FtArtGallery

 

 

<< Previous    1...   29  30  [31]  32  33  ...35    Next >>

Actually Stuart's work is no more flattering than we should ex­pect from a study of his character. He made the self-confident look smug; the shrewdly intelligent, whom Copley would.have idealized, look crafty. Yet his pictures are tempered, by a deep sympathy with erring humanity. Himself one of the most tortured and irrational of men, he realized that the basic motivation of angry men is not anger, of frivolous men is not frivolity. His works are rarely satiric and have no similarity, to caricature; sometimes they seem at first as unrevealing of personality as the sitter's actual face must have been. Study, however, will bring out the depth of Stuart's insight.

Regarded as the greatest painter in America, Stuart was besieged


by young men who wished instruction. If he thought them pert or lacking in talent, he would demolish them with terrible invective. You had to watch your step in Stuart's studio. Once his nephew, Gilbert Stuart Newton, who was to become well known as a genre painter, rushed into the master's room, flourished his brush, and cried with high animal spirits: "Now, old gentleman, I'll teach you to paint."

"You'll teach me to paint, will you? I'll teach you manners." And not happening to have gout that day, Stuart kicked him out of the room.

However, he was happy to assist aspiring painters who were earnest, civil, and talented. John Hill Morgan in his recently pub­lished book Gilbert Stuart and His Pupils states that the following painters probably received some help from Stuart: Mather Brown in Boston before Stuart's trip to London; John Trumbull in Lon­don; George Place and John Comerford in Ireland; and, after Stuart's final return to America, Benjamin Trott, John Vanderlyn, Rembrandt Peale, John R. Penniman, Thomas Sully, Gilbert Stuart Newton, the painter's children Charles Gilbert and Jane Stuart, James Frothingharn, Matthew Harris Jouett, Jacob Eicholtz, Sarah Goodridge, William James Hubard, John Neagle, Fabius Whiting, Henry Sargent, Francis Alexander, and Samuel F. B. Morse. To these may be added on excellent evidence Martin Archer Shee, who succeeded Lawrence as president of the Royal Academy, Nathaniel Jocelyn, and the American backwoods phe­nomenon Chester Harding.

The list is long, but in most cases Stuart merely gave the young men advice when they called on him; only a few were, like Jouett and Vanderlyn, actually taken into his studio, and these for only several months apiece. Although Jouett and Frothingharn learned to paint in Stuart's manner, it is usually extremely difficult to find traces of his style in the work of most of the young men he advised.

Stuart was an impatient teacher, and his technique was so personal that few could imitate it with success.

Indeed Stuart urged his pupils to copy not his work but nature. He believed that young painters should shift for themselves as he had done; the talented would work out a personal style, and it was best that the others fall by the wayside. He opposed art academies because, he insisted, they encouraged the incompetent. "By and by," he shouted, "you will not by any chance kick your foot against a dog kennel but out will start a portrait painter!"

As we have seen, two of Stuart's ten children, his second son Charles Gilbert and his daughter Jane, essayed to follow in his foot­steps. Trying to forget the flaws and deficiencies of his own tempera­ment, the unhappiness of his own career, Stuart concentrated his hopes for the future on the boy, who he felt had a great talent as a landscapist. But he was so afraid of destroying the lad's originality that he refused to give him any instruction. Charles Gilbert was forced to appeal to Stuart's other pupils for hints at second hand.

<< Previous    1...   29  30  [31]  32  33  ...35    Next >>