Afrikaanse leeuw c. 1825 - 1828

Editor: Here we have Eugène Verboeckhoven's "Afrikaanse leeuw," dating back to around 1825-1828. It's a pencil drawing, and I find it remarkable how the artist captured the lion's physique so precisely with such a simple material. How would you interpret this work, focusing on its materiality and creation? Curator: It’s interesting to consider Verboeckhoven's choice of pencil. What does using such a readily available, relatively inexpensive material suggest about the audience or the purpose of the artwork? Was it meant for study, preliminary work, or was it an end in itself? The “Lion d’Afrique” inscription gives a hint. Consider the implications of representing the "exotic" through accessible, mass-producible lithography. Editor: So, you're saying that the choice of pencil and the lithographic print relate to the accessibility of the image and its potential role in shaping public perception of Africa and its wildlife? Curator: Exactly! And it challenges traditional hierarchies in art. Here's a subject typically associated with grandeur, represented through humble means. It also brings to the forefront questions of labor: Who created the drawing? Who reproduced the lithograph? And what were their motivations? How might those labor processes influence our understanding of this image? Editor: That’s a completely different lens than I was expecting. Thinking about the production chain changes the meaning considerably. I'd been focusing on just the image of the lion. Curator: Materiality always shapes the message, consciously or unconsciously. We see it every day! The relative inexpensiveness would contribute to wider dissemination, making images like this, possibly tied into colonialism and scientific categorisation, accessible to the rising middle classes. What does mass production tell us about 19th century views of Africa? Editor: That’s… sobering, actually. I see so much more depth here now. Thank you.