eastern here on cspan 3.÷úçç why up close view -- princeton university professor officer of democracy and black÷ú arthur of barack obama "the story" watch in depth live on sunday on book tv.zv >> talks about how artist depicted george washington. his presentation includes famous portraits by john trumbull, gilbert÷ú stewart and this is jt over an ymzvçhour. >> something constructive, of course, but also -- notç lightn by any means, but something a little less serious. by that, i mean, there's going to be a lot of visuals in this and iç figure a visual intelligence of something we can -- a little bit acclaim to, for those of you who need the moreu! traditional sort of scaffolding like an outline. we can start off with two pages of that and that's also what that's all zvabout. for those of you who respond to competitiveness competitiveness. .ç we're just going to weigh through two centuries of works of art x mostlyu! painting. -- i should say a little bitzv about myself first. i said i'm chief historian. anyone who appreciates the÷ú multiplexty of doing history understand you have to work with art, that's how people express themselves when they're at their best. sometimes at theirç worst, as we'll see. at the university on george washington. i madeç sure that there was on lecture on george washington and the arts and i've refined it a little bit for today's purpose. but instheir mind it was intended for college zvgrad. and we'll get p it. and cross times, things to look for as we go through the talk. we'll look at the contemporary print. these are basically ways thatç washington was portrayed to its contemporary ris while it was alive and then moving on, history painting and genre art, basically washington images of historic seems that actually -- scenes that actually took place so that artist want it to÷ú tak place. . the entire time sinceç washingn was alive. attitudes across times, in history we find factualism v⌝m realism. realism, the romae develops from that where stories are tapped primarily for the emotions they evoke. then again, the genre style, iconography, dealing with issues of ancestry worship versus characters and parities towards those attitudes in history. we start out with the very first portrayed of george washington. this is the one that he enters the stage of history on, literally. he's wearing this uniform, they believe, we know he was wearing a uniform, it was most likely this uniform where he appeared at the second continental congress in 1775 to show that things had gotten to the point where militarism might be an option. at this point in time it's only 1772. 1772 marks a very quiet period during the imperial crisis between great britain and some of, not all of its colonies in north america, only 13 of its colonies in north america. you're wrong to say this is a picture of george washington militant. this is a picture of george washington, virginia gentry, who is very proud to be a member of the british empire. it's a portrait he had to do begrudgingly. martha made him do it when an itinerant painter showed up on the doorstep in 1772. we know it's 1772 from the members. we know washington is proud to be a member of the british empire. he's showing off what that empire is, unsurveyed wilderness. in his pocket is his marching orders in the french and indian war, again, very proud to have served with the british army in fighting off the french. that's what this represents. the revolutionary war started. charles wilson peal is still the guy we rely on for knowing what he looks like for this period. charles wilson peal had several children. he named each of them after a famous artist. you probably have heard of rembrandt peal, there is a titian peal. and they all wanted to paint washington. one day after sitting for various peals, he said, i've been well-pealed. this one is still very early in washington's military career. it's dated 1779. it's based on a prototype that charles wilson peal did in 1776. this particular painting shows in the left, you might recognize nassau hall, this is supposed to symbolize his victory at the battle of trenton and princeton in 1976, 1777. peal was very smart, and we'll see this with the other artists we'll talk about today. he knew when he had a good thing. he had this prototype and decided he would keep producing it to people who commissioned him. this one was commissioned for the spanish delegation in congress. so he made about 17 of these overall. peal also painted george washington at the federal convention in the summer of 1787. i thought this was interesting because he's still wearing his general's uniform. he hasn't quite relinquished his claim to fame as a general yet, even while he's sitting as the president of a civilian organization like the federal convention. john trumbull painted this painting of george washington in 1790 for martha. it's a very small painting. it's called washington at verplank's point, outside of new york city. trumbull had just come back from england at the time. i think he wanted to make a mark for himself in the seat of government which was then new york city. everyone thought this painting was absolutely one of the best -- certain people in washington's family, his adopted step-grandson thought this was the best portrait that had been done of washington. he did a version of it for the corporation of the city of new york. it's the first work of art, i wish michelle cohen was here because she knows about that, the first work of art that was bought by the city of new york. he painted another version of it for the city of charleston, not to be outdone by new york city, charleston wanted their own version. trumbull is not as savvy a businessperson. in the background he could have painted anything he wanted. and he painted the battle of trenton. when you're from charleston, this isn't going to work. charleston said, we don't want it, thank you very much. trumbull kept it. and we'll see what he did with it later on. the third of the trifecta of early portraits of george washington during his lifetime is gilbert stuart. i note national gallery had a great exhibit on gilbert stuart a few years trumbull, actually like three of the four early portraitists in the early republic, were from new england. flowers in the wilderness, as thomas flexner liked to call the early painters in the colonies in the early republic. trumbull had a hard time selling the career of a parent to his family. his father, the governor of colonial connecticut, reminded him that new haven is no athens. it might be nowadays, but then he thought it would be a hard sell for his son. but gilbert stuart had a little more to go on. he also was from rhode island, a new englander, he studied under benjamin west as well. he has success in the british isles, particularly in ireland. he paints this one of george washington, primarily of bond. most of the portraits gilbert stuart paints, the prototypes, and their copied versions, are named for the owners. so this is the bond portrait. the next one in time is of course the famous athenaeum portrait. 