Veldslag bij Malplaquet, 1709 1674 - 1709

Editor: Here we have Romeyn de Hooghe's "Veldslag bij Malplaquet, 1709," housed in the Rijksmuseum. It looks like an engraving, or maybe an etching… The amount of detail crammed into this single sheet is just staggering. So much chaos depicted above what seems to be a newspaper-style layout. What strikes you most about this piece? Curator: Its power as propaganda. This isn’t just a record of the battle, it's shaping public opinion. Consider the context: printmaking made imagery accessible like never before. De Hooghe, employed by the Dutch Republic, uses this battle scene to broadcast a particular narrative. Who benefits from this “complete victory” being so widely circulated? Editor: So, you're saying it's less about accurate depiction and more about…national pride? I notice the long lists of casualties below the scene. Curator: Precisely. The print serves a purpose beyond documentation. The lists serve not just as somber memorials, but possibly as validation for the victors – quantifying the loss suffered by the vanquished. It invites the viewer to participate in the socio-political discourse. Is it meant to solidify support for the war effort? Editor: That makes sense. It's like a very detailed and… official-seeming Facebook post from the 18th century. One that glorifies and simplifies events. What kind of influence could this have on the Dutch population? Curator: Immense influence. Imagine being unable to verify information independently. These prints, disseminated widely, become visual and textual anchors for collective memory. Do you think someone without personal ties to the war would feel motivated by this kind of artifact? Editor: I suppose it would certainly fuel nationalism. I never considered art’s use as a vehicle for public sentiment. It really changes how I see it! Curator: And understanding that influence makes you look at everything with different eyes.