Firescreen 1838 - 1848

Editor: Here we have Auguste-Emile Rinquet-Leprince’s “Firescreen,” crafted between 1838 and 1848 from wood and gilding. It’s currently housed at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. It seems so ornate, and fragile. How should we interpret its cultural meaning? Curator: This firescreen, while seemingly a delicate domestic object, exists within a complex web of social and economic power. The Rococo style, with its emphasis on ornamentation and leisure, speaks to the affluence of the French aristocracy during that era. Consider, for a moment, who would have commissioned such an object, and whose labor made its creation possible. Editor: So, beyond its aesthetic qualities, it reflects a specific social structure? Curator: Precisely. The gilding, the intricate carvings - these are visual markers of status and privilege. And if it's a screen *from fire*, think of that contradiction – what level of protection from discomfort are we even discussing? Can we ignore questions of labour or class, race, gender or colonization? These elaborate decorations divert from more basic questions... What does this firescreen really protect against? Who benefits? Editor: I see what you mean. It's not just a pretty object, but a symbol of a stratified society. Does understanding it from an activist perspective give us new perspectives about its position in art history? Curator: Absolutely! We are prompted to deconstruct this ‘decorative art’. Whose stories are concealed behind the gilding? These considerations expose the embedded values that dictate whose narratives gain prominence, challenging canonical viewpoints on what matters in art history. Editor: That’s really shifted my perspective on the firescreen. It’s powerful to consider art beyond its surface beauty. Curator: Agreed. By viewing it through a critical lens, we uncover the object's role in reinforcing societal norms. This enriches our appreciation of not only art's aesthetics, but also its wider, often concealed influence.