Please feel free to send me any portrait you believe may be by Gilbert Stuart. If I am unsure of its authenticity, I will consult further with the leading experts on the artist.
Gilbert Stuart
THE WORLD OF SAMUEL MEEKER, MERCHANT OF PHILADELPHIA, AND GILBERT STUART, AMERICAN PORTRAIT ARTIST
Tuesday, August 19, 2025
Is this a portrait by Gilbert Stuart?
Please feel free to send me any portrait you believe may be by Gilbert Stuart. If I am unsure of its authenticity, I will consult further with the leading experts on the artist.
Friday, April 2, 2021
Samuel Meeker's cousin and business partner: More on Wm Parsons Meeker. He was indeed married!
William Parsons Meeker, also a sitter for Gilbert Stuart
Regarding the Gilbert Stuart blog by Elizabeth Ahrens:
I read and felt your excitement in 2008 at finding the portrait of your ancestor Samuel Meeker (1763-1831) painted by non other than Gilbert Stuart in 1803. As an Australian, I needed to read about Stuart to appreciate the artist’s following in America. Seemingly, his greatness was evident and his artistic merits were in part due to the nature of many of his clientele – The ‘wealthy and/or famous’.
My own excitement arose when I read that Samuel’s cousin, William Parsons Meeker (1769-1812) was also painted by Stuart and there it was, William’s portrait right in front of my eyes. I have to admit that it wasn’t the greatness of the artist nor the attributes of many of the sitters that aroused my emotions. You see, William was my 3-x great grandfather. I had done a lot of background reading about the Meekers in America, starting with the progenitor William (Goodman) Meeker who arrived there about 1635. Samuel and William were descendants (and first cousins) of William (Goodman) Meeker.
William’s parents were Matthias (1744-1832) and Jane Parsons (1746-1814). Matthias Meeker was famous in his own right. He, Rev. J. Arsdalen and Matthias Denman organised residents of Springfield, NJ to discuss how to help those people who were seeking refuge from Yellow fever. That particular epidemic killed 5000 Philadelphians. It was decided to offer asylum and a hospital to those who were affected.
A sentence written by Elizabeth Ahrens on her blog related to Gilbert Stuart caught my eye; ‘William Parson Meeker, he never married’. It wasn’t the first time that I had seen this statement about William. I have written a biography of my family’s history. In it, I have shown that William did in fact marry during his time spent working as a merchant in England in the early 1800s.
William’s portrait presents a handsome young man, yet, apparently, Stuart never beautified his sitters. It’s easy to understand then then why an English lady, named Elizabeth Vandenbrant would find Mr. William Parsons Meeker an attractive gentleman, fall in love, and marry him, and then have his child in January 1810.
One has to ask why is William presented as a childless bachelor in death (1812); and how do I know otherwise? We can assume that Willian hadn’t told anyone ‘back home’ that he had married or fathered a son. Do we know if he actually travelled ‘back home’? To date, there isn’t any evidence suggest that he did so.
Likewise, we haven’t found a specific marriage record for William. However, there is ample documentation to support our proposal that he and Elizabeth married. Parish baptismal records show William and Elizabeth Meeker as parents for a son.
When their son married in 1836, he and his wife Charlotte Callan made William Parson a grandfather for 11 children. From those 11 children then are descendants such as myself, settled throughout the globe.
William Parsons and Samuel Denman (based in America) were declared bankrupt in London in 1808. Dividends due to creditors were still being played out in court when he died in 1812. Perhaps he was returning home to sort out his financial difficulties when he died at sea in 1812?
There’s plenty more to William Parson Meeker’s story as presented by Dr. Terry Joyce PhD (Australia) and Pam Prior (England).
Correspondence: doctor.terry60@yahoo.gov.au
Sunday, December 13, 2020
It is Sad ....when.... [portrait of Elizabeth Hammond Dorsey]
It is very sad, when a Gilbert Stuart portrait leaves the family to which it belongs.
