Most evident of the depth of character revealed in Sargent’s portraits are his many paintings of children. Sargent had more freedom when painting children because of the nature of child portraiture. Generally, parents had an artist paint a portrait of their sons or daughters as a trial run before allowing him to paint themselves. Therefore, Sargent had less pressure to aesthetically please his sitter. Also, children are much freer with themselves and therefore are not yet molded into society’s expectations.
Sargent differed from his contemporaries in his paintings of children because he did not represent them as mindless, innocent cherubs. Instead he allowed them to portray intelligence and a distinct sense of character. Many of the children in his paintings gaze boldly at the viewer, rather than shy away in a manner that many adults would expect from children. This willingness to allow his child sitters an identity may be connected to the nature of Sargent’s own childhood.
Sargent’s youth was one of tragedy and uncertainty. Because of the many illnesses in Sargent’s immediate family, they were forced to move constantly in order to receive treatment. This nomadic lifestyle did not allow the Sargent children to ever have a permanent home or make lasting friendships. This resulted in a very reclusive and private adult Sargent. Little is known about his own character which is reflected in his more mysterious paintings of adults. His portraits of children echo the early maturity that Sargent was forced to acquire.
Sargent was adept at portraying both individual character and social position in his portraits. His commissioned adult portraits present character mysteriously, and one must look through a veil of fashion and social boundaries in order to plumb the inner emotional depths. Primarily, these portraits are representations of the subjects’ social selves, the manner in which they express themselves in society. In contrast with the adult portraits are Sargent’s representations of children. While to a certain extent the adults hide behind social restraints, children are free to express themselves, and therefore Sargent was able to express the true child. Perhaps as a result of his own premature intelligence from his unsettled childhood, he painted intelligence and identity into children rather than the harmless purity so often applied by his contemporaries. Sargent used realistic images and expressions to produce portraits that simultaneously established social position, aesthetic comfort, and depth of character.
Prompts:
- Do you agree that Sargent effectively expresses character and identity in his portraits? What do you feel is the biggest difference between his portraits of adults versus those of children?
- Do you feel that Sargent accurately portrays the character of children in his portraits or does he exaggerate their degree of intelligence? Explain.
- Sargent titles many of his portraits by the name of his subject(s). Choose several of Sargent’s portraits that you believe reveal character and suggest a new title that is more descriptive. Explain your choice.
- Little is known about Sargent’s personal identity. Choose one of his paintings and write a narrative of the events that took place between Sargent and the subject(s) before, during, and after the painting of the portrait.
1.Sargent portrays children and adults in very different ways. He paints both adults children with the same artistic style and on the same medium, but the subjects themselves, their attitudes, their emotions, and the images they project are very different. The children show a wide range of emotion from Dorothy who displays a mix of perturbedness and indignation, to Caspar Goodrich who exudes confidence. Some of the paintings of children portray them in a positive light but that seems to be a secondary concern, with the focus on striking emotion whether positive or negative. With adults on the other hand, while still portraying a wide range of emotions, Sargent's portrayals are always flattering. The adults all retain poise whether their attitude is happy, thoughtful or otherwise. This discrepancy between how Sargent paints adults and how he paints children has something to do with the sitter, something to do with the artist, and something to do with the commissioner.
ReplyDeleteWithout a doubt, the children were less inhibited and less self conscious as sitters. If they were angry or upset, they did not try to hide it in order to facilitate a nicer portrait, so Sargent was able to see their natural emotions and actions as opposed to the staged actions and emotions that adult sitters would be more likely to display.
No painter can avoid putting some of himself in his artwork, and Sargent was no exception. The precociousness of the children he paints is a reflection of his own past, as an independent minded youth who was forced to grow up quickly. Likewise, the quiet confidence and contentedness of his adult portraits is a reflection of his own adult personality.
