Triomfwagen van Mercurius 1698

Editor: This is Gilliam van der Gouwen's "Triumph of Mercury," made in 1698. It’s an engraving, so it's all about line, but the figures also evoke a strong sense of weight and classical form. What jumps out at you when you look at this print? Curator: The triumph is an illusion created by skilled labor. The engraving, a reproducible medium, democratizes the elite image of Mercury, whose dominion touched commerce, communication, even thievery. Consider the engraver's meticulous work. What tools, workshops, and economies underpinned the production and distribution of this print? Editor: So you're less interested in the allegory and more in, like, how it was actually made and who got to see it? Curator: Precisely! Forget the divine. Think about the engraver's hand, the paper’s sourcing, the printing press, the ink. Each impression served as a tool of propaganda, subtly shaping perception of power and divine right. Look at how the *material* of the print contrasts with the lofty subject matter! What social role did prints like these play, given their relative affordability? Editor: That’s a really interesting point. I was focusing on the content, but the materials tell a whole other story about who this image was for and how it circulated. Did the act of making so many identical images somehow cheapen the symbolism? Curator: That’s exactly the question we should be asking! The reproductive nature of engraving challenges the aura of uniqueness usually associated with “high art.” Did wide distribution amplify or dilute its intended message? What was the exchange value of these engravings within 17th century Dutch society? Editor: Okay, I see what you mean. By thinking about it as a mass-produced object, rather than just an image, you start to uncover a whole network of makers, sellers, and buyers that shaped its meaning. I'll definitely look at art differently from now on! Curator: Indeed. Never underestimate the power of material analysis!