Porringer 1685 - 1715

Editor: Here we have a silver porringer, likely crafted between 1685 and 1715. What strikes me is how such a simple object also feels incredibly luxurious, even now. What are your initial thoughts on it? Curator: As a materialist, I see an object deeply embedded in its social and economic context. The very material – silver – speaks volumes. This isn’t mere functionality; it represents wealth, status, and the control of resources and trade. Editor: That makes sense. So, the choice of material reveals a lot. Curator: Absolutely. The labor involved in mining, refining, and shaping silver was significant. The porringer reflects the hierarchies of labor involved in its creation. And look at the pierced handle; do you notice the maker's marks and any indications about the artisanal production or manufacturing processes present? Editor: Yes, there are some marks on the handle…almost like a signature. Would something like this have been commissioned, then? Curator: Almost certainly. The commission itself speaks to a patron’s power, and their intention of exhibiting their wealth through possessing such objects. These pieces would also have served to maintain social status by following certain table manners and the implied customs. Editor: I never really thought about how much a single object could reveal about society at large. Curator: That’s the beauty of looking at art through a materialist lens. It pushes us to ask 'who made this?', 'with what resources?', and 'for what purpose?' It connects art directly to the economic and social realities of its time. Editor: I’ll definitely look at silverware differently from now on! Thank you. Curator: My pleasure. Examining material culture is one step toward connecting our consumer pasts to our present and future concerns with responsible production and resource consumption.