75 replicas of this were made during stuart's own lifetime. maybe some of you know the story. i've done some research on it. i still can't decide if it's apocryphal or not. he is commissioned to do this by the family, there is a pendant by martha washington. they're both at the national portrait gallery. gilbert stuart realized, again, he had a good thing. he didn't want to give it up. technically he only had to deliver it once it was done. he made sure it was never done. he continued to use it as the prototype. the third is also here in washington, called the landsdown portrait. it was painted in 1796. you might recognize it. it's basically just the athenaeum head plopped on a body. this enabled him to do any number of copies, depending on what the commissioning patron wanted. if he wanted a certain book on the table, if he wanted a certain background between the drapes and so on. it was a very lucrative deal for gilbert stuart. it was painted for the bing hams, a fabulously wealthy family, for landsdown, who was very amenable to the american cause during the revolutionary war. i won't tell you where there is another one of these in washington, dc, i won't tell you where it is, we can talk about that later if you want. these are all private portraits that are done by very well-paying patrons. because it costs a lot of money to do a portrait. but regular people wanted to see what george washington looked like as well. so you found images of george washington on all kinds of articles for public consumption. this is a scarf that shows purportedly george washington, but you can tell as well as i can, this is just a guy on a horse in a tricorn hat. what's interesting is the saying around it. it does identify him as george washington. the founder and protector of american liberty and independence. if you were here for the talk a couple of weeks ago, that might resonate with you, that was something very close to the title that the senate actually ended up doing for george washington, the house rejected it. but in the popular mind at least, that was not such an outlandish title for the commander in chief. this is the cover of an almanac in boston in 1778. this is a chance for you guys to show off. what just happened in 1778, the year before 1778? a major event in american history. the battle of saratoga, okay? if you're making an almanac in 1778, you want to honor the victor of saratoga, which was not george washington. it was horatio gates. there are washington and gates identified here. i don't know which one is which, because neither of them look like either of the people they're purported to be. that's precisely the point. you just threw up a cheap wood cut and see what happens. as a matter of fact, these images were interchangeable with almost any other person in colonial america. that was the point. so people who wanted to consume images of washington in the public sphere still had to wait for something more accurate. they had to wait even longer than 1796, which is which this page from a textbook for young americans comes out. again, it identifies it as george washington. to me it's ben franklin. i don't know. there were 11 woodblocks cut for this textbook to represent 22 people. so you can tell i mean, the only thing that would separate them is the addition of a tricorn hat, sometimes. so this is what people had to work with. eventually, the portraitists we discussed, trumbull, gilbert, peal, they realized they had a good thing going with engravings. they could take trumbull's rejected charleston portrait of washington in 1792 and turn it into an engraving. america didn't have the capability to do an engraving of this quality i want tat this po. trumbull had to send it off to england. this probably became the most popular image of washington. edward savage started painting washington for harvard in 1789. again, he realized, why should i do one when i can do a print and sell many? he does this stipple print of george washington in 1792. what i found really interesting about this, it's one of very few that show washington wearing the badge of the society of the cincinnati. i've only seen one other. they're only in prints, not in portraits. those who know the history, know washington had a very ambivalent with the society of cincinnati, notwithstanding or precisely because he was the president pretty much for life until he died. savage, by the way, was another new englander. you can see, new englanders, they might have a reputation as part of their puritan legacy for not appreciating art but we all know, of course, new englanders were in the forefront of art, at least in colonial and early america. this was a version he did of his own print before. this is an mezzotint done a little later. it shows three-quarters washington and it shows him now holding a map. i wish you could see it all. it's a map of washington, dc, which holds center stage in the most famous edward savage we have, the portrait he did of the washington family in 1796 it was finished. he started in 1789 when he did just the washington head. he realized he wants to get the whole family. this is the first and only one of the washington family that was ever done. ken showed us this during his talk several weeks ago on washington, not washington and the west but just west in general. through the opening, through the drawn curtains, you can see the potomac river valley, which was washington's key to opening up the west and securing the west to america through access to the atlantic seaboard. washington owned a lot of acreage along the potomac drainage area, more out west, though. and of course he gave his name to