Portret van baron Fortunatus van Madrutz 1596

Editor: So, here we have Dominicus Custos's 1596 engraving, "Portret van baron Fortunatus van Madrutz," currently housed in the Rijksmuseum. It's incredibly detailed, especially for a print. I’m immediately struck by the framing; it almost feels like he's being presented as an emblem or a symbol rather than just a person. What’s your take on this portrait? Curator: What interests me is how this image participates in constructing Baron Fortunatus’s identity, specifically his status and authority, for public consumption. This wasn't just about creating a likeness; it was about crafting a particular image within a very specific socio-political context. Notice the inscription around the portrait. Editor: Yes, it looks like Latin! Curator: Exactly. Consider the audience for this print. Who was meant to see it, and what message was it intended to convey? Was it intended for the wider public, or rather, for an elite circle, familiar with classical allusions and concepts of governance? Editor: I hadn’t thought of it like that, but that changes everything. I suppose it was intended to legitimize his position somehow? Curator: Precisely. The imagery, the language, the very act of creating and circulating this portrait—all contribute to a carefully constructed persona of power, intellect, and legitimate rule. He isn't just being presented, he's being *performed*. Editor: So it's less about faithful representation, and more about actively shaping perceptions of power in the public sphere? Curator: Precisely! Which really makes you think about the role of art and image making in supporting established power structures. Editor: Wow, I’ll never look at portraits the same way again! Thanks.