I am faced with that question as well.... will my daughter appreciate my Stuart portrait of Samuel Meeker, does it fit with "millenial decor" in any way at all? The Meeker portrait belongs, perhaps, in old colonial homes of PA, where it might sit with other portraits of the same time period, in a special place on a special wall....where the family can point to past portraits of their family ancestry! Or it belongs in the Philadelphia Museum of Finance. Where it can be admired, and be part of the financial history of this nation.
Is this what has happened to the portrait of Mrs. Hammond Dorsey? That she does not fit with the family decor? This portrait is to be auctioned later this week, at Bonhams. It is an oil on panel, and the provenance is from the sitter by descent to the present owner.
The sitter is beautiful, but note that Stuart does not make her nose less hooked. The master painter refused to beutify his sitters. Stuart also painted Elizabeth's father who was Secretary of War in George Washington's administration. Pickering won election to represent Massachusetts in the United States Senate in 1803. Elizabeth (1793-1819) and Hammond Dorsey (1790-1823) were married in Baltimore in 1815. The Dorsey family was a prominent plantation family of MD, Hammond Dorsey was born on the "manorial estate" of "Belmont" built in 1738, where his father grew up. Unfortunately a sister inherited the estate. But the father owned many estates and Hammond inherited wealth. "The lands of Caleb Dorsey on Curtis Creek were later found to contain valuable deposits of iron ore which were expooited and became the nucleus for the affluence of this branch of the Dorsey family." It seems Elizabeth died at a young age, the pair had one daughter born in October 1818. The daughter Mary inherited the family wealth, and married a first cousin.
Mrs. Elizabeth Hammond Dorsey is seated three-quarter-length, in a white dress with an ermine-trimmed robe, the portrait was possibly commissioned by the sitter's brother. They were the children of Senator Timothy Pickering (1745-1829).
Mrs. Elizabeth Hammond Dorsey
Gilbert Stuart
Sunday, September 1, 2019
Can you help determine if this was painted by Gilbert Stuart?
My answer; Do you know the history of the painting (how it passed into your hands). Do you know who it is?
These are the #1 questions that one should know. The majority of Stuart paintings are known and have been catalogued and if not in the catalogues (such as Lawrence Park volumes) & found at a later time, the portrait is added to the list known by the Stuart experts (such as my Meeker painting). As a Stuart portrait commanded a high sum of money, his sitters were generally from the upper classes; those who could afford his prices and who were often well-known in society (elite society being rather more closed and rarified in these early days). Stuart was famous during his lifetime, having painted commissions of George Washington, etc. These portraits would be handed down from generation to generation and treasured by the family, hanging in a place of prominence.
Knowing who the sitter is in a portrait is evidence of the portrait being handed down. It also can provide a time line of when the portrait was done, also a clue to whether the portrait is a Stuart.
The portrait above is a very good portrait, so I was very interested in the answer to my two questions.
However, I had already determined that this portrait was not a Stuart. It is a magnificent portrait. It shows a female half turned to the viewer sitting in an upholstered round backed chair, with no embellishment to her looks (Stuart famously did not beautify female looks often leading to disgruntlement). The flashes and dashes of color bring out the accents in her clothing, which could be from the time of Stuart or thereabouts. The background surrounding the sitter is a simple dark blend. However as Stuart once claimed "a portrait of mine is my signature." This portrait does not have his signature, neither figuratively nor literally (he did not sign his portraits.) The flesh tones do not shine with Stuart's deft touch, the overall impression is flatness of color. The second arm of the sitter in this portrait is not convincing, it has an oddness. Stuart had a formula for pricing. If the portrait included one arm and hand, the hand usually was holding something that indicated a clue as to the sitter's profession or interest. This portrait with the extra effort would be more expensive. Meeker is holding some papers, indicating his profession as a merchant.
