I recently read a great article by Jennifer Roberts about John Singleton Copley's painting "Boy with a Squirrel" (pictured above).  I thought I would share some of what I learned:
     At this time the artist is the foremost portrait painter in Boston and arguably in all of colonial America.  He longs, however, to be a history painter and to be accepted by his idols in England such as Sir Joshua Reynolds.  The painting is sent to London and is highly praised and Copley is encouraged to come to London for training.  The author discusses the painting and how the transit from North America to England contributes to its meaning.  She states that the medium of the work is not only oil on canvas, but “oil on canvas on a merchant ship on the Atlantic Ocean.”  (Interesting thought!!) The subject of the painting is Copley’s half-brother Henry Pelham.  The young man is shown at a table, holding a squirrel on a chain, next to a glass of water on the table.  The author states that the glass of water is present to show Copley’s skill at representing transparency and reflections.  The author also states that the presence of the water represents the Atlantic Ocean.  The chain held by the boy spans the circumference of the water glass as if to represent the painting’s journey across the ocean.  The presence of the squirrel (actually a flying squirrel) on a chain is also common in American portraiture of children to represent diligence, patience, and Lockean education that includes the domestication of a wild animal.  In addition to this the author points out that the terms “squirrel” and “flying squirrel” were also used as common names for schooners and sloops that passed through the harbor of Boston.  The flying squirrel is also the perfect animal representation of a stretched canvas.  This type of squirrel can also represent movement and transit of the painting.  The squirrel is also the epitome of a three-dimensional object becoming a two dimensional object which is often related to the art of painting.  When sitting still the squirrel is a very three-dimensional animal, but when needing to fly to a new destination the animal flattens itself out considerably.  There is also much made of the representation of the boy in profile which is quite unusual in Copley’s portraits and in mid eighteenth-century painting in general.  While the curtain in the background and the boy himself are somewhat flat, the table is not and cuts onto the space emphasizing three-dimensional space. Another aspect of the painting discussed by the author is the idea of sensory perception.  The curtain is said to be a transition point from the flatness of the profile to the three-dimensionality of the table.  The red curtain in the background has many strange shapes found in the folds.  One shape mimics the shape of the boy’s eye and the curve of his palm and sleeve.  Another shape in the curtain mimics the boy’s ear.  The author states that these and other devices allow the boy to be depicted looking one way and yet listening behind him.  The ear and references to hearing might also be a reference to Copley’s desire to hear the reactions to his painting once it arrives in London without its creator.  All of these references to sensory perception may also indicate the ideas of John Locke and his empiricism.  Empiricism states that knowledge is based on sense experience rather than innate ideas.  The author concludes that the painting is a new aesthetic about transit and transformation.
    I just adore how art can be read on so many different levels.  It is articles like this that make me want to always continue learning more.

