Portret van Isaac Johannes Dermout 1822 - 1866

Editor: Here we have Willem Grebner’s "Portret van Isaac Johannes Dermout," made sometime between 1822 and 1866. It's a lithograph, a kind of print. I’m immediately struck by its formality – the sitter's pose, his serious expression. What do you see in this piece, considering its time? Curator: What intrigues me most are the layers of meaning embedded within what appears to be a straightforward Neoclassical portrait. Consider Dermout's profession: Court preacher. What symbols might we expect to see, or perhaps, more interestingly, what symbols are deliberately absent? The austere coat, the plain white collar… they speak of piety but also of power, wouldn't you agree? Editor: That's a good point. I was so focused on the sitter's expression, but you're right, the clothing and lack of religious iconography feels… controlled. Almost a statement. How does the lithographic medium contribute to this impression? Curator: Lithography allowed for relatively inexpensive reproduction. So, while this *could* function as a straightforward memorial image for loved ones, it also suggests wider distribution. Are we meant to simply remember Dermout, or to emulate him? It has less to do with his features and more with his public office, therefore making it seem as if we could substitute the name below with just any name fulfilling the King's desires. The portrait subtly urges us to see authority as something sober and respectable. Editor: I see what you mean. It is almost as if there is very little to infer other than the context he fulfills within the King’s court, almost erasing a part of Dermout and enforcing his duties instead. Thank you; that shifts my understanding of it completely. Curator: Indeed, looking for absences as much as presences in a portrait reveals its encoded messages all the more effectively. Every stylistic choice builds this greater impression as if they could be any portrait but that.