Reckheimse duit van Ferdinand van Aspremont-Lynden (1636-1665) 1636 - 1665

Editor: So, here we have what appears to be an old coin, "Reckheimse duit van Ferdinand van Aspremont-Lynden" from 1636 to 1665, printed on metal. It's small, unassuming... but worn with age. I'm curious, what’s your perspective on a piece like this? Curator: Well, as a materialist, this "duit" intrigues me not so much for its face value but for its creation. The base metal itself – what narratives does its sourcing reveal? How were these raw materials extracted, refined, and by whom? Consider the labor and technologies involved. Editor: I see what you mean. It's not just a portrait of a lord but also about the metal itself. Do you think its small size diminishes it as a portrait, or does it amplify the mass production that it was intended for? Curator: Size is irrelevant. The small scale enabled wider circulation and therefore wider dissemination of the portrait, which then reflects social structures. The ability to reproduce en masse impacts accessibility and therefore potentially power. How did people interact with this object, where did they get it? Was it affordable, was it fair trade, who profited most? Editor: So you're saying to really appreciate it, we should be looking into the processes by which the coin came into being rather than what’s printed on the face of it. I hadn't thought about that! Curator: Precisely. The engraving itself, consider it also; it wasn't an artistic luxury of the upper classes, rather part of broader colonial dynamics relating to materiality, consumption and value. The art, so to speak, stems from such manufacturing. Editor: Wow. Thinking about this little coin in terms of materials and mass production… It changes everything. Curator: Indeed. Hopefully, now you understand a bit about approaching art from this angle. There are hidden things to consider other than what the face value presents!