Historic Painting Thread

[macwilkin]

I wonder how accurate these paintings are? As the saying goes - The spirit of the law or the letter of the law. Has the artist captured the impression of the sitter or are we looking at as near as dammit photographs. I don't believe it is the latter, so we must question how much of what we are seeing is accurate and how much is artistic license.

My Grandfather was a studio photographer in India at the turn of the last century. My cousin still has all the costume jewelery that the ladies were adorned with. In black and white pictures, you can't tell whether the pearls are real or not. There was always a Black-a-moor servant boy standing behind holding the cane or parasol (imported by my grandfather from Madagascar) and a couple of wolfhounds sitting at the subjects feet (family pets). All in all the people in the photos looked like kings and queens and not the clerks and shopkeepers that they were.

I think we can be a bit skeptical.

Regards

Chas

I don't think the author of this thread was suggesting we accept these paintings carte blanche, Chas. I think we can all agree that paintings (or even photographs) capture just one aspect of life in general and how people might have dressed at a certain time in history.

Reenactors and living historians of later periods certainly depend on photographs, but also combine them with written documents -- although who of us thinks to document exactly what they are wearing every day down to what material the clothes were made of?

For example, numerous photos from the American Civil War in 1861 show soldiers on both sides armed to the teeth with pistols, bowie knives, swords, etc. -- we know from some contemporary journals that a majority of these were photographer's props, and those that were not were quickly thrown away on the route of march for being too much weight -- so in that regard, the photo does give a misleading impression that all soldiers carried pistols or Bowie knives.

Regards,

Todd