Spotprent met ministers met hun portefeuilles, 1867 1867

Editor: This is a satirical print from 1867 by Johan Michaël Schmidt Crans. It seems to be a pen and ink drawing, reproduced as a print. Each figure holds a sign with a different ministry title. It's aged, clearly, and has a kind of dark, comical tone. What do you see in this piece? Curator: I see a commentary on the material conditions of governance. Consider the means of production – printmaking, accessible and reproducible – allowing for widespread dissemination of political critique. The drawing itself is quite raw, like a blueprint almost. How do these roughly hewn materials affect its reception? Editor: I guess the roughness emphasizes that it's a mass produced artwork. It feels like quick commentary. Curator: Precisely! And consider the social context. These ministers are identified by the portfolios they physically hold – ‘Marine,’ ‘Colonies,’ ‘War.’ It's not just about the positions, but how visibly and tangibly these responsibilities are borne, represented in this cheap paper. Is Crans making a point about the burden of labor on governing officials? Editor: That’s interesting. It challenges the typical grand portraits of ministers. It shows the real ‘work’ they are in charge of in almost a mundane manner through cheap, accessible print. So, by using humble materials, Crans critiques the social standing of ministers? Curator: In a way, yes, disrupting established boundaries of social power with something disposable. This isn’t meant to last like a painting in a palace; it’s meant to be read and discarded perhaps, influencing public thought in a transient way. What can the materiality tell us about the value—or lack thereof— Crans and society put on the political figures? Editor: So, by focusing on the material aspect and its means of production, you can reveal a lot about how the artist is engaging with, and commenting on, social and political structures of the time. That is useful. Thank you. Curator: Indeed. Looking at the material tells as much, if not more, than an analysis based purely on form or style.