Wednesday 10 July 2013

Awkward American Portraits


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.
 
Girl with Reticule and Rose – Joseph Whiting Stock, 1840
Terribly awkward haircuts for children did exist, however, along with the child’s resultant seething being immortalized in paint.
 
Mary and Francis Wilcox – Joseph Whiting Stock, 1845

 “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.”
 
Eliza Welch Stone – Thomas Skynner, 1845

I assume Eliza divided her free time between flower arranging to maintain a veneer of femininity, and being a linebacker.  She needed to be careful about getting her portrait done when her five o'clock shadow was showing, though.
 
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!

The old saying goes, those who can’t do, write snarky blog posts about those who at least attempt to do.  I confess I once tried my hand at doing a self-portrait, with a Technicolor result that would have made Picasso scratch his head.  The difference is that my work didn’t wind up in the National Gallery. 

26 comments:

  1. Oh Ninja, please post a picture of your work here so we can make snarky comments about it?

    I 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?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fortunately my portrait is safely hidden away in a cave guarded by a particularly vicious Jabberwock.

      And I guess they say Jesus is with all of us - maybe just especially so with Eliza Welch Stone.

      Delete
    2. I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours.

      Delete
  2. First off, thank you for the plug...

    Second - 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 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.

      Delete
  3. Eliza 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah 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.

      Delete
    2. It'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.

      Delete
  4. Is that last one a picture of the creature from The Ghoulies?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, art often finds inspiration in other art...maybe the special effects team had visited an art museum before production...seems plausible to me.

      Delete
  5. That 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed, 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.

      Delete
  6. Edward 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All very important lessons in art history that they don't tell you in class.

      Delete
  7. Thank you for showing that American painters can be just as haunting as the Europeans, albeit without the bare breasts of their Dutch counterparts.

    Wow! 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!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 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.

      Delete
  8. Ye gods, those artists were either geniusii or escaped lunatics who were good with a brush.

    This 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...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 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.

      I 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.

      Delete
  9. 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Despite 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...

      Delete
  10. Girl with Reticule and Rose.... Dear Lord, some painting you just want to hide. My 1980's shoulder pads seem so historically relevant right now.

    ReplyDelete
  11. What 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!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Please continue, I love weblogs like these.
    Have 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...

    ReplyDelete
  13. We seem to be out of date. February the fifteenth? Oh my.

    ReplyDelete