Arch of Pantani, plate thirty-seven from the Ruins of Rome Possibly 1797

Editor: Here we have "Arch of Pantani, plate thirty-seven from the Ruins of Rome," possibly created in 1797 by M. Dubourg. It’s a print, using etching and watercolours on paper. It really captures a sense of faded glory, that crumbling arch against a bright sky. What do you see in this piece? Curator: I see a careful depiction of labour and its intersection with the consumption of imagery. Consider the printmaking process itself – etching, then hand-colouring. Each step a distinct form of skilled work. How does that meticulous, almost industrial process contrast with the Romantic vision of ruins depicted? Editor: That's interesting, I was more drawn to the sort of melancholy feel of it. So, you're saying we should look beyond the visual and consider how it was made and distributed? Curator: Exactly. Think about who consumed these images. Wealthy tourists on the Grand Tour? How did this picturesque scene of ruins cater to their desires, and what labor underpinned that catering? What sort of worldview values the "picturesque ruin"? Editor: I guess they’re buying into a story about the past. So it’s about the artist, the artisan, and the consumer all participating in creating and reinforcing a specific cultural narrative? Curator: Precisely. Consider the materials too: paper, ink, pigments. Each has its own history of production and trade, each contributes to the final product that romanticizes Rome and diminishes those performing labor in front of it. Does analyzing its materiality and production change your perception? Editor: Definitely, it gives a sharper edge to the image. It’s not just a pretty scene anymore. Thanks, I learned a lot looking at this! Curator: And I’m reminded that art isn't just what is depicted, but also a testament to the systems of production that bring it into being.