Kaart van het Hoogheemraadschap van de Krimpenerwaard (deel wapenrand) 1683 - 1741

Editor: So, this print is called "Kaart van het Hoogheemraadschap van de Krimpenerwaard (deel wapenrand)" and it's attributed to David Coster, made sometime between 1683 and 1741. It’s an engraving, which gives it such fine lines and detail. It looks very official and ornate, with that ribbon and the decorative elements. What stands out to you when you look at this piece? Curator: Well, immediately, I think about the material conditions of its production. This isn’t just some decorative flourish; it’s a meticulously crafted print intended for distribution, likely to a specific, moneyed audience involved in land management. Look at the precise lines of the engraving – they speak to the skill and labour involved, but also the intended purpose. This wasn’t fine art for a gallery; this was information, authority, disseminated through print. Editor: So, the print itself is almost like a tool, not just an image? Curator: Exactly. It’s about the technology of communication. The choice of engraving as a medium – think about the relative ease of reproduction versus, say, an original painting. The image also suggests social power: the names listed are important for the region; do you think those figures have connections to power? Consider the cost and labour: the map demonstrates wealth, control of resources, and the desire to administer and shape the physical world to economic gain. The materiality is never neutral. Editor: That makes so much sense. It’s easy to just see the pretty decorations, but really it's about showing authority and controlling land through printed material. I hadn’t considered the engraving process in terms of production and consumption before! Curator: Indeed. We need to challenge that false binary between “high art” and more functional or supposedly “lower” forms. Everything is made, everything carries meaning embedded in the making. That's the crux of Materialist thinking.