Historic Painting Thread

[Dall_Piobaire]

Thanks for posting the paintings!

I think everyone has valid points, I am by no means an expert, on portrait art or accurate period clothing, but I have always wondered, and this comes to cajunscot's point.

If you look at paintings of the Rev war, and paintings and tinotypes of the Civil war, most all are idealized. One easy example is the painting of the crossing of the Delaware! I know we all realize that is not at all the way it was. All the continentals decked out in fancy uniforms, nope!

A painting was contracted for, and took time to produce, it seems all the artist would need is a likeness of the individual, from there, the artist could deck the fellow out any way he liked. This isn't to say that what he was decked out in wasn't true to the time, just perhaps, a bit over the top for the sake of posterity. Then I could be completely off base. I think it better to trust in written accounts then to rely on staged portraits. They do give an idea of what was available, or at least conceivable at the time!

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Thanks for posting the paintings!

I think everyone has valid points, I am by no means an expert, on portrait art or accurate period clothing, but I have always wondered, and this comes to cajunscot's point.

If you look at paintings of the Rev war, and paintings and tinotypes of the Civil war, most all are idealized. One easy example is the painting of the crossing of the Delaware! I know we all realize that is not at all the way it was. All the continentals decked out in fancy uniforms, nope!

A painting was contracted for, and took time to produce, it seems all the artist would need is a likeness of the individual, from there, the artist could deck the fellow out any way he liked. This isn't to say that what he was decked out in wasn't true to the time, just perhaps, a bit over the top for the sake of posterity. Then I could be completely off base. I think it better to trust in written accounts then to rely on staged portraits. They do give an idea of what was available, or at least conceivable at the time!

One of things that has to be considered is whether or not the picture was painted in the period it represents-- the famous picture of Washington Crossing the Delaware was painted by Emmanuel Leutz in 1851-- or about 70 years after the actual event! The clothing and uniforms may or may not be accurate, but the overall portrayal of the event is wholly imaginary. The same is true of the 19th century "chocolate box" paintings of the Jacobites and Bonnie Price Charlie-- delightful to look at, but not necessarily instructive in terms of historical dress.

Generally speaking paintings are a better source of information regarding Highland attire than written accounts-- the portrait of Lord George Murray done at the time of the '45 rising is extremely accurate; likewise those portraits of Highland gentlemen tend to be very accurate in the details of clothing-- if you have a copy of The Collins Scottish Clan and Family Encyclopedia by George Way of Plean and Romilly Squire (now of Rubislaw) on page 37 you can see the portrait of James Moray of Abercairney on the occasion of the State Visit of George IV in 1822. Look closely at the sporran, etc. worn in the painting. Now close the book and look at the dust jacket, where you will see photographed the actual items depicted in the painting, accurate to the last detail. Until the advent of photography, paintings and drawings are the most accurate depictions available to us.

Like Confucius said, a picture is worth a thousand words...

[Dall_Piobaire]

Just another example of glorifying the past, to make the mythology more palatable to those in the present!