In addition to portraying the sitter as they appeared to him, and (intentionally or not) putting his own life and emotions into his work, the ultimate goal of one of Sargent's portraits was to please the person who commissioned it. This has clear implications for resulting adult portraits, they are respectful to the adult and portray them as the person they want to be viewed. For children it has exactly the same effect, the children are depicted in a way that pleases their parents who commissioned the work. Caspar Goodrich, the son of a naval officer looks sharp and confident, just as a naval officer would want his son to be. Dorothy, however has an expression that is exaggerated almost to the point of caricature, just the sort of image that would please her parents and make them parents chuckle.
2.It is difficult to exaggerate a child's intelligence. Anyone who has tried to babysit one of them knows that they learn quickly and can be quite crafty and devious. With children, Sargent had the opportunity to display the emotions that adults would be embarrassed of, or unwilling to show. Because of this, Sargent's portraits of children are far more indicative of character then his adult portraits ever could have been.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJohn Singer Sargent undoubtedly had talent for depicting the expressions and character of his subjects, both children and adults, although he went about painting children and adults in a different fashion. Nevertheless, whoever his subjects might have been, one can perceive that he took his time in analyzing them to depict them in the best, most accurate way that he deemed fit. As Kelly discussed, Sargent painted individuals the way that he saw them, disregarding the common practices of his time to depict children, for example, as perfect, angelic beings who characterized the epitome of innocence. It was this rebellion against conformity that helped to make Sargent’s style recognizable and unique.
ReplyDeleteA factor that makes Sargent’s style of portraiture stand out among the rest is his knack for subtlety. At first glance, some of his paintings (especially of adults) can appear to be of dull people merely posing for a caricature. However, upon more investigation of many of his paintings, one can pick up on the emotion and character the subject is expressing. I believe this is what Sargent intended for the viewers of his paintings to do, in order to fully appreciate the work that he had put into creating a dimensional, dynamic picture.
Sargent’s method of giving children individual, non-conformist characters in his paintings really broke the mold of how children were frequently depicted in the portraiture of his time. After all, every person is unique and has his or her own distinct personality, and this includes children. As opposed to his paintings of adult subjects, who appeared more collected and reserved in their mannerisms, Sargent particularly shined in his ways of giving children personalities in his paintings, without going too overboard in attempting to convey a child’s emotions to the viewer. In a way, Sargent helped to give respect and individuality to his young subjects by displaying children as intelligent and thoughtful. It does not appear that Sargent went out of his way to exaggerate or over-glorify the intelligence of his child subjects. However, at the same time, he recognized that children are more perceptive and introspective than some people give them credit for.
I agree with Kelly that Sargent’s childhood played a significant role in the way that he painted children. The tragic, unfortunate events of his childhood affected him considerably throughout his life and helped to mold and define his own character. With his paintings of children, he was trying to convey to the viewer how children are perceptive to what was going on around them, yet still impressionable enough for circumstances to shape their personalities as they grow into adults. In relation to this particular topic, Sargent’s painting The Daughters of Edward Darley Boit really stood out to me. The four girls he depicted in this painting appear to be going through some sort of abandonment, possibly from their parents. Despite their rather stoic appearance, they each have their own personality and are remarkably different from each other. This fits in with Sargent’s “private and reclusive” character, which his childhood helped to form. Perhaps he felt abandoned as a boy, moving from place to place, not being able to identify with one constant “home.” This likely made him feel empty, as if he was missing out on the full richness that a stable home life can bring to a child. I believe that Sargent gave identity, feelings, and character to his young subjects to send a message to the viewer about the understanding and insightfulness of children and how their acuity should not be underestimated by adults.
