Kong Løder 1646

Curator: This engraving, known as "Kong Løder," was created in 1646. The inscription identifies him as Lothar, brother of Humblus and King of the Danes. It resides here at the Statens Museum for Kunst. Editor: The figure strikes me as particularly solemn, almost resigned. The artist’s lines seem incredibly fine for an engraving—there is a tactile precision, conveying both strength and vulnerability in the portrayal of power. Curator: The creation of prints such as this served a crucial function during this era, facilitating broader circulation of portraits beyond painted commissions, influencing ideas of status, authority, and the fabrication of royal identity. Think about the economics of artmaking at this time. Editor: Yes, it's fascinating to consider who this was intended for and how this imagery intersects with constructions of Danish identity and rulership. Who was meant to see themselves, their values, reflected back from this image of a medieval king? Was this distributed among a particular class or region to reinforce specific narratives of Danish heritage? Curator: Considering it as a reproducible item gives rise to a number of other queries as well: how it was made, the instruments and methods utilized by the artist, and what labor implications there were for printmakers creating numerous impressions from one plate. Engravings were more widely accessible, but were they automatically cheap? Editor: I’m particularly struck by the faint inscription surrounding the oval frame – Regnavit Anno, Obiit, and some roman numerals, hinting at the temporality of rule and eventual death even at the height of one's reign, thus reinforcing a particular relationship between rulers, the divine, and their people. Curator: Precisely, this wasn't just a flat image but a means through which knowledge was produced, circulated and ingested to influence perspectives concerning power. This engraving offered the option of both political propagation and potential economic return through print production and dissemination. Editor: It reminds me that these images aren't passive artifacts—they participate actively in shaping and contesting socio-political understandings. They allow us to confront power in various ways through representations of gender, race, and national belonging. Curator: It has shown the significance of closely inspecting materials, processes, and social context to unpack assumptions underlying conventional histories of art, craft, labor, and class within images like the one we have here. Editor: I couldn’t agree more; viewing art with such varied but connected viewpoints is vital if we are to comprehend the complexity in a single image such as “Kong Løder,” from issues about self-perception through questions concerning society and representation of power structures, and the effects it could cause for different people living within the political sphere at this moment of time.