Winter 2021 Zine
Short Piece of Visual Analysis
When it comes to the content of this painting, the National Gallery of Art states that the identities
of the individuals are unknown. However, there are a lot of inferences we can make. The gentleman is
wearing a three-piece suit, specifically a grey jacket, waistcoat, and breeches. Interestingly enough, he features the pink lining of his jacket. The emphasis of his flamboyance contrasts with the fear of macaroni men discussed by McNeil. These macaroni men were considered fashionable until the 1760s when concerns began rising about the relationship between the love for clothes and homosexuality
. Despite these growing anxieties, the father in this picture is actively challenging the increasingly simple and dull clothing of men. The mother is wearing a silky green dress and an intricate headpiece. Her white silk shawl is notable since there was a prestige that comes with owning silk in the 18th century. As explored during the third lecture, since silk was mainly produced in China and India, it was an exotic luxury that embodied one’s class and status in society. From this, we can infer that the family depicted in figure one is wealthy, or at least attempting to present themselves as so. The daughter is wearing a white cotton muslin dress and a headpiece. She also has a pink silk accessory draping down from her left hip. As we discussed with the Ditchley Portrait, there is a lot of hidden symbolism in the colors of one’s dress. The light color of her dress can be interpreted to exemplify purity. Likewise, the holding of the instrument can symbolize intelligence. Perhaps, the choice in color and prop is a subliminal way to advertise the daughter for potential husbands.
Regarding stylistic details, the first thing I noticed was the dark background. The setting of the
painting serves to accentuate the whiteness of their skin. A white complexion and rouged cheeks were the epitomai of 18th-century beauty, particularly for women. Another notable aspect of the painting is that the women are sitting while the man is standing. These levels may not have been intentional. However, it affirms the uneven dynamic between genders where men were considered to be more significant and influential than their female counterparts. Likewise, the direction of their faces also further highlights the gender inequality of the era. While the women are looking to their sides, the man in the picture is the only one who gets a full face of detail. This is a sign of who the commissioner wants to be the focus of the piece. In other words, the man in the picture is deemed to be the most important which is, once again, reflective of the gender inequality of the era.
As a source, this piece has many strengths and limitations. A limitation is that the painting may
not tell the full story. As previously briefly mentioned, since the piece is commissioned, the painter may not be free to depict the occasion as it is. For example, as we have noted in class with images of Queen Elizabeth I, she was painted to look younger. One possibility, in the context of this image, is that the family may have purposefully worn clothes that exaggerated the extravagance of their wealth. Therefore, it is challenging to be certain that this image fully accurately depicts their reality. However, paintings are also the only snapshots we have of time before cameras, which is a strength of this source. Moreover, oil paintings, as a medium, also have advantages and disadvantages. As can be seen in the seemingly vibrant colors in figure 1, one of the positives of using oil paints is that it was relatively long-lasting. On the other hand, a downfall is that, like any antique painting, it must be meticulously cared for. This is arguably not as relevant since it is already digitized. However, this digitization can also result in a loss of detail, which is a particular concern for dress historians. For example, with decreased quality in the details of the dress, like its embroideries, there is less evidence of one’s status. Regardless, the intricate details may not be perfect, but there is a lot to learn from this painting, and the others like it.
Citations
Hayes, John. “British Paintings of the Sixteenth Through Nineteenth Centuries.” National Gallery of Art,
Washington Cambridge University Press, 1992,
www.nga.gov/content/dam/ngaweb/research/publications/pdfs/british-paintings-16th-19th-centuri es.pdf.
Lee, Summer. “1592 – Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger, Elizabeth I (1533-1601), Queen of England.”
Fashion History Timeline, Fashion Institute of Technology, 7 Jan. 2020,
fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/1592-gheeraerts-ditchley/.
McNeil, Peter, editor. “Conclusion: ‘Fashion Victims’, or, Macaroni Relinquishing Finery.” Pretty Gentlemen: Macaroni Men and the Eighteenth-Century Fashion World, 2018, pp. 218–229. Wheatley, Francis. “Family Group.” National Gallery of Art ,
www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.61393.html.