Portræt af toldkasserer i Kerteminde, Batholomæus Hansteen 

Curator: Hmm, he looks like he's about to balance the accounts... or perhaps pen a love letter? Editor: Well, that rather depends. This is *Portræt af toldkasserer i Kerteminde, Bartholomaeus Hansteen* – a portrait of Customs Inspector Bartholomaeus Hansteen of Kerteminde. We attribute the painting to Jens Juel. He captures a man immersed in his work. You know, those meticulous financial records must have been quite the thing back in his day. Curator: I do love the way the gold drapery frames him! Is that romantic flourish supposed to ennoble a taxman? Or perhaps give him an air of someone lost in thought? Editor: Well, portraits like this weren't just about likeness. They projected social standing. The man's work *is* the romantic flourish. This piece suggests that diligence, civic duty, *and* perhaps a talent with numbers, were something to be admired, to be emulated. These commissions reinforced that idea. Curator: Yet his face is soft... a flicker of the enlightened ideals he presumably collected duties from! Did Juel find beauty in the man beyond the social facade? It feels quite personal, wouldn't you agree? It reminds me, almost ironically, of some romantic poet about to put pen to paper, ready to swoon the masses. Editor: Maybe, though I wonder if the 'personal' is less Juel's doing and more the times reflected in this customs man's face. By immortalizing him, Juel places him in the context of the Romantic era, as someone shaped by societal forces but who's at peace with it. I doubt a painting like this could ever escape being viewed with that context. It feels rather trapped by that, sadly. Curator: Trapped maybe, but look at his green jacket. A splash of freedom! A statement amidst duty, reminding us he lived in a world of colour! I feel a sense of liberation just glimpsing his gaze. So perhaps, it goes deeper than records and order. Editor: Perhaps. Well, the way it makes *you* feel is valid, just not in the ledger of art history. Ultimately, though, I think we both agree – it sparks interesting conversation.