Overijsselse bezemstuiver, 1769 1769

Editor: Here we have a coin, an Overijsselse bezemstuiver from 1769. It’s a simple metal print, isn't it? Its worn surface speaks of handling and exchange. How do you see its artistic significance, given its everyday function? Curator: Exactly. Think about the processes involved. Mining the ore, refining the metal, die-making, striking the coins – all labor. And this object represents Overijssel’s slice of the 18th-century Dutch economy. We tend to think of "art" as divorced from such things. But who designed the die? Who controlled the workshops? What were the social conditions for the mint workers? Editor: I hadn't considered that. I was thinking more along the lines of artistic intent or the design elements. It's just lettering. Curator: But even simple lettering serves a purpose. It declares ownership, authority, value. Consider who benefited from that declaration and whose labor produced the metal and stamped the coin. This piece embodies power dynamics embedded in material culture. Who would own one of these? What could they buy? What form of exchange do it facilitate? Editor: So, by focusing on the materials and production, we reveal social and economic contexts otherwise overlooked. Is it about deconstructing value, revealing the system? Curator: Precisely! The intrinsic worth of the metal is negligible, but the symbolic worth imprinted onto the coin dictated exchange of goods, wealth accumulation. Understanding the means of production, circulation, and consumption is crucial to unpacking what the coin represents beyond simple monetary value. Editor: This has completely changed my perspective. Now, when I look at something, I am interested in the ‘making of’ and labor that's behind any type of artwork. Curator: Wonderful! Always ask: Where did the materials come from? Who made it? For whom? Consumption always has a historical trace, as well as embedded economic ties.