Ponte Nomentano, plate twenty-seven from Ruins of Rome c. 1798

Editor: Here we have "Ponte Nomentano, plate twenty-seven from Ruins of Rome" made around 1798, by M. Dubourg. It's an etching, a print on paper. The scene is just beautiful; the crumbling stone bridge and the water really give it a melancholy feeling. What's your take on it? Curator: Well, I immediately think about the means of production. This is a print, meant to be reproduced. Who was the intended audience, and how would prints like this circulate? Were they catering to the rising middle class interested in experiencing Rome through images, a kind of early mass tourism of the visual kind? Editor: That's a side I had not considered at all. Were these images like souvenirs? Curator: Possibly, yes. But consider the materials themselves. Etching allowed for detail and distribution on paper, far more cheaply than painting, connecting consumption directly to changes in production processes. What effect would making these places reproducible have? Editor: Democratizing art access. I am not sure it is that good though! Did it affect perceptions and artistic value of painting? Did this process somehow cheapen the real experience of standing there? Curator: Those are good points to ponder; Romanticism glorified ruins, but its vision was quickly commodified and consumed. The picturesque became something to possess, visually. Also, did the labor involved in creating numerous prints change Dubourg's own relationship with the scene compared to that of a painter meticulously creating a unique view? Editor: Hmmm, it feels more mass-produced this way. The value lies in the romantic appeal of ruins more than in an emotional moment perhaps. That said I have a deeper appreciation for these romantic landscape prints and their cultural impact now. Thank you. Curator: And I now appreciate the melancholic charm that captivated viewers, and made them feel as though they wanted their own print! A nice turn, thank you!