the city whose map martha is pointing at with her fan. one of the things about this portrait is it's so fun to read. when i teach my class and teach them how to read a document, i'm not limiting myself to little documents. anything can be a document to be read, okay? like a painting needs to be read. and so this one should be read as washington being a family man. we can see that. very, very proud of the city that would bear his name. i want to draw attention to the fact that -- and you're sorry to miss this point, there's actually a sort of an apostolic success that's going on, from the city of washington, where washington is resting his left hand by his sword, and his right hand is resting on the shoulder of his adopted grandson custis, whose hand in turn is resting on a globe. you could say, oh, this is washington, dc, the capital of the new nation, extending its maybe not hegemony but its influence over the entire globe one day. pretty cheeky stuff for 1796. from our perspective today, it's interesting to read. again, you'll be sorry to miss that point. the man in the right, the african-american manservant, it's not william lee. i can't remember the name of the guy. historians who know this stuff feel pretty confident who it is. but it's not washington's manservant, at least. i have so many gizmos to operate here. the other thing we have to thank edward savage for is, he painted the first image we have of mt. vernon. he painted it in 1791. it wasn't displayed until 1802. but he does get the distinction of having the first one on canvas. this is actually mt. vernon, you can see it today. the first one the people would have seen and that began a long tradition of upholding mt. vernon as an icon, which it really is today, let's face it, you see any house with a lawn, piazza, porch, columns, particularly if it has a cupola, the first thing you think is, it's a mt. vernon spinoff. i don't want to take responsibility for remembering to point that out, the more important thing about this image, besides it being the first public image of mount vernon, is that it's supposed to honor george washington's resignation. notwithstanding the fact that he's wearing a general's uniform. it's an image to honor his resignation from the presidency just two years earlier. but washington's whole career was really a career, a surrender in power. this is going to be very important later on. we'll touch on it right now with probably the most important image of washington as someone who surrenders power. washington as scincinattus, who gave up farming when he was called by his country, fought the enemy, came back and resumed farming instead of holding on to dictatorial powers, much like washington's career. he was called from his plantation in mt. vernon to serve as commander in chief. when he resigned in 1783, it was one of the most amazing acts in human history. george iii said if he gives up power, he'll be the most famous man in history. so we see george washington as cincinattus, done by jean antoine udon. this is the installation of udon's famous statue in the virginia statehouse in richmond, 1796. again, this is something we can read. what are some of the things you notice? you notice the fasces, a word that was perfectly fine to use in the 18th century but it's gotten some bad rap from -- hello, pressed the wrong button. ugh. the fasces were symbols of unity, axe handles to symbolize coming together, more strength in a bunch of sticks than one stick. but washington's cloak is draped over it, yes, the power is there, but it's being neutralized aboneutralize ed by my cloak. the plow is waiting for him behind him, very much a farmer just like cincinnati. we all know apotheosis. this is an apotheosis much closer to washington's death. it's by john james barrelette. by this time washington's face is recognizable. we're actually at the point where almost everywhere recognizes gilbert stuart's face. against, it's multi-tasking. he plops gilbert stuart's athenaeum face on a body of washington. i call this an orgy of allegory. many of us recognize the phrigian cap, which represents the liberty given to enslave people. liberty itself is stamping on a snake which was harkening back to eden, at the time when snakes were evil. we find father time here with a scythe and the hourglass. these are sort of universal symbols of time's passage. i want to call attention to the native american who is repining in sadness at the lower right. this is probably the most historically factual message of this entire scene, because in fact no president equalled george washington in the humanitarian policy he showed towards native americans. even before washington's death, he becomes a major focus of history paintings in the grand manner. for many americans, people in the british empire, in the atlantic world, the epitome of history painting, certainly one closest in time to george washington's early life, was benjamin west's magisterial death of general wolf outside quebec. the battle was in 1759. the painting is done 1771 for the king. benjamin west is a name you heard me say a few minutes ago. the three great early portra portraitists of washington, trumbull, gilbert stuart, and not so much peal, but copley later on, all studied under benjamin west. he's an american who goes to london, sets up shop, and becomes the king's painter. naturally americans who go to england to sort of mimic his career gravitate towards his studio. this is benjamin west's most famous painting. most people if they know anything about it know that it caused a scandal when it was first done because horror of horror, it shows general james wolf here, and guess what, general james wolf's clothes. that was considered somewhat scandalous back in 1771, because if you were anyone worth having a painting done of yourself on the heroic historical stage, you needed to be dressed up in a toga like a good roman would have been. the fact that this kind of realistic portrayal of a general in 1759 was still kind of scandalous, even when it crosses the atlantic into the americas, as symbolized by this engraving here. this is one artist's rendition of a statute that congress actually voted to erect to george washington as late as 1783. you can see -- well, i don't have to tell you, washington never wore a suit of armor like this. and it's not even really a roman toga, is