Mrs. Charlotte Lennox 1777

Editor: This is John Smart's "Mrs. Charlotte Lennox," created in 1777 using pen and ink. It’s such a tiny, delicate portrait. I’m really curious about this miniaturization. What do you make of this piece? Curator: Well, I think we need to consider the context of its making. Think about the materials: pen, ink, paper, and even the metal of the frame. How accessible were these, and to whom? Was there a particular labor division to extract the metal, the ink, produce the paper...? Miniatures such as this circulated almost like precious commodities, and that production would impact the art itself. Editor: That's an interesting way of looking at it – so it’s not just about Mrs. Lennox’s status, but also the resources involved in making her portrait. Curator: Precisely! Consider also the patronage system: who commissioned it? Was she purchasing the portrait for herself, or commissioning it for someone else? That tells us so much more. The entire history of art has to be contextualized into economic production. What impact did that labor have on society at the time? How many copies were made? Were other women represented? Editor: So, you’re saying understanding the social and economic factors, like the production of the materials and the commissioning of the artwork, offers a really key insight to its significance. I guess I never thought about art that way. Curator: Exactly! And this reframes our idea of aesthetics too - how beauty in an art object has long relied upon that entire system of labor and trade, as it continues to. Editor: I suppose the art becomes an emblem of power that comes not just from her person but its materiality as well? That gives me so much to think about regarding how art is connected to social history.