Portret van John Perceval, 1e graaf van Egmont 1734

Editor: So, this is a portrait of John Perceval, the 1st Earl of Egmont, an engraving from 1734 by John (II) Faber. I'm struck by how detailed the engraving is, especially the textures of his robe and wig. What do you see in this piece, looking at it through a materialist lens? Curator: Well, let's think about the materials and the process itself. This isn’t just an image; it's an artifact of labor. Engraving required a skilled artisan meticulously carving into a metal plate. Consider the socio-economic context: Who commissioned this? Why an engraving rather than a painting? Who would have had access to this image? Was it mass produced, or more exclusive? Editor: That's a really good point. It feels like this engraving was a way to disseminate an image of power, maybe for political reasons? Is it also a sign of class, luxury, or power to have access to one? Curator: Precisely. It highlights how image-making was intertwined with power structures. The choice of engraving suggests a desire for reproducibility, to circulate his image among a particular audience. The very materiality speaks to access and control of representation. The work and the resources it took. What is he wearing? Editor: He's wearing a very elaborate robe and wig. Curator: Think about the production of those materials. Where did the fabric come from? The labor involved in tailoring the robe, and even the sourcing and preparation of the materials for the wig! It all points to a complex web of global trade, labor practices, and consumption that defined the elite in the 18th century. Editor: I hadn’t thought about the raw materials as being related to labour like that, but you are right. Considering the work of others changes the way you see this print! Curator: Exactly. Shifting our focus to the processes of creation and the embedded labor can unveil fascinating insights.