In the years leading up to the American revolution, Copley painted both loyalists (such as Nicholas Boylston and Mrs. Benjamin Pickman) and revolutionaries (such as Paul Revere and Sam Adams). How does he stage the identities of these figures in different ways? What makes a revolutionary look like a revolutionary? What about the “founding fathers” of the United States? How does Gilbert Stuart, a slightly later portrait painter, create the mythology surrounding George Washington and others in his work? Are Stuart’s images of Washington consistent with what you read in Weems’s very popular biography? You don’t have to address all of these questions in your post.
5 thoughts on “Copley, Stuart, Weems and the “Founding Fathers””
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
What is most striking to me is the way recolutionaries are portrayed. While they are supposed to be the leaders of a what will be a violent revolt against the British, they are all painted like intellectual scholars. This to me signifies the change to enlightenment thought and the way that becomes more and more valuable to Americans. For example, in the painting of Paul Revere, the founding father seems deep in thought. His pose is that of smart, intellectual person. There is also a pencil nearby, showing the importance of written word as a means to defeat the colonist British. Samuel Adams is depicted in much the same way. While we know him now as the face of a beer company, in the image he looks like a thoughtful man. He is surrounded by documents and research. I think this signifies that the research and enlightenment thought in general is most important to him. In this way the image conveys a rational thinker that has clearly considered all options for change in the colonies. This should appeal to people of the time because more and more are becoming literate and understand the necessity for revolution, so they are bound to relate to this founding father. John Hancock is seen composing a long work that he has apparently spent a lot of time on. This helps to ground revolutionary thought in writing. It is something Hancock has thought about extensively, and the long work he is composing is evidence that he is a capable and trustworthy thinker that the revolutionaries can get behind. Finally, I think the most dramatic revolutionary image is that of John Adams. In the image, Adams can be seen observing maps and documents stacked on top of one another. Under the desk containing the maps there is a globe, and on the wall behind Adams there is a classical Roman image. First, I think the analysis of the maps is important because it makes the potential revolutionary consider the distance between England and America. The British are ruling from so far away, and to a revolutionary thinker there is no way they can run a just and fair colony from abroad. Also, the image of the classical man suggests the return of classical thought, in which freedom to think (and freedom in general) was highly important. Overall, the images of revolutionaries are not those of a hostile militant movement but rather an intellectual movement led by a group of well-versed enlightenment thinkers.
Despite being painted by the same artist, Copley’s paintings of revolutionary figures are markedly different than his paintings of earlier colonial figures. The portrait of John Hancock, for example, appears rather similar to the portrait of Nicholas Boylston from afar. Despite the fact that both strike a similar pose to the table next to them, however, Boylston looks much more idle. Hancock appears more serious and active; he is deep in thought, actively turning a page. Boylston, meanwhile, looks intelligent but relaxed. The attire is also noticeably different. Boylston’s clothes are much more regal and flashy. Hancock, albeit wearing a very nice outfit, is not dressed to impress like Boylston—he dresses like such to reflect the serious role he has in the government.
Copley sought to portray the revolutionary look by making these men appear busy in both thought and action. Paul Revere, for example, seems pensive as he builds a teapot actively with his own hands. These men are not wearing fantastic outfits, nor are they all situated behind fantastical backgrounds. They clearly have a strong purpose to their actions. Copley chiefly seeks to highlight their intelligence and integrity. John Adams is a good example of this; he appears both intellectual and completely in control of himself. It seems as if there is not one idle thought in his mind.
The founding fathers are by far the most understated of these portraits, especially when compared to Copley’s earlier works. Stuart seeks to show serious, intelligent men not concerned with life’s frivolities. Washington, for instance, looks resolved and unfussy in Stuart’s portrait, The Athenaeum. Nothing about the portrait titillates; it portrays a very serious man deep in thought. Perhaps Stuart believed these revolutionary figures did not need grand objects or backgrounds to convey his status. This contrasts Weems’ description of Washington, which is rather hyperbolic in its praise. Weems gives the impression of Washington as a religious, benevolent American God in some respects, lauding the president for his leadership, honesty, and success. “None ever displayed the power of industry more signally than did George Washington,” he declares in his work. Stuart’s other portrait, the Lansdowne Portrait, is a better comparison to Weems’ novel, as it is gaudier than his other portraits. This painting depicts Washington to be stern but inviting. The background (books, pen and paper, and the table) acknowledges his military and government successes, but it does so in a much less ornate, grand way than does Weems. The biggest similarity between the two is that both celebrate Washington in an American style. Weems lauds Washington for American qualities (such as his industriousness), whereas Stuart clearly tries to tie Washington to the new American republic.