An artist’s commissioned portrayal of upper class socialites would seemingly be dry and emotionless, but John Singer Sargent accomplishes this task well by adding a veiled emotion to his portraits of adults and an overt passion to his portraits of children. In the painting, Lady Agnew, an aristocratic, raven haired woman in a pale purple chiffon dress, sits causally in an armchair. Everything in the painting seems acceptable for the woman’s role in the time period, everything that is besides the subtle expression and body language she demonstrates. Her draped arm and relaxed posture juxtaposes the expected position of a proper “lady” of the time. She commands the picture and almost seems to not belong in the flowing dress she wears. Her eyes give a confidant intelligence that suggests more than a submissive woman. There is a faint smirk on her lips as if she is aware of her conviction and is in control of the situation. At first glance, some of these faint details may be missed, but they are surely present and also known by Sargent. He intentionally reveals these nuances.
ReplyDeleteThese distinctions are much more blatant in Sargent’s portraits of children. The children he paints are not yet aware of their societal constraints. Their freeness allows for Sargent’s expression to grow. In the painting Casper Goodrich, a straw haired boy peers out of the picture with eyes that evoke wisdom much greater than his age. The boldness in his eyes looks like that of a man, but it is probably the innocence of a child who has never known pain. His crossed arms oppose his soft face and curved boyish cheeks. There is something deeper though, a tinge of sadness that suggests this young boy is missing something. Most children would be shown as completely innocent, with no burdens or troubles on their shoulders, but Sargent depicts the truth, that children are somewhat aware. They are not oblivious to the problems that surround them. They are not completely carefree. Sergeant illustrates this point well in his portraiture. Most children do not know how to articulate feelings into facial features precisely, but Sargent is able to be an interpreter.
This point is conveyed even more so in the painting The Daughters of Edward Darley Boit. The four sisters in the painting all portray their own level of detachment. The youngest of the sisters seems lost. Her toes point inward as if she is as inanimate as the doll she clutches. The second youngest stares at the viewer, pleading for help, her hands behind her back, as if tied. The two eldest sisters stand in the shadows. One is hopeful while the other is entirely resigned. These children are not ignorant to the struggles of life. Sergant accurately represents children in his portraiture, there may be some exaggeration, but it is still a true depiction of the character of the subject. For the two portraits of children described above, new titles for the paintings could be more descriptive. For Casper Goodrich, the title “Look Beyond” could be used. This would refer to the way his eyes seem to gaze past the innocence of childhood. For The Daughters of Edward Darley Boit, the title “The Four Immeasurables Measured” referring to the Buddhist principles of Love, Compassion, Joy, and Equanimity could be substituted. When they are measure in this painting, scant amounts of any are found. In all of John Signer Sargents interpretations, some amount of hidden spirit is revealed, even if it is enigmatic.
Although John Singer Sargent’s portraits of children are very interesting and mysterious in some ways, I think he exaggerates their degree of intelligence. Yes, I believe that children can be made to pose in almost any fashion with almost any facial expression, so I do not doubt that Sargent depicts the children in his portraits with similar expressions and postures that they were posing in reality. However, I think that in painting these portraits in that fashion, he gave the children a false look of intelligence and depth in their character. Of course I have seen children that act grown up or more mature than their age tells, but when I look at Sargent’s portraits of children, I see children that look completely independent, almost as if they could walk out of the painting and live a perfectly healthy life in the world on their own. This is not reality. In reality, children may act, look, and feel grown up, but they are not fully capable of living life on their own. They need adults to provide for them. When I look at his portraits of children, I see in their eyes and faces that they are more adults than kids. They have strong, demanding presences and demeanors that seem to state how they have control of the situation. Although this may be extremely interesting to look at and fun to investigate, I think it is a false sense intelligence and adulthood that Sargent has placed on the children. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with this because I really like his paintings and enjoy the facial expressions of the children. All I am saying is that despite their fascinating subjects and mysterious looks, the message of his portraits of children is simply unrealistic.