The writer's answer confirmed my thoughts for the most part. "I had just picked it up at an outdoor flea market this morning. I know nothing about it. The seller had cleaned out a local estate, but knew nothing of the prior owners."
Thus the identity of this woman, once important enough in the family to have a great portrait of herself done, is now lost to her descendents. If she had been a Stuart, she would be hanging proudly either in a great residence, or a museum. But our writer has a fine portrait, a great piece of art. Does anyone know who she is?
Tuesday, January 15, 2019
Fascinating, fine & finished; the Stuart portrait of Joseph Brant. Could there be another as of yet undiscovered Stuart portrait of this most famous native North American?
- bought at auction in Paris Ontario (next town to Brantford)
- on panel which I've heard he did if it was going to Upper Canada due to conditions
- Label on back from framing co. operated from 1886 to 1891 in Leeds England
- it is 11 1/2 by 14"
- I believe I see blue shades in the skin
The fact that it was sold in a town near Brantford is not special, as Brant was able to settle his people in this area after the British loss to the American rebels. The town was named in honor of this most celebrated warrior/diplomat. But Stuart was the reigning king of portraits (then and now), and to make a copy of his style & of a portrait done by him would be common.
- the first significant clue when determining whether a portrait is done by Stuart (he did not sign his portraits) is the famed Stuart coloring and rendering of the skin tones. When comparing the two portraits above, the facial coloring of my reader's portrait is flat and one-dimensional without any demonstration of Stuart's ability to create the brilliant translucence and transparent hues in the skin tones. The reader's portrait seems to be a predominantly orangish color, but that could be the photography.
- Stuart also uses dashes of this translucence in other more minor features; such as in buttons, lace, or in the case of the Northumberland Stuart portrait above, the "joined silver rings", and in the other ornaments decorating the warrior. The copyist makes a stab at a similar effort without much success.
- in the words of my consultant "the painter copied the picture without understanding the anatomy of the face." The facial structure is squattish, flat and disproportionate.
- Stuart did make copies of his originals. The most famous of his numerous copies are those of George Washington; this was a means to make more money on a portrait that was highly in demand at the time. Although Brant was a well-known figure, he was celebrated only in England and not in America where he was seen as a vicious enemy--thus negating the theory that Stuart would make copies of this portrait in order to increase his income. The size of this portrait is not in keeping with Stuart practice. The copies that Stuart produced were eerily similar to the original, in style, content, and size. He sold them for an exorbitant price.
The National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa
In his right hand is the tomahawk. The Earl of Warwick commissioned this portrait.
For more posts on BRANT click here
and here ---(at this time I thought that my Stuart portrait was of
"Major Samuel Meeker" who in fact is known to have skirmished with Brant.)
***
PROVENANCE
Thursday, October 4, 2018
A Previously-Unpublished Gilbert Stuart Portrait of Emily, Duchess of Leinster
(this post is pressented by Jeanne Grimsby)
Gilbert Stuart was born in Rhode Island in 1755 and moved to Scotland in 1771 at the age of 16 to study with Cosmo Alexander. Following the death of Alexander, Stuart returned to Rhode Island in 1773. He moved to England in 1775. There, he developed a successful career but was plagued by financial difficulties that caused him to flee to Ireland in 1787. He remained in Ireland until 1793, when he again fled mounting debt and returned to the United States. During his time in Ireland, he painted these portraits of the Second Duke of Leinster, and of the Dukes’s mother, the Dowager Duchess of Leinster.
In 1787, the year he arrived in Ireland, Stuart painted this portrait of William Robert Fitzgerald, Second Duke of Leinster, wearing the Order of Saint Patrick:
Wednesday, April 18, 2018
Captain Wiliam Locker is up for auction, the claim is that it is an original copy by Stuart of his own original. He did make copies....
Sunday, December 31, 2017
Attributed Gilbert Stuart, 1756-1828. Portrait of a seated lady.