Being that Adam and Edward focused on the portraits done by Copley, I figured I focus on Gilbert Stuarts paintings of our founding fathers. It is interesting that of the founding fathers, George Washington is the only figure to have more than one painting, but what is even more interesting is how the 2nd one is nothing like the other ones. These founding fathers (John Adams, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison) all have a portrait from the navel up and all with a stern look upon their face. A glaring similarity between each of these men is of course the color of their hair. These portraits are all extremely simple minded, in which i mean they all have a solid color jacket with a white undershirt on. However, the most important portrait here has to be the full body one of George Washington. To my knowledge, there are not many portraits of George Washington’s full figure, so for that reason alone it is important. He looks like a figure in control, with his hand open in front of him and the other griping a sword. From the feather pen sitting in ink to the sword to the rainbow in the upper right corner; this is all a symbol of the battles and obstacles in which he has prevailed through.
I’ll focus my comment on the differences between Copley’s loyalist paintings and his revolutionary paintings. Starting with the revolutionaries, there are many similarities between the paintings of Samuel Adams, John Hancock, John Adams and even Paul Revere. In general, the backgrounds are simple or obscured, drawing attention to the subject and the fact that the subject is busy at work, as all of the revolutionaries or portrayed to be.
The two Adams are both standing above a table covered in parchment of various kinds. In John Adams’ painting, Copley includes a globe, a map, and several rolls of parchment. These tangible, practical items suggest that he is a man of the present and of the problem at hand (founding a nation). While less detail is given as to the contents of the parchment is Samuel Adams’ portrait, it seems logical to assume the same. In addition, both men are pointing to their work, suggesting that they are actively engaged and are eager to spread their message. Paul Revere’s painting is slightly different from the other three. He is still shown to be busy at work, except instead of crafting documents he is working on what looks like a teapot. His attire is certainly not elaborate or expensive and, in combination with his simple craftsmanship, we get the sense that Revere is an honest, simple man. He has his hands on his chin, too, which suggests that he is very pensive and perhaps forward thinking. Finally, we have Copley’s painting of John Hancock. Hancock is shown seated at work on a ledger. His attire suggests that he is wealthy and probably powerful, thought the background is simple. His grave gaze is pointed off in the distance suggesting that he is deep in thought and contemplating very important business. Hancock’s portrait is probably the most similar to Copley’s paintings of loyalists, though there are many very important differences.
Like Hancock, Boylston is painted seated at his desk in nice attire and with ledgers, but the similarities stop there. Boylston is clothed in elaborate robes and a fine silk vest, suggesting his wealth is one of the main things he wanted to portray through this painting. He is resting carelessly on his ledgers, which are closed, suggesting that he effortlessly runs a successful business. And perhaps is not a hard working man, at least not anymore. The background of his painting is also much more elaborate, featuring a window, ships, and fine curtains. Like Boylston, Atkinson’s portrait features an elaborate background. The nature scape includes clouds and green grass, suggesting it is a beautiful land that he inhabits. He is shown empty handed and finely clothed which imply that he is not a very busy man, though he is wealthy and probably powerful. He is showing off his splendor and perhaps a love for outdoors.
The main differences between the loyalists and the revolutionaries is that the revolutionaries all seem to have a mission (with the only slight exception being Revere). The loyalists on the other hand are shown to be wealthy and much less worried about the state of the country.
Copley portrays revolutionaries like Samuel Adams and, John Adams and John Hancock as men of thought and action. Sam Adams is shown pointing at a desk full of papers; John Adams is similarly shown standing above a desk, gesturing to a pile of papers; and Hancock is shown writing in a large book. They somehow come off as both pensive and assertive at the same time. Paul Revere is shown with a thoughtful gaze, holding a teakettle and sitting in front of a craftsman’s desk. The loyalists, on the other hand, are shown at leisure. Boyleston is shown, not interacting with his books, but using them as an armrest. They are markers of his wealth and worldliness, not tools for his intellectualism. While someone like Hancock is looking off into the distance, deep in thought, Boyleston is considering the viewer somewhat smugly. Theodore Atkinson is shown in action, like Sam Adams, but with the backdrop and the way his hat is tucked under his arm, we get the sense that he is taking a stroll in the countryside—maybe even on his own land—not going anywhere important.
The backdrops to the loyalist paintings are lush—full of scenery and beautiful objects. Sometimes, as in the case of Mrs. Thomas and the young girls, the paintings seem more about the objects than the people. The backdrops to the revolutionary paintings, on the other hand, are sparse. The one painting with anything substantial in the background is John Adams. The objects behind Adams are a globe and a Greco-Roman painting. The globe is practically a universal symbol for worldliness and intellect. The Greco-Roman painting suggests that Adams has a foundation in the classics. These are not objects of monetary status, but of intellectual status. Copley portrays the revolutionaries as considerate in their thought and single-minded in their action. The loyalists, on the other hand, have a multitude of concerns, ranging from money to commerce, social status to physical beauty. Copely is able to deftly embody all of this in his portraits.