it? to me this is like a velazquez kind of conquiz -- conquistador. people were still expecting certain tropes to be adhered to. the first american who worked on this side of the atlantic and then went on in england to do history painting as well was john singleton copley. i have a self portrait of copley here, several years after he moves to england. the only reason i have this, for perfectly honest with you, is i love this self-portrait. it's a beautiful self-portrait. he was a bostonian, again, another new englander. he cuts his teeth in the field of history in the grand manner with this painting, the death of report chatham, painted a year after the self-portrait that you saw before. this painting is composed with west's archival sense, an obligation to preserve like an archive as an actual moment in history. but copley has the archetypal view of the main chance. his feeling is, why make a picture of one person when i can make a picture of a lot of people and sell them engravinen, everybody likes to see themselves in a picture. automatically you've got 55 patrons instead of just one. very, very clever. the thing about this painting, by the way, is that it's kind of overdramatizing. this is not the way it actually looked. it's not even what he says it is, it's not the death of lord chatham, it's actually chatham having a stroke from which he died several days later. but "stroke of lord chatham" doesn't sound like it will sell as well. when i say it's an archival document, copley went around and took images, we have copley's studies of the portraits of each of these people. trumbull, who studied under benjamin west, did the same thing. when he embarks on history painting, this is trumbull's famous death of general montgomery, done in 1786. trumbull was a very interesting -- i found out recently there's a new biography out about him which came out last year, i can't wait to get my hands on it. you find a very interesting life. he served in the american army, he went to england, was imprisoned as a spy, he might have been a spy, i don't know, that's why i want to read the book. he was trying to learn the art of painting in west's studio. he befriends john and abigail adams and jefferson and they encourage him to embark on a series of american history paintings. he initially intended my memory is about 15 or 16 of them. he only executed about eight. and this to my thinking is one of the best. aaron and i have seen this painting. it's at yale, the trumbull gallery at yale. and it's rather small. we think of trumbull's great historic paintings in the rotunda. but the early ones are small. they're only about this big, and they're beautiful. and if you ever wonder what his inspiration is, it's west, doing the death of another general outside the same city, quebec, just 20 years apart. now, trumbull, like so many of these other artists, gears his commercial potential to collecting subscriptions for engravings of the paintings he does. but unlike copley, he's reluctant to alter the factualism of his paintings. trumbull was more sensitive to being factual. as we know with any history painting, you're going to fudge things in order to show off a moral dimension to the scene, okay? we heard this a couple of weeks ago with debbie hanson when she spoke on the battle of lake erie painting by powell. he fudged some facts. not because he liked to fool people, but because he saw higher lessons to be learned by imbuing a sense of heroism. he paints washington accepting the surrender of the commanding colonel of the hessians. washington i don't believe ever met the commanding officer of the hessians. this is something trumbull fudged because he wanted to show how commander in chiefs should treat fallen enemies and prisoners. when i first started putting this talk together several years ago, gitmo was in the news. i kept thinking about what people have to learn about the proper treatment of prisoners. privile prisoners of war. trumbull's death of general mercer at princeton, this is a study done around the same time when he's still in london, 1786. again, it shows a dynamic battlefield. but again, he's tweaking the facts, right? george washington, up here, this is a study, that's why it looks the way it looks, but i like the study because it shows some of the frenzy of the battlefield more than the finished, more polished version. george washington up here was never actually anywhere near general mercer when he was killed. on the other hand, this is the only image we have of george washington of trumbull's in an actual battle scene so i'm kind of glad he threw him in there. when you're commander in chief in a major war, you should be in at least one battle scene, right? so we have him to thank for that. most of us know trumbull because four of his paintings from the history series end up in the rotunda. by the 1830s, george washington is in two of them. the surrender of cornwallis at yorktown, and this is the more important one, i told you it would get back to the resignation of washington because it's so important, this is his painting of the resignation of george washington to congress in 1783. the cincinnasin syncinc -- cinc. his eyesight is beginning to falter. the fact that it's a much larger canvas, some of the mastery you saw in the earlier paintings is gone, particularly this. it's gone by the time this is finished and installed. but it's still an important document that we can read for lessons of george washington's life. it was intended to be read, although the language, the lexicon for interpreting the language of this painting might be lost to us today. back in the 1820s, it would have been more obvious to people, for example, that everything to the left of washington represents the domestic of his side of life. to the right is his public hand, you shake hands with your right hand, that's his public life. on the left, the private, domestic life is where you find these young ladies, martha is up in the gallery, of course she wasn't anywhere near there but we want to get her in there. in fact trumbull throws in another major person who wasn't there, james madison is in this group. he wanted to show all the presence of the georgvirginia dy sitting together. monroe was there, washington of course, and jefferson was there because he was a member at the time too. trumbull throws in madison