Portret van een man met baard en baret 1647

Editor: Here we have Wenceslaus Hollar’s "Portret van een man met baard en baret," from 1647, a print now at the Rijksmuseum. It feels like a very formal depiction, very much of its time. What stands out to you when you look at it? Curator: Well, it's important to remember that portraits like these weren't just about capturing likeness; they were statements about identity and status within a very rigid social structure. Notice how the man’s clothing, even in this engraved form, suggests a certain level of affluence and perhaps belonging to a specific social group. What does that striped pattern signify, would you say, within a 17th century European context? Editor: I’m not sure. Perhaps he was a merchant? The attention to detail in his clothes does seem to imply some form of wealth. But what’s the activist perspective here? How would we use that kind of lens? Curator: Think about access and representation. Who gets to be memorialized in art, and why? In the 17th century, portraiture was largely reserved for the elite. So, we might ask, what voices are absent from these historical records? Whose stories are not being told? And how does this absence perpetuate power imbalances that continue to resonate today? It makes you think about who controls the narrative and how it impacts our understanding of history, doesn't it? Editor: It certainly does. Seeing it as a question of who has the power to be seen, and remembered, really changes my perspective. Curator: Exactly! And even this work has embedded histories about authorship and access—as it’s based on an earlier “Holbein pinxit”, and part of the Arundel collection. All art is produced within existing social conditions. It really shows how seemingly straightforward images can hold complex social and political dimensions, once you begin to look for them.