Marcus Croto (obliterated) [obverse] c. mid 15th century

Editor: We are looking at a bronze sculpture called "Marcus Croto (obliterated) [obverse]" from the mid-15th century. I find it really fascinating, partially because of the visible wear and tear that seems at odds with how we think about preserving historical objects. How does its current state impact your understanding of the work? Curator: It's a powerful question. The damage here speaks volumes. These portrait medals during the Italian Renaissance were often tools for shaping a patron's public image. Consider how the defacement -- that obliteration -- could reflect later disapproval or even an active attempt to erase the subject's memory. What happens when the portrait, the thing meant to fix reputation, itself becomes a site of controversy? Editor: So the destruction is meaningful in itself. Were these medals displayed publicly or kept privately, and how would that impact their role? Curator: Initially, they would be commissioned by and for members of the elite classes to reinforce power. Whether publicly displayed or kept as a precious personal belonging, medals ultimately always spoke to identity and the owner's social milieu. Then the later alterations and breaks became incorporated into the social life of the object. Over time, even what might appear as accidents accumulate social and historical significance. It makes you think about how public sentiment can physically impact an artwork. Editor: I hadn't thought of the wear and tear as an intentional message. Thanks; it adds a layer of narrative I hadn't considered before! Curator: Indeed. Looking beyond formal elements, this medal reveals the layers of shifting public reception and, I daresay, its historical afterlife.