Throne of Mercy c. 1428 - 1430

Editor: This is Robert Campin's "Throne of Mercy," painted around 1428 to 1430 with oil on panel. What strikes me immediately is how sculptural it feels. Given it's a painting, the illusion of carved stone is incredible. How should we approach looking at it? Curator: Given that deceptive illusion, let's think about production. Oil paint on panel mimicks sculpture, deliberately conflating the material processes of painting and carving. What kind of labor do we imagine went into this panel compared to, say, an actual sculpted altarpiece? Editor: I guess it presents an interesting paradox. A sculpture demands subtractive labor – chipping away to reveal form. This painting is additive, layering pigment. But doesn't achieving such realism demand just as much skilled handiwork as carving? Curator: Precisely. And think about the Northern Renaissance audience. Images like this one would have been part of larger altarpieces which often *did* include sculptures. So Campin is placing his crafted painting in conversation with the labor and expense inherent in creating sculpture. It subtly challenges the hierarchy. Editor: So, by so convincingly simulating sculpture, Campin actually elevates the status of painting, forcing the viewer to consider the artist's skill and material transformation. And, the consumption patterns of art- which would have been cheaper- for everyday life? Curator: Exactly! The "Throne of Mercy" reminds us that art isn't just about divine subjects. It's also about the work, materials, and social positioning of artmaking itself. Editor: I never considered the painting's medium as actively commenting on labor practices and the market, really interesting. Thanks for offering that perspective! Curator: My pleasure! Thinking materially helps reveal so much.