Portret van George III van het Verenigd Koninkrijk 1761

Editor: Here we have James McArdell's "Portrait of George III" from 1761, an engraving in the Rijksmuseum. It's quite striking, almost severe, in its formality. What visual cues stand out to you, especially regarding symbols of power? Curator: What I see first is not severity, but a carefully constructed image meant to convey stability and legitimacy. Think about the symbols chosen: the Order of the Garter, prominently displayed, connecting him to a lineage of English monarchs going back centuries. The floral pattern on his coat speaks of prosperity and the bounty of the land, projecting an image of a thriving kingdom under his rule. What emotional response does that calculated symbolism elicit in you? Editor: I see that, but it feels very staged, almost cold. The profile view and the limited colour palette also contribute to that. Is that detachment part of the message, a sort of "above the fray" sensibility? Curator: Precisely! The profile is an echo of Roman emperors, associating him with that heritage and tradition of governance and imperial power. While neoclassicism aimed for clarity, the psychological impact lies in the creation of a persona – a ruler elevated and separate from the common man. How do you think viewers at the time may have received this? Editor: I hadn’t considered the Roman reference so explicitly, but it makes sense now. Given the political climate, maybe they wanted to see that sense of permanence and tradition reaffirmed in their leader. Curator: And don’t forget the power of visual memory! By repeating specific visual formulas associated with authority, it cements the idea of legitimate rule over time. It truly demonstrates the lasting power of imagery, doesn't it? Editor: It does. I’m now seeing less severity and more calculated projection. It makes me wonder what symbols we use today to convey similar messages.