Brief aan Pieter Haverkorn van Rijsewijk Possibly 1894

Curator: Let's think about how the simple act of writing a letter connects to broader social and political issues. How does intimate correspondence become a site of resistance, negotiation, or even oppression? Editor: So, this is a pen and ink drawing entitled "Brief aan Pieter Haverkorn van Rijsewijk," possibly from 1894, by Jozef Israëls. It's at the Rijksmuseum. It feels intensely personal, like we are intruding on a private moment, but the damage to the paper also makes it feel ghostly, almost like a found object. How do you interpret this work, in this context? Curator: Think about the power dynamics inherent in letter writing in the late 19th century. Who had access to education and literacy? Whose voices were amplified and whose were silenced? Editor: So, you're saying the simple existence of this letter shows something about social class? Because somebody had to be able to read and write and have time for such communications. Curator: Exactly. And the content of the letter—which unfortunately, I can't read fluently—might reveal further insights into Israëls' relationship with Rijsewijk and the broader social and artistic networks in which they were both embedded. Are there visible power dynamics at play, can you tell from his tone or his closing remarks who's more socially prominent? Editor: Okay, I see what you mean. It's not just about the content, but also the social circumstances that made this letter possible in the first place. Also, by reading this piece with today's theoretical lens, it lets us better recognize biases in the contemporary art world too, right? Curator: Precisely. Examining art with consideration of its social context encourages critical engagement with the stories art tells, and those it actively obscures.