Forord til "Los Desastres de la Guerra", 1863-udgaven 1863

Editor: So, this is *Forord til "Los Desastres de la Guerra", 1863-udgaven*, by Francisco Goya, made with etching, engraving and paper. It’s…text. I mean, it *looks* like the pages of a book, right? But being here in the museum, blown up like this, you can appreciate the way it’s been printed on the page. What catches your eye, when you look at it? Curator: What grabs me is thinking about *how* this object was created. Goya’s "Disasters of War" series…these weren’t paintings for a salon, right? They are prints, produced through etching and engraving. Consider the labor involved. He's mass producing these images. So what happens to Goya's status as a creator when his work can be owned by many instead of the wealthy few? How does that shift the dialogue between artwork and viewer? Editor: Ah, that’s interesting! So, rather than just thinking about what the text *means* – which is…frankly, beyond my high school Spanish! – we think about how Goya chose *this* medium, printmaking, to disseminate his ideas on war. But couldn't he achieve similar outcomes using paints? Curator: Well, paintings would've limited access and made the statement itself a very different one. Prints are reproducible, cheaper and circulated more widely and freely. Here, Goya, like many artists of his time, critiqued social hierarchies and historical atrocities not only through their chosen subjects, but the media used in producing them, blurring high art with craft and even social commentary. Editor: I see. So the medium isn't just a delivery system, it's an integral part of the statement. Considering its cultural impact makes you look at Goya in a new way. I’d thought it was *just* text. Curator: Exactly! That’s materiality for you: questioning how a piece’s cultural and historical context influence the artist and transform our interpretation.