Venus en Amor 1751 - 1807

Editor: Here we have Angelica Kauffmann’s "Venus en Amor," a pencil, ink, and watercolor drawing on paper from the late 18th or early 19th century, residing at the Rijksmuseum. It feels… unfinished, almost like a sketch. What do you see in this piece? Curator: I see the layering of materials, pencil underlying the ink washes, suggesting a process rooted in materiality and production. Kauffmann's choice of humble materials challenges the high-art status often associated with Neoclassicism. Notice how the material execution downplays idealized beauty, emphasizing instead the physical act of creation. What implications does that have when depicting classical allegories? Editor: It’s like she's revealing the labor involved, moving beyond the idealized image. The texture of the paper itself becomes important, and her pencil and ink work. Curator: Exactly. Kauffmann’s studio was a commercial enterprise; she produced many works, often drawings as preparation for larger paintings. This drawing reveals a particular tension in Kauffmann’s practice, balancing her creative intentions with the economic realities of artistic production in 18th-century Europe. We can look at these works as a glimpse into the workshop as much as the art historical canon. How does considering it as a material object rather than only allegory change your perspective? Editor: It makes me consider the paper’s journey, the origin of the ink, even Kauffmann’s labor itself. Curator: Precisely. The materials and process embed it in a network of making and commerce. Thinking through a material lens shows the social contexts of the art itself. Editor: I never considered Neoclassicism this way. Thank you. Curator: My pleasure, examining art this way invites questioning boundaries.