to show that virginians were running things. as with udon's statue of cincinattus, the cloak means something, he's thrown the cloak. either he's in haste to get the heck out of there because mt. vernon is a couple of miles down the road and it's christmas eve, or it could be because he's throwing off the cloak of leadership, literally the mantle of power. one other thing you can see the subordination of the military to the civilian power here, it's subtle, but this guy is actually higher than washington. washington has center stage. but this guy, charles thompson, sect secretary of commerce, no surprise, the bureaucracy is the power. that's where you go for locating the center of civil authority. then as now. probably in any government. but come back to this painting later on on other own aer your you can tell any more signs or lessons it has to teach. the grand manner of historical painting starts to subside, replaced by a romantic period of painting. romance, as the name suggests, is supposed to evoke feeling. it's supposed to be looking at emotions, dark or foreboding in the case of this. this is based on thomas sully's image of george washington crossing the delaware. it's so dark and foreboding that the legislature of north carolina who had commissioned it decided not to take it after all, because, you know, it's kind of moody, right? this is even moodier because it was done in the primitive style by a quaker artist, edward hicks, you've seen some of his work, the peaceable kingdom and so on. the romantic style starts to supplant the grand style. you'll see it throughout the mid-1800s. the epitome, of course, and you would crucify me if i didn't show that, washington crossing the delaware. there's not much i can say except a cute side story, that the first version of it painted actually in dusseldorf, the artist's home at the time in the 1850s was damaged. he sold that off. the one at the met now is actually a second copy. the first copy was destroyed by the royal air force in a raid on dusseldorf during world war ii, which is considered great britain's last revenge for the american revolution. the other really neat thing about this painting is that of course he's playing fast and loose, we're already several decades into this idea that history painting is not archival as much as ennobling, you're supposed to read it for the lessons it has to teach. he has no qualms or scruples about making stuff up, which makes this a really interesting painting to read, because everything in it was meant to be interpreted for one reason or another. one of the things i like the best about people who have interpreted it is they say this person here, for example, i don't know if you can see it, everyone thinks, partly because of the way she looks but also because of what she's doing, this is actually a woman. everyone in the boat, she's the only one rowing in the right direction. there might be something to that, i don't know. also unlike trumbull and copley, he wasn't very careful about who he populated the boat with. he didn't go around and try to find out who was actually in the boat, or their descendants. sometimes trumbull would paint, like mercer was dead in 1787, he goes to paint the painting, he doesn't have americas mercer so chooses his son. this artist uses anyone. the boat isn't anything like the boat he would have used. one historian said, if everyone who said he had an ancestor in washington's boat crossing the delaware was counted up, there would be more people than came over on the mayflower. and everyone likes to say they are descended from the mayflower people. i don't know if you guys have seen this, george washington at the battle of mammoth courthouse. why is this a romantic painting? it looks pretty clear-cut. it's highly representational. but the faces that it shows are really, you know, all these guys here, some of them are related, some of them are in anguish. they're retreating from british lines because general charles leigh has told them to retreat and washington comes up from behind the lines and says, what the heck are you doing? everyone is in turmoil except washington. that's precisely the point. that's the emotion that he's calling attention to. not that washington is excited or upset, which he was. some people, contemporaries, went on record to say this was the only time they remember washington swearing. but he wanted to get across the opposite, that washington is restraining himself. he's seething underneath. but his is the only face, in this very bad reproduction for which i apologize, he's the only one showing restraint. before the end of the 19th century, another strain of history painting is starting to evolve. and it relies very much for its subject matter on the american revolution. it's the genre style which shifts focus to everyday activities and peoples. it coincides with the mechanical means of mass producing illustrated books. the more books in the hands of the common people makes publishers to want consumers to see themselves in the illustrations. so you find a lot of paintings, like howard pyle did this painting. genre style pertains to history painting. i think i made this up but i think it adheres pretty closely to the truth. it shows everyday people in historical settings or historical figures in everyday settings. here you see everyday people in a historical setting, people watching the battle of bumpinger hill from the rooftops. it's not some grand moment in the battle. it's literally the common soldiers, nameless, anonymous, marching up. some of them are looking at their fallen comrades. how does this compare with the grand style of history painting? well, a century earlier, john trumbull is doing this. and in this painting, the grand style, everyone here has a biography written about them, trust me. everyone here. none of these guys are anonymous. i picked this as an example, although it has nothing to do with george washington, because it's here in washington, dc. i think we have to, you know, kind of promote washington, dc when we can. it's the boston boys and general gauge, painted by henry bacon in 1875. again, it shows a bunch of young soon to be americans, protesting british soldiers knocking down their snow hills before the american revolution. look for it next time you're at george washington campus. thomas pritchard rossiter paints