ReplyDeleteIn Sargent’s portrait, Flora Priestley by Lamplight , the subject is dressed in a black dress with her hair up. Her eyes are looking down in an almost condescending fashion. If I were to rename this portrait, I would call it Glancing at the Little People. The look on the lady’s face makes her look like she thinks she is very important. It seems as though she is sitting on a giant throne and has to strain her eyes downward to look at her subjects below. She also has a slight smile that makes her look very smug and uppity. In Sargent’s portrait, Dorothy, the subject is a little girl, dressed in a white dress and hat. She has an almost angry and defiant look on her face and she is leaning on what could be an arm of a chair. If I were to rename this portrait, I would name it Calm Before the Storm. The young girl has a look of importance on her face and she feels more adult than child (like I mentioned above). However, she also looks like she is about to blow up at someone. Picture this: there is a princess who orders her servant to bring in breakfast at 6:30 am so she can wake up to the smell of bacon. If the servant were to arrive 5 minutes late, so that the princess already woke up and had no bacon to smell, I imagine that her face would look very much like Dorothy’s in this portrait. She is trying to act calm, but on the inside she is boiling, and it is only a matter of time until something happens that makes her explode!
Firstly, I do not think that Sargent exaggerated the intelligence of the children he painted in his portraits. I think that children tend to be more precocious and smart than many people expect them to be. I know for certain that many young children believe themselves to be much smarter and wiser than they really are, and maybe this is what we see in Singer’s portraits; the child’s projection of their social self.
ReplyDeleteI remember when I was younger, and I read books and watched movies about children my own age. I scoffed at the depiction of these children, because they always seemed to go in one of two directions: either the children were hopelessly infantile, immature, and slow, or they were basically little adults walking around in small bodies. I could not understand how people could miscalculate children so badly. Now, however, I look back at those same books and movies and think, “Kids. I really was pretty dumb at that age, wasn’t they? Why did I think we were all smarter than that?”
Of course, a few of those books and movies really were inaccurate. But I think it still holds that kids think they know everything. The more you learn about the world as you mature, the more you realize how ignorant you are; at that age you are still ignorant enough to think that you’ve learned all there is to learn. The children who sat for John Singer Sargent probably at least considered themselves to be terribly clever, even if they weren’t actually so.
Plus, many children really are smarter than we give them credit for. Most everyone has heard some kid at one time or another say something unexpectedly insightful, or seen a child demonstrate an understanding of something that you thought was over their head. Thus we have the saying, “From the mouths of babes…” Sargent might have been trying to underscore this quality, making it more prominent in his paintings because it was surprising and provoking.
Secondly, I agree that Sargent’s pictures are very non-descriptive. It makes sense, because most of them are commissioned portraits. On the one hand, no one wants to hire you to paint their portrait and have you title it, “The Melancholy and Haggard Woman,” or something like that. On the other hand, you have the fact that the portraits are all relatively similar, as far as you could call half of them “Woman in a Chair.” It seems appropriate to simply title the portrait after the subject. However, there are a few that are striking to me, that seem like a more artistic title might be fitting.
There is the portrait of Beatrice Townsend, which was shown in the Powerpoint presentation, which struck me as particularly interesting. It is a portrait of a girl holding a dog, depicted on the canvas with a poised and independent air, staring straight at the viewer with innocent blue eyes. The name I suggest does not immediately seem more descriptive, but I will explain. I think it should be titled “The Young Lady.”
Now, I don’t mean a young lady. I mean a Young Lady. The girl in this portrait is just that: a girl. She seems to be maybe twelve or thirteen years old. However, there is such a grace and gravity in the way she holds herself that you can see she is training to be a woman, and a woman of importance at that. The vibrant swaths of red that Sargent uses in her portrait suggest a passionate and lively character, and in her face you can see how beautiful she will be. Her somewhat commanding gaze, straight back, and all of her other features say “Lady.” Still, she is not yet fully grown into this role, and so it must be prefaced with “Young.” Unfortunately, “young lady” has become a pretty common term for a girl nowadays, so it’s probably best that this portrait remains the striking “Beatrice Townsend.”