The provenance, "from the estate of former PA William W. Scranton." is also sketchy. My opinion on the authenticity of the portrait all things considered?
It has the style of a Stuart and is a beautiful portrait, but does not have the exquisite Stuart flair. Stuart exclaimed that his signature was the entire portrait itself.... hmmmm. I do not think it is genuine.
But I could be wrong!
Saturday, March 4, 2017
Is Janet's portrait of Washington by GS? portraits of George Washington (and Meeker) &.... When Stuart was Really Interested in a male face...
After leaving America to make a name for himself in London and Dublin (1775-1793), Stuart returned and for the rest of his life painted in New York, Philadelphia, Washington DC, spending his last days in Boston. He left NY for Philadelphia with the express intent to paint George Washington in person. Philadelphia, when he arrived in 1794, was the temporary capital of the US from 1790 to 1800. Besides his by now well established reputation as a fine portrait painter, through familial contacts he was well placed to move among the elite economic and political circles. A letter of introduction to the President from John Jay (first Chief Justice of the United States, a Founding Father) led to an invitation to visit.
Stuart painted only three portraits with live sittings, painting afterwards at least 100 replications of these works. Most are based on the Athenaeum portrait, called The Athenaeum. This unfinished work (which also includes wife Martha in a separate portrait) is one of Stuart's most celebrated portraits, although unfinished.
Stuart painted Washington in 1795 when the Pres. was 63.
Stuart asked permission to keep The Athenaeum to fulfill commissions for replicas (providing a steady income--and not requiring the President to sit for any commissioned portraits, which the President did not like to do.) The President saw the advantage for Stuart in keeping the original and thought it a great idea for the artist to keep it.
In the post just previous to this one, Janet asked about whether her portrait of George Washington might be a Gilbert Stuart. So now you, the reader, knows that the majority of portraits of GW painted by Stuart were based on The Athenaeum.
Thus, an answer to this question would be to present portraits here, and let you decide. Some easy things to look for: The age of Janet's portrait seems to be within the realm of possibility, as does the background of reddish brown curtain sweeping over the shoulder. The detail photo depicting the neckcloth appears to distort the chin somewhat, that should be discounted (ie a bad photo). The costume is correct; but does the neckcloth itself show the bright swerving dashes of alternating dark and light characteristic to GS's treatment of the jabot ( ruffle on the front of the shirt.)? A common GS detail is a light spray of white on the shoulder of the jacket (for his earlier male portraits when men wore their hair in this style) indicating some of the powder which has floated off the hair. The proportionality of the facial features in Janet's portrait seems to be correct. All in all her portrait captures the likeness of Washington and is a fine portrait. But.......IS the portrait by the MASTER?
![]() |
The Gibbs-Channing-Avery Portrait at the MET Janet's unsigned George Washington portrait.
Here is another example of a portrait that may or may have been done by Stuart. With comments from the expert for Stuart's pigments and paint application click here A NEW BIO OF GEORGE WASHINGTON "George Washington: The Wonder of the Age" by John Rhodehamel "This sympathetic, though not uncritical, account of the first president's journey from minor Tidewater gentry to mythic statesman is crisply written, admirably concise and never superficial. As a brief acount of Washington's life, it is unlikely to be surpassed for many years." review by F. Bordewich |
Sunday, February 26, 2017
Is this portrait of George Washington by Gilbert Stuart??
Our master is known for his portraits of George Washington; thanks to this we can have a vivid image of what our most famous American, our Founding Father, looked like. Of course you all know that Washington had a set of false teeth after suffering from bad dental health for years, so this had the effect of molding the shape of his lips...Note that he is never depicted smiling. Washington was inaugurated for his first term as President in 1789.
Being President, certainly Washington would be the subject of many portraits of the day. And our Gibby did not sign his works. Can it be easily discerned which are true Stuart portraits? Can we abide by Stuart's "stated" signature, that the portrait in its entirety is his signature?