the washington family at home, a very genre scene. washington is a victorian squire, victorian ideal of family life. junius brutus stearns. not just a farmer but a benign slave holder. i tried to find out if stearns had a reason for depicting slavery as a benign institution. i wasn't able to determine any of that. john ward dunsmore, washington's last birthday, 1799. washington saying goodbye to his niece who had been living with his adopted step-granddaughter who had been living with them, married off to his nephew. this is the couple that moved into woodlawn down route 1 from mt. vernon today. a genre scene by john ward dunsmore. i include this one partly because it shows george washington. it's a genre scene because it shows washington not in the magisterial sense of establishing washington, kind of like what we saw with the edward savage, but it shows him in the messy tasks of telling surveyors where to go, and the bureaucrats, the commissioners in the background. this is also in washington, dc, this is in the collection of george washington university. it was done in 1931 as a master's thesis by a student there. this is my favorite. look at it carefully. it's jean leon, paris, stuart's studio, painted circa 1920, paris's homage to gilbert stuart. it's a picture of a painter painting a picture. it doesn't get more behind the scenes than that. i talked about howard pyle, the great illustrator of the genre style. n.y. would n.c. wyeth was probably his most famous student. this was painted in 1930. why is this a genre painting? washington is doing something pretty historical. but this painting isn't really about washington, is it? if you were up close, you would see that the most delineated, personalized portraits aren't of washington at all, in fact his face is kind of smudged out. it's of the young woman throwing petals at his feet. this is a portrait of a young woman encountering history on a day in 1789. while he was painting this for a bank in trenton, n.c. wyeth took a spill from the scaffolding, had a near-death experience. and during that experience, he dreamt that he met george washington. he recorded in a painting called "in a dream i meet george washington" in 1930. the guy he says is george washington is just some generic revolutionary war figure. we know he's george washington because of course he's on a horse and wearing a tricorn. that's why i use this painting to help me make the transition to iconography, george washington in iconography. what's so special about the iconographic style? its style is just as representational. its means and effect are more indirect and abstract, because washington is now used as a means to some other ends. unlike portraits, which tell people what washington looked like or history paintings which teach history or in the romantic mode, try to excite moods or imbue more lessons or set pieces more or less to entertain, iconography uses washington as a symbol for something else or uses something else as a symbol for george washington. early on before what anyone knew what washington looked like, kind of from the same era, late 18th century, is the almanac covers. if you wanted to convey an image of george washington as law give her giver, we know this is julius caesar because more people know what caesar looked like than americans knew what george washington looked like. you know it's some link to the roman republic. i'm going to race through the horatio greenough's famous statue of washington as zeus. i would be remiss not to show it and show some of its iconographic antecedents. the statue of zeus, the famous painting of napoleon, 1811. greenough's is combined with antonio canova's napoleon as mars in london today, 1806. i think greenough's painting has a really interesting career. it was installed in the capital, as we know. people always say, they don't like its nakedness, its nudeness. they had to remove it. but if that was the reason, you wouldn't move it to the lawn, right? there's a story there. and i'm not prepared to tell the subtext of that story. i do want to move on quickly, i want to make sure we have time, but this is maybe the most -- the part that will tug at your hearts more, because it's something we can all relate to. i introduce it with this, maybe the most famous iconographic image of all, grant wood, the famous regionalist from the midwest in the 1930s. and his parson weems' fable, at least that's the title i have of it. it's ancestor worship. the flip side of that, of course, is debunking myths. if pietism is myth making, then debunking it is the flip side of the same coin. parity attacks those myth i cic images or icons. what can i say about this? the most noticeable thing about it is of course, it's again that ubiquitous gilbert stuart's head, painted when washington was 64, fully white hair, on the body of an 8-year-old, cutting down his father's tree. parson weems is holding back the curtain on his own invented myth. compare it with charles wilson peal's self portrait, artist in his museum from 1822. in case you don't get the spoof, wood literally frames his composition around the imagery of charles wilson peal's famous 1822 portrait. peal is drawing the curtain bcke on history. like weems' story, it's an artificial fabrication. his specimens are a reality frozen in time. grant wood's washington is static and unchanging like the stuff birds on display. he's the same at 8 as he was at 64. grant wood's other famous image, daughters of revolution, not even daughters of the revolution, he wanted to show how stodgy blue-haired ladies like this can serve as the establishment against the kind of movement that gave birth to the united states in the first place. they are supposed to be the daughters of the american revolution, the dar. grant wanted to show by 1932 how much they had betrayed that legacy by becoming in turn an establishment against which people like grant wood would be happy to revolt. it's kind of -- he's kind of dissing the dar for their having thrown obstacles in his way. he was commissioned to do some artwork for i believe a church. and this stained glass company who commissioned him to do this work was based in germany. in the years after world war i, to do business with a german company was still considered unpatriotic. they threw bars in his way of executing that commission. this was his