If I were a curator planning a small focus exhibition at the Cleveland Museum of Art wishing the characterize the art of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in Europe and Great Britain, the four art works I would choose from the collection to represent these two centuries are the Portrait of Isabella Brant, Saint Peter Repentant, the gilt bronze clock from the French gallery, and the gilt bronze microscope. Starting with the Portrait of Isabella Brant, an early 17th century piece, Rubens really showcases a fantastic ability in being able to bring liveliness to his artwork, with his wife’s face flushed red, intricate details in her hair, and various grooves and angular shapes to help the viewer feel as though she’s there. I think it’s a fantastic piece to incorporate in characterizing the art from this time, but most importantly, an artistic piece that demonstrates great skill in bringing the human figure to life. 
To contrast this with another piece I’ve selected, the microscope from the 18th century, I think this would be a unique choice to compare against such a lively figure. The microscope in itself is a cold, scientific instrument. However, done in gilt bronze, it shows a level of luxury and intricate craftsmanship combined into one package. I also believe that in comparing these two centuries, it helps paint the picture of a shift in focus towards what these cultures valued. On a grander scale, this is a relatively short period of time, lived through just a few generations. As a curator, it would be vital for those viewing these art pieces to understand a very real shift from the focus on raw technique and skill that we see with Rubens, to a combination of craftsmanship and artistic skill from the microscope. Lots of various shapes and detailing are built into the microscope’s casing and there’s a certain sense of irony in an instrument used to view microscopic life and having a viewer within a museum view life drawn onto a canvas in contrast to this art piece.
The third piece, Saint Peter Repentant I’ve selected for its character. La Tour utilizes great skill with lighting, and the subject at hand gives the sense of a level of sophistication that represents art from this century well. Moreover, the subject matter gives a rather strong look at what the people were interested in at this time. La Tour’s work is an intellectual piece, and the requirement of some knowledge of the situation in understanding certain aspects such as the rooster or Saint Peter’s hands being clasped in such a manner is something to appreciate in itself. The somewhat playful, yet sophisticated subject matter, combined with the style La Tour has chosen, a dimly lit, earthly toned art piece, allows the viewer to understand the work in multiple facets based on their own experience with art, ideal for curation. Contrasting it to the other two works thus far in my selection, Rubens work shows great technical skill but as a portraiture it doesn’t necessarily capture commentary and entertaining subject matter as well as this artwork does. Of course, compared to the microscope, we also see the same issue, but both the microscope and this work both capture a degree of entertainment in playing with their respective subjects. With the microscope offering a degree of luxury, and this work offering a degree of sophistication.