Janet has sent me photos of a portrait along with a note containing a bit of background:
"My husband and I own a very early oil painting of George Washington. We have owned it for many many years. My husband purchased it from an art dealer in Massachusetts I am guessing 20-30 years ago. He is almost 85 so not exactly sure. We are not familiar with art other than a few that we have owned for our own enjoyment. If I send you a picture of it can you give me any information about it? It is not signed. I recently tried to find out about early oil paintings by Gilbert Stuart. It would be a miracle if it were by him. It is wonderful and we do love it! Please let me know if you are willing to take a look at it....I read you told a man to send you a picture to verify IF it could be by Gilbert Stuart...."
MY ANSWER AND MORE ABOUT STUART'S WASHINGTON PORTRAITS IN THE NEXT POST
the unsigned portrait in its frame, detail of the face, and detail of the neckcloth
Here is another George Washington, is it by Gilbert Stuart? for a post on this Click on this link:
If there are other portraits of G.W., please send them (photos) to me bethjena at gmail
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
Fine copies of Stuart are also floating about; Mrs Luke White and her Son, Lawrence Park thought the copy he was looking at was original
MRS. LUKE WHITE d. 1799
AND HER SON
Elizabeth de la Maziere, of Dublin, Ireland. In 1781 she married Luke White. According to family tradition, the boy in this double-portrait is her fourth and youngest son, Henry (1798-1873) who was created Baron Annaly in 1863, in which case the picture was painted later than 1790, but it is imossible to establish this with certainty, as a living descendent expresses the opinion that the child might be her second son, Samuel.
Dublin, c.1790. Shown at half-length, Mrs. White is seated, turned half-way to the right, with her hazel eyes directed at the spectator. She has a wealth of hair, powdered gray, and she is dressed in a white dress, with a pale yellow silk shawl over her shoulders and arms. A black velvet ribbon encircles her neck. On her lap she holds her small boy, who has long, blond har and whose gray eyes are directed at the spectator. He presses his head to his mother's cheek, is turned half-way to the left, and puts his left hand on his mother's shoulder. He is dressed in a white dress with large ruffled collar and a pink sash. The background shows trees, sketched in brown, to the left and above the figures, and a distant landscape of hills and sky in blue and yellowish-pink at the right.
This double-portrait has the same history as the companion picture of Luke White by Stuart. It is now owned by Henry Reinhardt & Son, NY.
The present Lord Annaly owns a copy of this picture, and another copy was sold at the auction of Lord Massy's belongings in 1916 to a furniture dealer. Who painted these copies is unknown.
Thus, Lawrence Park indicates that there exists in fact 3 portraits of Mrs. Luke and her son (note that this one does not have the landscape touches mentioned by Park). Lawrence clearly thought that the one he was looking at was the original.... but the auction house declares that the portrait it auctioned on Oct 5, was a copy, BY STUART, of the original Stuart! (thus an original Stuart)
This is getting confusing~
From Doyle Auction House:
**
Provenance:
By descent in the White family in Ireland
Scott & Fowles, NY, acquired from the above, 1920
Ehrich Galleries, NY, 1930
Mrs. James B. Higgin, NY, acquired from the above
Wildenstein and Newhouse Gallery, NY, by 1932
Leroy Ireland, acquired at auction, c 1940
Ernest Closuit, Fort Worth, TX, acquired from the above, 1944
Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, acquired from the above, 1959
Morton Kornreich, Harrison, NY, c 1980
A label on the back of the auctioned portrait describes the work and identifies Wildenstein/Newhouse as part of the provenance, and indicates that the other related portrait is at the Toledo Museum of Art.
A portrait described by Lawrence Park (no.903) as the original from which Stuart painted the present work, presently in the permanent collection of the Toledo Museum of Art, is now believed to be a copy. It appears that the location of the original double portrait is unknown.