payback. you'll see that, again, the equally ubiquitous washington crossing the delaware is in the background. but it's really fading, isn't it? it's a faded legacy of the american revolution. i see -- i haven't read this, but i see these images, they remind me of byzantine icons. the elong ated necks, which i imagine he wanted to show their other worldliness. robert caldscott paints george washington carver crossing the delaware. he intended it to point out racial stereotypes that are embedded in the american psyche. so you see he paints in george washington carver, steppen fetchit, aunt jemima, et cetera. in his own words, this was his personal statement on the forthcoming bicentennial, 1975. robert shimamora does the same thing, you've probably seen this, it's in the national gallery of american art. same thing. another version of the crossing i wanted to draw attention to in my last minute is larry rivers from 1953, "the crossing." ail read my notes so i don't stutter and take up time. rivers' 1953 study of the crossing casts a fractured light on historical narrative, myth building, and human nature all together. no one, not even george washington, vaguely emerging as the figure of the horse off center, this is the guy, is readily identifiable. each man moves in his own murky reality, unlike the common cause shown by sailor/soldiers. rivers did this after reading about the chaos of war in the novel "war and peace." whether you agree with these artists' notion of history or of george washington, washington is so famous now he doesn't even need to be in a picture of george washington. we know because it's the crossing and there's a guy on a horse, that george washington is there. the flip side of that is that if symbols are identified with washington long enough, and they persist long enough, that eventually washington comes to stand for that symbol in turn. and so to demonstrate that, we all know what this painting is, right? you want to talk about the economy, you just throw up a dollar bill and it's george washington. you don't even need to mention his name. again, the economy is doing bad, right? because we identify washingt washington -- this is the athenaeum in reverse, so readily with george washington. we know this is a dollar bill, we don't even need to see the rest. we know the message he's trying to teach. washington is so famous now, he stands in lieu of the eagle. it used to be the eagle was the symbol of america. now he's standing in lieu of the eagle, holding the arrows and the laurel wreaths. i'm going to close with don palec's lincoln after stuart, done in 2009. this shows the complexity of iconography and how it plays with the mind. we go to look at this and fully expect to see george washington's athenaeum print, it has all the trappings of the image. instead we see lincoln and we do a double take. pollock wanted to demonstrate that not just -- this is how famous washington is, but that each president, washington and lincoln, have a lot in common. they both were major presidents who started historical legacies and their legacies are left unfinished today. and i'll close with the original. q&a. here is your chance. while you're thinking about q&a, i have these lovely pins that fit on your lapel. i don't know where i got them. the first of the two goes to someone who can tell me where the other landsdown is in washington, dc. i saw your hand first, sir. >> rayburn room? >> is it an original? >> it's one of the copies. >> i mean it was done by gilbert stuart? see, that's the thing. all the paintings i know of, particularly in the office buildings, much less -- i mean, much less the capital, are copies of these copies. i might have to stop you on that one. then i saw this lady. ma'am? >> the white house. >> that is a landsdown, good for you. you know what? my point was -- how can i forget the white house? of course. it was the first work of art -- it's good to see you. it's at george washington university, i'm promoting my own school. they have one that's called the monroe lennox, they're named for their original owners. and they have one, surprisingly enough. >> a three quarter view? >> no, i think it's a full one. i may have to look again. you know the one i'm talking about. >> but when they took down the landsdown at the portrait gallery, they replaced it with a three quarter. >> from gw? >> a private collection. >> oh, okay. before i give out the other one, give me time to think of another question. do you guys have any questions for me? ma'am? >> do you have any commentary on national gallery of art paintings? >> of washington? since we're talking about washington. let's stick with the washington. i mentioned the athenaeum is there, both of george and martha. the landsdown is there. i don't know what other ones are there. i suspect they have quite a few. but no, i couldn't tell you. you're reminding me i need to go back. >> what about the portrait gallery? >> i'm sorry, the portrait gallery. sir? >> you mentioned that gilbert stuart used this one painting as a model for others. how long would it have taken him to crank out another one of these, the turnaround time to sell it? >> of course our friend in the senate curator's office just left. she would have been ideally suited to answer that question. i don't know how long it took to turn around. i know that in the period, the thing that the master really had to take care of was the face and the hands. everything else was covered by clothing. you would get other people in your studio who were studying under you to do those. so you could turn them around fairly quickly. in other words, the master isn't responsible for everything you see on the canvas. i don't know how quick they spit them out, but there were 75 athenaeums floating around out there, i imagine it could be done pretty expeditiously. sir? >> you may have covered this. what are your thoughts on the martha washington portrait in the east room? >> the one that's kind of append ant to the landsdown? i don't have much thought about it, it's later. it's done during that -- the really early colonial revival style, late 1800s. without even having a clear mental image of it, i can tell you this, she never wore those clothes. >> they were late 1870s clothes. >> very victorian. bear that in mind when you see it, sometimes these people are shown wearing things that