The artwork here has been quite Euro-centric, so I decided
it was time to look at some good old-fashioned American art. Recently Amy over at Kid-Free Living (who is
hilarious and you should go read her blog!) found some gems at the National Gallery in DC, which pointed me in the direction of their
website. A vast trove of materials awaited! The 19th century
seems to have been a golden age for awkward portraiture.
Mrs. Harlow A. Pease – Erastus Salisbury Field, 1837 (Source) |
The 19th century was a period before closets were
invented, so women were forced to wear all of their clothes stuffed into their
sleeves and tied under their skirts.
Unused lace curtains were turned into attractive head and shoulder
coverings.
Interior Scene - 1840 |
At this time, people had hands and feet a fraction of the
size that they do today. Books were
made in miniature to accommodate tiny fingers.
Also, perspective did not exist yet.
Terribly awkward haircuts for children did exist, however,
along with the child’s resultant seething being immortalized in paint.
“Please can we go now, Mummy? Little Francis Green-Dress wants to take her dollhouse sledding
and teach me how to hover an inch off the ground like she does.”
Charles H. Sisson – Joseph Goodhue Chandler, 1850 |
Little Charles already excelled in the art of beating the
livestock and servants by the age of five.
Plains Indian – J.W. Bradshaw, 19th century |
So I imagine Mr. Bradshaw was trying to show respect in
painting the portrait of this individual.
Unfortunately his face seems to be melting a bit. On the plus side, his portrait later served as inspiration for the Muppet Workshop.
I think the winner for Most Awkward American Portrait this
round, however, goes to Edward Hicks, for his “Portrait of a Child.”
Source |
Yes, that face will haunt you for the rest of the day. You’re welcome!
Oh Ninja, please post a picture of your work here so we can make snarky comments about it?
ReplyDeleteI hate all of these paintings! Liked your comments though. I agree about the bearded lady. Thing is, she also bears a striking resemblance to paintings of Jesus. Anyone else think so?
Fortunately my portrait is safely hidden away in a cave guarded by a particularly vicious Jabberwock.
DeleteAnd I guess they say Jesus is with all of us - maybe just especially so with Eliza Welch Stone.
I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours.
DeleteFirst off, thank you for the plug...
ReplyDeleteSecond - WHAT THE HELL IS THAT THING IN THE LAST PAINTING?? Damn straight it's going to haunt me for the rest of the day. Who paints that and then sits back and says... yep... bang on. NAILED IT.
I'm guessing a nearsighted man with a phobia of children? Or maybe the painter was spurned by the child's mother, and he offered to paint the portrait as a form of elaborate revenge.
DeleteEliza Welch Stone has a rather mannish 5 0-clock shadow on her face. Is it possible she was the first American transvestite? And that Native American's nose must be sharper than his tomahawk.
ReplyDeleteYeah that nose is sharp but if it were me, I would be more concerned with the feather growing out of the back of my head.
DeleteIt's handy to have a built-in cutting edge for when you find yourself without a knife. Makes for an awkward time eating dinner, though.
DeleteIs that last one a picture of the creature from The Ghoulies?
ReplyDeleteWell, art often finds inspiration in other art...maybe the special effects team had visited an art museum before production...seems plausible to me.
DeleteThat Portrait of a Child ain't no child! I'm pretty sure that's a fully grown man wearing a kiddies outfit. Huh, who knew they had infantalism back then.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, all these fetishes existed, it was just harder to document and share them without the prevalence of cheap digital cameras. You had to go out and find a painter willing to take it all in, and most of them would rather spend time painting flowers or dead animals than a man in a giant pinafore.
DeleteEdward Hicks either couldn't paint hands, or...I don't want to think of an alternative. My take aways here are: they LOVED shoulder pads back in the 18-19th century, they were way into abstract art without knowing it, somebody got their hands on some peyote, and some art is not worth hanging in a museum.
ReplyDeleteAll very important lessons in art history that they don't tell you in class.
DeleteThank you for showing that American painters can be just as haunting as the Europeans, albeit without the bare breasts of their Dutch counterparts.
ReplyDeleteWow! Freaky kids (is that "child" supposed to be a boy or a girl? We have some gender identity issues going on there) and manly women. Why in the painting with the boy with the whip does his face look realistic but everything else has a cartoon feel to it? Did the artist get tired or not know how to paint clothes? I get that hands are hard to capture, but seriously, none of them could master it! Maybe it's a European thing. That and perspective!
Hands were a new stage of evolution in American history that artists were still struggling to learn to capture. Prior to hands, everyone just had slightly tapered stumps at the end of their arms, so the widening of the hand and development of fingers baffled painters for some time.
DeleteYe gods, those artists were either geniusii or escaped lunatics who were good with a brush.
ReplyDeleteThis all pre-dates television so are we perhaps missing something? Maybe there were "channels" in artwork at the time and what you have there came from the "Comedy" and "Wildlife" oils channels? Maybe one or two from the "Horror" channel too...
There is a very fine line between "genius" and "escaped lunatic." I think that about the producers of some of the programming on modern television.
DeleteI like the idea of art channels, but you do get the risk of one person gradually buying up all the channels and gaining an art display monopoly, and then every channel suddenly becoming some variation on the theme of Sexy Clowns.
I happen to be a fan of 'American primitives' (I don't like No 2; too contrived), and I own a classic example of 'a family dog'. I'd give the whipping boy some wall space.
ReplyDeleteDespite my sarcastic comments, I don't think there's anything wrong with liking any particular type of art. And there's always the gallery gift shop for ordering prints...
DeleteGirl with Reticule and Rose.... Dear Lord, some painting you just want to hide. My 1980's shoulder pads seem so historically relevant right now.
ReplyDeleteKnock knock
DeleteKnock knock.
DeleteWhat the hell is going on in that last one?!!!?!?! I have so much fun when I come here. Note to self: come here more often!
ReplyDeletePlease continue, I love weblogs like these.
ReplyDeleteHave you ever noticed the Sistine Chapel segment where Adam and Eve eat from the forbidden fruit? Find a close up, there are plenty of them on internet, and imagine where Eve's mouth would have been had the Serpent not asked for her attention.
Michelangelo may have been deeply religious, but he liked to tease the Church. And for 500 years, numerous kings and popes and cardinals and mother superiors and nuns have stared at the ceiling in devoting awe and never noticed...
We seem to be out of date. February the fifteenth? Oh my.
ReplyDelete