**
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, to my eye, the portrait that was auctioned, looks to be a Stuart original. But, where is the ...original original...? The #903 portrait from Park (see below) shows hands that are perfect; Stuart did not particularly like doing hands....But, if it is not a Stuart, it is a beautiful, magnificent copy, at least the black and white image. And Park was convinced apparently that it was original.
The person who would know the authenticity of these portraits would be Carrie Barratt, who has the most up-to-date accounting of all Stuart portraits. But looks to me like Doyle House auctioned a genuine Stuart. A reputable auction house would give the most latest accurate information on a portrait. Lawrence Park shows an unfinished portrait of these two, #904, which must be considered the original, then Stuart used this unfinished portrait to complete the final painting. Apparently this unfinished portrait has not been located.
The Stuart portrait of Mrs White was sold for $43,750.00. The estimate was $20,000.- $40,000.
Friday, September 30, 2016
Regarding authenticity, the difference between "by" and "after" Gilbert Stuart when considering a purchase of a Stuart portrait
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
Stuart's Pigments and Paint Application continued (2nd part)
American Painters on Technique: the Colonial Period to 1860, "Gilbert Stuart: the First American Old Master": Mayer, Lance, and Gay Myers; Los Angeles, J Paul Getty Museum, 2011
Stuart also had opinions about Titian and Rubens that may have influenced his own method of applying paint. In sharp contrast to painters who loved the mellowness and deep tone of Titian's paintings, Stuart believed that "Titian's works were not by any means so well blended when they left the esel...Rubens...must have discovered more tinting, or separate tints, or distinctiness, than others did, and that, as time mellowed and incorporated the tints, he (Rubens) resolved not only to keep his colours still more distinct against the ravages of time, but to follow his own impetuous disposition with spirited touches." [Dickinson "Remarks" 2.]
One odditity in the layout of Stuart's palette, as reported in three different accounts,[Jouette 1816] is that the color blue was placed farthest to the right, next to the thumbhole. This position of honor (nearest to the hand that holds the paintbrush) was traditionally given to the white pigment and is shown that way in most other palettes of all periods. It is tempting to think that Stuart had a special reason for placing his blue in this prominent position--he loved to commingle bluish strokes with his flesh to imitate the effect of blue veins under the skin. But this unusual arrangement is contradicted by five other accounts that have him placing the blue more conventionally on the other (left) side of the palette,[Dunlap 1834] so it is possible that Stuart sometimes arranged his palette this way, and sometimes not.
Stuart's principal blue pigment (and in some accounts the only one) was Antwerp blue. Unfortunately, this is an imprecise term, and we cannot say exactly what "Antwerp blue" meant in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the term had come to mean a weaker variety of Prussian blue, but modern authorities point out that in earlier times colormen may have also sold completely different copper-based pigments--or even mixtures of pigments--under the name Antwerp blue.[Harley 1982] During Stuart's lifetime, the finest and most permanent blue color was known to be ultramarine, but it was extremely expensive (the much cheaper artificial ultramarine becoming available only after the artist's death in 1828). The expense of ultramarine helps explain some of the slightly confusing explanations of various observers about Stuart's use of blue pigments. Jouette said Stuart "uses no ultramarine but keeps it by him." [Jouette 1816] Jocelyn gave the most complete explanation: "though he [Stuart] preferred Antwerp blue to all other ordinary blues, he would doubtless have used Ultramarine...but for the expense, and especially the trouble & uncertainty of procuring it." The final word on this matter should be given to Stuart himself, who would probably have been impatient with the discussion: "I can produce what I wish from these colours, nor can any man say whether or not I put into my faces ultramarine. Colouring is at best a matter of fancy & taste." [Jouette 1816]
Stuart did not change his palette very much during the time when there are good records of his colors..........TO BE CONTINUED...
