Portret van Marcus Huber 1677

Editor: Here we have "Portrait of Marcus Huber," a print made in 1677 by Elias Hainzelmann. It’s a pretty straightforward portrait in an oval frame. What strikes me is how serious and perhaps a little weary he seems. What do you see in this piece, and what stories do you think it tells? Curator: Absolutely, and I’m drawn to the power dynamics at play within portraiture of this era. This engraving is interesting because it functions as a representation of status, yes, but more significantly it illustrates the performative nature of identity in 17th century Augsburg. Huber’s clothing, his hair – these aren't just personal choices, they're deeply interwoven with social expectations. The Latin inscription suggests that he served not just the public but also some other private things - What were the standards to fulfill back then, and whom were those for? Editor: So it’s less about capturing his individual likeness and more about presenting him in a way that reinforces his position in society? I’m curious about how accurate you think this portrayal of wealth is, compared to a contemporary portrait with something like photography, which seems more reliable. Curator: Exactly! And consider the printmaking medium itself. Prints like this were reproducible. So, consider the politics of visibility. Who had access to images like these and who was being excluded? The fact that he is surrounded by an inscription further underscores the construction of his public image, perhaps to be seen for centuries to come. Who would ensure this memory will live on? Editor: It makes you think about the layers of power and control involved in even a seemingly simple portrait. I didn’t really think about the choices in medium either. Thanks for helping me unpack that. Curator: Precisely. Thinking critically about historical context can unlock new ways to read and engage with art. The act of memorializing via portrait is laden with the ideals and the possibilities afforded to the subject within their society.