Men in Seventeenth-Century Costumes [recto] c. 1850s

Editor: Here we have Emanuel Leutze's "Men in Seventeenth-Century Costumes [recto]," a pencil drawing from around the 1850s. It’s interesting how loosely sketched the figures are. What’s your take on this piece? Curator: Well, immediately, I’m drawn to the process of its creation. Look at the visible pencil strokes; they emphasize the labor and the artist's hand. What were the conditions of its making? Was this preparatory? Was it a study of historical garments? The very act of rendering historical dress –its materials, its tailoring—suggests a focus on the material culture of the 17th century. Editor: I hadn't considered it from that angle. It just seemed like a quick sketch. Curator: Precisely! Is it “just a sketch,” or is it an investigation into the means by which historical identities are constructed and consumed? Academic art was deeply involved in this period, examining both how art was used to perpetuate material class differences, while the materials for creating the art could be just as impactful. Editor: So, the *way* the art is made—the materials, the time spent—is just as important as what it depicts? Curator: Absolutely. Think about the social context surrounding pencil drawing in the 1850s. Pencils were becoming more accessible, making drawing a more democratic activity, yet this piece still engages with high art themes of history and portraiture. Does the chosen medium allow this piece to bridge between the ‘elite’ and the common? It raises questions about who had access to art making. Editor: That’s fascinating! I usually focus on the subject matter, but the medium and the process really change how you interpret it. Thanks for pointing that out. Curator: My pleasure. It is essential to challenge traditional art, especially when focusing on class and labor differences.