Portret van James FitzGerald 1754

Editor: So, here we have a print titled "Portret van James FitzGerald" created around 1754 by James McArdell, currently held at the Rijksmuseum. It’s an engraving and it's very...formal. Almost staged. What stands out to you? Curator: Beyond the aesthetic conventions of portraiture in the Baroque and Academic art styles, I see a potent representation of power dynamics. Consider the date – 1754. What social and political structures afforded FitzGerald this level of visual representation? Who was excluded? How did portraiture function to legitimize specific identities and hierarchies? Editor: That's interesting. I hadn't thought about the power dynamic. I guess it feels so distant. How did these portraits affect, say, ordinary people at the time? Curator: Did the working classes have access to such images, or the spaces in which they were displayed? Portraits like these reinforce not only the sitter's importance but also the very systems that allowed him to gain this privilege. And we need to ask: whose stories were deemed unworthy of documentation? Who was erased from the historical record? Editor: I see what you mean. It's not just about the individual in the painting, but also the statement being made about who matters. The control that FitzGerald exerts through McArdell's depiction of wealth. So this image in some ways helps perpetuate the problem... Curator: Precisely. And recognizing this opens up possibilities for re-interpretation and hopefully dismantling of systems that value some individuals over others. What stories do we elevate today, and who continues to be left out of frame? Editor: I hadn’t considered it in those terms, of exclusion and cultural narrative. Thinking about who *isn’t* represented definitely changes how I see these historical works. Curator: Exactly. By exploring those gaps, we begin to see these works not just as aesthetic objects but as powerful cultural documents, reflective of their time and impactful in ours.