religious icons, refers to specific historical events, but it is being used to critique actions taken by the clerical parties during this period. This creates an argument that goes far beyond mere representation. The method of reproduction and dissemination is at least as significant. It really brings into focus the collision between art, material culture and political power. What can art be said to "do", beyond representing or being? Editor: That's a different lens through which to view it. I initially just saw it as a political statement, but focusing on the method of production adds so much more nuance. I’ll definitely keep material processes in mind going forward.