Kong Frederik VI 1767 - 1824

Editor: This is "Kong Frederik VI," made by Andreas Flint between 1767 and 1824. It's an engraving, so it feels quite formal. What strikes me is the way his image is presented as a symbol of authority. How do you interpret this work, especially considering the historical context? Curator: Absolutely, and note how printmaking enabled wider distribution of such images. This portrait operates within the visual language of power – the stern gaze, the ornate military attire, and the prominent display of royal insignia. But let’s consider this beyond face value. What societal norms and power dynamics are being reinforced here? And whose perspectives are being silenced? Editor: I see what you mean. It's not just a portrait; it’s a carefully constructed representation of power meant to project a certain image of the monarchy. The precision of the engraving also seems significant—almost like an official stamp. Curator: Precisely. Engravings like this one played a crucial role in shaping public perception and legitimizing the ruler's authority. Yet, by examining it critically through the lens of power and representation, we can also consider what the image *excludes*: dissent, economic disparity, the lived realities of those subject to Frederik's rule. Who gets to control representation, and how does that affect the narrative? Editor: That’s a great point! It’s easy to get caught up in the artistry, but you’ve made me think about the political dimensions and whose story isn't being told. Curator: Exactly. By questioning these images, we disrupt the historical silences. It's a necessary act of intellectual and social responsibility. Hopefully, this work has highlighted not just historical record, but also our ongoing obligations to power, image-making, and access to the mic.