'General Reed. Member of Congress. President & Commander in chief of the State of Pensylvania' 1783

Editor: This is an engraved portrait of 'General Reed. Member of Congress. President & Commander in chief of the State of Pensylvania,' dating back to 1783. It’s a print, and I’m struck by how…official it feels. Almost like propaganda. What can you tell me about it? Curator: From a materialist perspective, this isn't simply an image of a man; it’s a commodity. Consider the printmaking process. The labour involved, the distribution networks. It was published in London, a centre of print production at the time. What does it mean to circulate an image of an American leader in the former colonial power? Editor: That's interesting. So, the physical object and where it was made and sold gives it more meaning. Were these prints common? Curator: Precisely! The act of producing and circulating such prints speaks volumes. Think about who had access to these images. Was it intended for a broad audience, or a more elite, literate class? The material – the paper, the ink, the printing technique – would have determined its cost and therefore, its accessibility, shaping who consumed this representation of power. Editor: So, it’s not just *who* is in the portrait, but *who* is consuming the portrait that matters. What are your thoughts? Curator: Absolutely. Furthermore, we should consider the engraver, B.B.E. The name is right there on the side of the artwork, which signifies a contribution and some acknowledgement of their production labor, beyond the General pictured. What impact did that decision of acknowledgement have at that time? Editor: I never considered the implications of acknowledging the engraver or the social dynamics of an imported artwork. Fascinating! Curator: Indeed. It prompts us to question the power structures embedded in the creation and distribution of imagery.