This portrait, attributed to Gilbert Stuart, was sold at auction (William Bunch Auctions) this month. The estimated price was $4000.00 to $6000.00. It only sold for $1300.00. Can a genuine Stuart sell for such a minimal price? Is it genuine? The description for the portrait also includes: "Signed in pencil along with pencil sketch on back." Highly unusual, and suspect.
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!
THE WORLD OF SAMUEL MEEKER, MERCHANT OF PHILADELPHIA, AND GILBERT STUART, AMERICAN PORTRAIT ARTIST
Sunday, December 31, 2017
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...
See post previous to this, for backgound on Janet's portrait of President George Washington.
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 unfinished Athenaeum, kept by the artist until his death to make additional GW portraits
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?
Below Samuel Meeker's portrait from the Philadelphia period
"But when he was really interested in a male face, he painted with that compound of insight, sympathy, and scientific detachment which is the ideal of modern biographers." On Desperate Seas by James Thomas Flexner ---A BIOGRAPHY of Gilbert Stuart
One might ask, was Stuart interested in the person of Samuel Meeker? Can you see Meeker's personality? Does the portrait somehow reflect a calm personality, wisdom, kindness?
How does the master acheive that?!
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