Sleutel bij de prent van de Slag bij Waterloo, 1815 Possibly 1819

Editor: Here we have John Burnet's "Key to the Portraits in the Battle of Waterloo," likely from 1819. It’s a print, an etching really, showing portraits and a battle scene in the background. I'm struck by how it serves as both an informational guide and a piece of art. How should we interpret a piece like this that blends artistry and historical record? Curator: That's a crucial observation. Think about it: Burnet created this "key" in the wake of a pivotal moment in European history. Waterloo wasn't just a battle; it was a moment intensely politicized, mythologized, and used to shape national identity. An image like this reinforces certain power structures by depicting key figures, the victors, primarily, casting them as heroes in a readily reproducible format. Who gets a portrait and why? How might this affect public opinion and the long-term memory of the battle? Editor: So it’s not just a neutral guide; it actively participates in constructing a particular narrative of Waterloo. Are the depicted figures idealized? Is this common for this type of historical print? Curator: Exactly. While there might be some effort toward likeness, these portraits also convey authority and respectability. Consider who commissioned and consumed these images. Were they intended for a broad public or a more elite audience? This helps us understand its role in reinforcing social hierarchies. How does the text accompanying the portraits support that? Editor: It looks like excerpts from Wellington’s dispatch... So, official documentation alongside glorified portraits... It paints a clear, favorable picture of the British victory, doesn't it? I now see how a seemingly straightforward guide becomes a powerful piece of propaganda. Curator: Precisely. Art is rarely neutral, especially when it intersects with historical events. Reflecting on the role of art in shaping perceptions of events can prompt critical dialogues around its influence.