Thursday, May 5, 2016
Stuart's Pigments and Paint Application
American Painters on Technique: the Colonial Period to 1860, "Gilbert Stuart: the First American Old Master": Mayer, Lance, and Gay Myers; Los Angeles, J Paul Getty Museum, 2011
In 3 parts:
In spite of {Benjamin} West's statement that "it is of no use to steal Stuart's colors [if you want to paint as he does you must steal his eyes]", American painters were extremely curious to know which pigments Stuart used to achieve his dazzling effects. As a result, we probably know more about his pigments than about those of any other early American painter.
The most remarkable thing about Stuart's colors is that they are not very remarkable. Portrait painting can be done (and has been done for centuries) with relatively few pigments. In fact, all contemporary observers agreed that Stuart used a limited number of pigments and mixtures on his palette. It was traditional for a painter to place dabs of pure colors around the edge of the palette (usually beginning with white next to the thumbhole and proceeding left to the darker pigments) and also to place some premixed "tints" in the area below this row. Stuart apparently placed seven or eight pure pigments and nine or ten premixed tints on his palette, which is fewer than many other artists whose palette arrangements have been recorded. For instance, Thomas Bardwell, in his 1756 book, recommended twelve pure colors and twelve mixed tints for portraits. In the early nineteenth century, some writers recommended up to sixty-six mixed tints! Jocelyn's description of Stuart's actual wooden palette took a gentle poke at artists who thought that a large number of mixed tints would help them; he said Stuart's "pallet-board" was "smaller than the large pallets affected by some lesser artists."
A limited number of pigments and mixtures makes sense given Stuart's style of painting, and in fact it was his method of applying his paints that was unique, rather than the nature of his pigments. In the use of his palette and the application of his paints, Stuart was nearly the opposite of Copely, who was said to have spent hours premixing the exact tint with his palette knife for every flesh tone and shadow. Stuart, by comparison, "condemned the practice of mixing a colour on a knife, and comparing it with whatever was to be imitated.---'Good flesh colouring,' he said, 'partook of all colours, not mixed, so as to be combined in one tint, but shining through each other, like the blood through the natural skin.' Stuart could not endure Copely's laboured flesh, which he compared to tanned leather."
Suart used, in Jouett's words, "chopping" strokes of distinct colors to give the effect of translucent flesh, thereby avoiding the leathery look that he disliked in Copely's work. Jouett also reported Stuart's advice to "keep your colours as separate as you can. No blending, tis destruction to clear and beautiful effect." Others noticed this as well; John Cogdell, after describing how Stuart combined different colors, added: "Tho this is not done on his pallette but only as they are wanted with the pencil. Mr. Stewart lays one tint over another." In a detailed account of Stuart's method, Obadiah Dickinson described how a portrait became more distinct as it progressed; "Mr. Steward endeavours in the first sitting to give the appearance of the person at 20 yards distant and in each succeeding sitting to advance its effect nearer until it be completed at 2 yards distance." But Dickinson noted that even in final touches, Stuart advised; "What you do in the shadows over the glazing must be finished if possible with a single touch or you will spoil the beauty of your work."
Stuart also had opinions about Titian and Rubens that may have influenced his own method of applying paint............ TO BE CONTINUED
Thursday, April 14, 2016
Progress on the portrait in the Stuart style, and a question for the experts! & insight into how Stuart painted
A [dizzying] Summary: Phoebe Meeker marries Job Brookfield (second marriage), daughter Mary Brookfield (b. 1804-after 1856) m. John Ludlum Martin (b.1796-1856), son Thomas Mulford Martin (b.1831-1917) m. Mary C. Ayers & has 3 daughters Carolyn (Carrie)(b.1862-1937), Jane and Emma. Carrie inherited the painting as her two sisters were childless. The GS portrait comes to Ca. Carrie's son Benjamin Hyde Cory is my grandfather, he passed in 1983. His daughter Carolyn Cory Ahrens is still with me, my mother.