Montering van de schutterij van Deventer, ca. 1787 1787 - 1790

Curator: Let's turn our attention to a watercolor drawing here at the Rijksmuseum entitled "Montering van de schutterij van Deventer, ca. 1787," made circa 1787 to 1790 by an anonymous artist. Editor: My first thought is, what an elegant dandy! The bright blue coat really pops against the otherwise muted tones. It’s simple yet striking. Curator: The striking simplicity you observe speaks to Neoclassical ideals which greatly valued order. The way that the watercolors were applied speaks volumes too, doesn't it? Think of the linen trade which would have factored into this outfit, which represents social class and commerce. How this illustration circulated as a model shows how this society was structured. Editor: Precisely! And isn’t the color palette carefully chosen? The black and gold trim is often related to civic symbolism or rank, the yellow likely referencing wealth. Plus, let's note that he holds a cane - a classic phallic symbol denoting virility and power! His posture exudes the values placed upon masculinity at the time. Curator: Yes, all these materials signal something of his status! It makes me think of the workshops creating such fashionable items: where were they, who toiled to make them, and for what wages? It’s important to consider what their reality would have been and who really profited in Dutch society in the late 1700s. Editor: It is undeniable: it's impossible to fully remove class considerations. Yet even through today's lenses we perceive these objects and symbols which project power, wealth, and masculine attributes. Isn't this portrayal of wealth meant to endure, to create a sort of continuous projection of dominance? Curator: Absolutely, and thanks to the survival of this artwork on paper and board, we can contemplate it now from new vantage points in history, hopefully using it to challenge assumptions! Editor: Agreed. Thinking about symbols reminds us how certain codes of meaning can travel through time, transformed yet retaining some charge of their initial creation, don't you think?