I was recently reading an article by Susan Rather on famous American artist Benjamin West. This article explores the complicated reputation of Benjamin West and national identity.  Rather addresses the complicated issue for West who was born in America (Pennsylvania) but traveled (early twenties) to study in Italy and then moved to Britain for the remainder of his life.  He becomes the second president of the Royal Academy in London and becomes painter to the King (George III). There is often debate on just how American Benjamin West should be considered to be after all this considerable time in England.  West only lived in America when it was still considered a part of Britain anyways.  The interesting thing about West is that throughout his lifetime he attempts to identify himself either as a British gentleman or a naive self-taught America depending on how it suits his career at the time.  When he first moves to London he plays the part of the exciting new stranger from the new world, but when that novelty wears off he struggles to be seen as a British gentleman and he tries to hide some of his American qualities in order to be more readily accepted.  What cannot be denied is his contributions to American art.  He taught and nurtured many American students who came over to his London studio to learn painting.  There were few alternatives and West set up this American “school” which gave a huge boost to the arts in the new republic.  He does not, however, seem to consider presiding over this enterprise from his homeland.  West seems to have fought for every bit of his reputation as a great painter, often competing with John Copley (another American) for attention.  Many regarded him as quite full of himself as he had stationary printed with his self-portrait on it and metals cast with his face on one side and inscriptions such as, “Benjamin West/ aged seventy seven/ in the full possession of his powers/ and of his glory.”  He also fought to get from under the shadows of Sir Joshua Reynolds fame.  Reynolds' death only cements him in the canon of famous artists and West is left to hold the office of president of the Royal Academy directly after this highly regarded man.  You can see his desperation when he announces that he will show his entire body of work (over a two year period as if to say he has such a huge catalog that it would be impossible to show it at one time) just after it is announced that an exhibition surveying Reynolds' work will be shown.  He is also alarmed by the new found love of Hogarth’s work that is well underway by 1814.  He worries that these two other artists will be remembered as founders of modern British painting instead of himself.  It is around this time that he goes on a campaign of sorts to reestablish himself as that great, mysterious, rugged America painter full of raw, natural talent.  He is freed to tell a quite entertaining (and most likely hyperbolic) version of his early American life after the deaths of some (including Copley) who would have jumped at the chance to discount it.  His biography is filled with ridiculous stories that paint him as a boy genius who among other things was taught to paint by Native Americans and invented the artistic device known as the camera obscura without any prior knowledge of it!  Record of West shows a man who is never quite satisfied.  He does every thing possible to get attention and therefore get commissions for his livelihood.  One can not blame him for trying to reinvent himself and make himself a commodity.  This is what all good business men and women must do.
     The most interesting thing, however, is Americans' wish to claim West as a great American painter when he spent most of his life out of the country and parts of those years trying desperately to hide his "American-ness."  He is certainly a great painter, but is he American? That is the question!  (and possibly my thesis..blaaah! who knows though)   

    The latest article I read discusses many British and American portraits that depict women and young girls with reference to their dress and dolls. (I won't write much about the dolls, but maybe in a later post).  The author asks why the children look so solemn and serious.  They are not at all child-like and carefree as we know most children to be in our modern day.  There is a rising number of paintings depicting children after 1750.  The consistent theme of these portraits seems to be the representation of the ideal woman; a picture of modesty, obedience, submissiveness, and chastity.  The portrait most thoroughly discussed is by Charles William Peale Mrs. Robert Gilmore and Her Daughters.  The mother looks straight ahead while the younger daughter looks out to the left and the other daughter looks out into the “middle distance.”  They are wearing different types of dress.  The daughters wear real dresses from this time, while the mother is wearing a dress that is an invention of the artist.  The doll held by the younger girl shows the high fashions of the high eighteenth century.  The children wear white, unembellished dresses common for children.  Before the mid-eighteenth century children went straight from infant clothing to smaller versions of adult clothing.  The frock we see here is simpler than the gown, petticoat, and stomacher ensemble that children of earlier times were expected to wear.  According to portraiture they are usually white which represents the innocence of childhood.  The artist invents a dress for Mrs. Gilmore, as is common at this time for women of a certain age, in a way to "virtuously avoid fashion".  Women’s fashion and hairstyles are highly criticized by men at this time.  The doll represents the education of women (because they were used to learn sewing and other skills), but also the dangers of high fashion and the childish emphasis on appearance.  The girl that holds the doll looks away from her mother and the moral lesson of the book while the other girl meditates on the story’s merits as she places her hand on her mother's book.  As a woman having her portrait painted she must be able to accept an artist’s alternative image of herself.  It is important to realize that the artist, a man, and the patron, her husband are the ones who create this image of the woman and her daughters.  This is a time when a woman's choice of dress is one of her few freedoms. Hoop skirts are even seen by some at the time as a declaration of a woman’s personal space.  Men, however, see these and other fashions as evidence of sexual promiscuity or in some instances a desire to appear more masculine.  The indifference of the women is evident by the repeated reminders by the men. This most likely causes much fear in the men as they realize that women might actually dress to please themselves. (gasp!)  The author then explains a drastic change in dress that occurs right around 1800.  The dress consisting of multiple parts that had been used for centuries is replaced by a simpler “all-in-one” dress similar to the frocks of children.    The appropriate age to wear the children’s frocks continues to rise until adult women begin wearing them.  The entire structure of the eighteenth-century silhouette changes. (Think about something like Marie Antoinette vs. Jane Austen dresses.)  If the hoop skirt and other fashions do represent freedom and person space, this development in fashion reveals a great loss in this space.  The author believes that this style of dress, now synonymous with purity and innocence of youth, becomes a trend at least partly due to the portraits she discusses and the artists invented fashions (or "non-fashions").  The author states that many things (rationality, aesthetics, politics, etc.) must have come together for such a drastic change.  She concludes that whatever is responsible, the consensus is for a visual simplicity and innocence in women.  In conclusion, she states that these portraits of women and their daughters are most often painted to show the perfect ideal of how a woman should behave and who daughters should emulate.

      My title is just a joke. I do not want to wear a hoop skirt at all. This article does, however, make me curious about so many things.  Firstly, I want to know why these women finally went along with the style men seem to be pushing..... a look of childlike innocence. I hope it had something to do with comfort.  Perhaps I will research this more because such a sudden shift in fashion seem quite strange.  It also amazes me that these outfits that we view as ridiculous, cumbersome, and uncomfortable, might have been seen as a mark of freedom for the women???  For a long time I have wrongly assumed that men must have wished their women to look in certain exaggerated ways (hourglass figures, padded hips, etc.) when really, according to all the writings and criticism, they seem to prefer the more natural.  There is even much talk at this time about their desire to see hair down flowing naturally around the neck instead of up in these complicated arrangements of wigs and powders and attachments.  I can not even attempt to address the amount of criticism of make-up during the eighteenth century because there is so much literature on that one subject. I do get the impression that men still prefer that more natural look since they are always saying they prefer no make-up etc. Hmm... if that is true then I guess their tastes have not changed much in the last few hundred years? (probably longer)   ;)

I am reading many articles this summer for a class and this article really has stuck with me so I want to share a few things from it with you.  The article discusses miniature eye portraits.  This tradition all began in 1784 when the Prince of Wales fell madly in love with a widow (and Roman Catholic) Mrs. Fitzherbert.  It was understood that the prince's father, King George III, would disapprove of such a union.  In a desperate move, the prince faked a suicide attempt to force a promise of marriage from the woman.  It worked at first and she promises to secretly marry him, but upon thinking more about it she fled from England.  He desperately wrote her many letters pleading her to return.  In a famous letter written on November 3, 1784 he proposed again and sent a little trinket.  It was not a ring, and not the typical miniature portrait, but a miniature portrait of the prince's eye alone.  Now during this time it was common to give a loved one a miniature portrait of oneself.  These were made for relatives or lovers or even friends.  The portrait of an eye, however, was much less common and seems to be a great deal more intimate.  Much has been made of how such a portrait seems to look back at the viewer even more than the viewer looks at it. Now to our modern selves this might seem to be quite the creepy move.  We might perhaps be repulsed by such an odd gift, but this was not the reaction of Mrs. Fitzherbert.  She returns to England, marries the prince secretly, and gives him a portrait of her own eye.  Most interestingly, this begins a trend in the country of eye portraits being given to special loved ones!  This trend does not last long and dies out around the 1840's, but the fact that such a tradition caught on (probably because of such a love story between a member of the royal family) is quite fascinating.  I have actually seen an eye portrait in an antiques store recently (before reading this article) and was quite taken aback by it.  It was a crude one, and not really a miniature, but it was a small painted close up of just one eye.  It made me immediately uncomfortable to be honest.  We must remember, however, we are talking about people from a period in time who wore jewelry out of their loved ones' hair!  Literally they braided thick locks of hair into bracelets and necklaces blending the function of the pieces as jewelry, but also as relic.  Eeeeeeeeewwwww! (or really sweet.... I just can't decide!)

I will use this blog to address issues in art history and also art appraisal.  I hope you will visit to read about some things I find interesting.  I think you will find them interesting also!

I hope to share with you what I am learning about fine art appraisal as I go through this process as well as interesting issues dealing with art in general.