have no relation to reality or fact. >> speaking of that, the very first picture by peal, he's wearing a -- >> sash, uh-huh. >> and then a few pictures later he's wearing a different one, painted more deeply. is that braddock's battle sash that at least flexner says he wore in every battle? i've never seen in any of the commentary about any of these portraits, i've never seen anybody say anything about the sashes. >> my sense is that the blue sash, the diagonal blue sash he wears as commander in chief. i don't know where -- that would be according to a very specific rule about what the uniforms look like. we all know washington was a stickler for the rules. i don't know if he made up the rule and that he incorporated a braddock sash. i have a feeling that it might be a sash further down, maybe a waist, sort of a waist one. but i know the blue one, anyway, either because washington said it should be so, or he was told to make it so, is the sash he wears as commander in chief. and it would be interesting to know its connection with braddock. >> another question, how do you think it was that we see all these other pictures and especially peal, he painted, he tended to make a smooth face of everybody he painted. how did edward savage figure out that he really looked like george c. scott? an entirely different kind of face. >> i don't know. now, we all know peal, right? not a lot of people know edward savage, and it sounds like you're suggesting there's some unfairness in that, because savage is maybe more realistic. maybe he's just -- simply because he's more rustic. a lot of these primitives, i'm a huge fan of american primitive folk art, primitive art. i think it shows realities and truths we miss. when we see a nice smooth face like the peals, we think that that's the better piece. you're reminding all of us, don, some of the deeper truths, particularly by human character, can come out with someone who looks with the eye of a less educated, let's say, less academic artist like savage. by the way, i should say, savage was john wesley vjarvis's teacher. and jarvis thought he was the worst artist who was, he hated the fact that he was associated with him as a student. now, i'm not a huge fan of jarvis, so that makes perfect sense to me that he would feel that way. >> you didn't show the painting that the masons commissioned and have i think in alexandria, where he really does look like an old man, but not like george c. scott. >> i'm getting all confused now. so is that good or bad? >> it's a very realistic portrait of an old man. >> when was it done? >> in his last years. i understand it was commissioned by the masons. he looks like a tired old guy. >> we know particularly towards the end of his presidency, that he's not the teflon president that he was. and that's unfair too, teflon suggests people are throwing stuff at you and it doesn't stick. no one was throwing anything at him for the first several years of his administration. it's only later with the jay treaty and the friction between the anglophiles and the franc francophiles. if you take up arms against your own people, you're fair game, so he became just another politician towards the end. frankly i don't think it was a role he had studied how to play, and he didn't play it well. so that's a good point. when you're looking at portra s portraits, see, is this a tired old man, is this someone who is really optimistic and hopeful? maybe he just wants to go back to the plantation. we know he had a rebirth when he went back to the plantation because of what he says. he was at root a squire, a businessman, a very entrepreneurial businessman with his bills and his experimental farms and barnes. he was a farmer. i imagine he got a boost of energy when he went back in 1798. yeah, those pictures from the tail end of his second administration are devastating. look at obama. my god, the man started out, you know, and now he's gray hair. i know gray hair. it doesn't have to look bad. some people. other questions? bruce? >> you talked about the unfinished george and martha. and how, you know, if he finished it, they actually got it. it seems they would have had to put these artists up for days. >> yes. >> and then the artist tries to sell them prints if you're one of the little faces. did the sitters get anything for these portraits? >> no. it was largesse. it's another one of these nobles noblesse oblige things they did. i don't get that sense of george washington, either from diary entries i've read, where he says, another artist took up three hours of my time today. it was very time consuming. washington for one didn't appreciate it. but bear in mind, this is the guy who abiding by rules of hospitality at the time, while he describsubscribed, would put. udon describes his experience getting the cast for washington's head for the bust that's now at mt. vernon. it wasn't just washington sitting there. washington, you probably know the story, was covered with plaster, breathed through straws for a long time. i mean, if you're claustrophic like me, that's not going to go, but washington did it, because udon crossed the atlantic in order to do it. so you submitted graciously, hopefully. any other questions? peter, nothing? yes. >> i think the portrait that this gentleman spoke about, i saw it several years ago at the george washington masonic memorial. and what i remember about it is that it was said that it's the only portrait where his youthful pockmarks were shown in the painting. >> wow. is that what you're thinking, don? that's one of the reasons why it looks so real. of course he had the pocks eapo in life, it saved his life because he was immune to it later in life. i never looked for those pockmarks. i would imagine there was an unwritten rule that you didn't draw attention to them in a portrait, just like you didn't show fdr's disabilities. but of course we know now that's what makes you human, sometimes makes you a better humans. there's some books for sale that we have back stocked that we're happy to move at various types of discounts that deal with george washington based on book talks that have been given in the last several months. so please take those, and if you do have any other questions, feel free to e-mail me. and be looking for future book talks, not just in august. we do have them throughout the year. we're always happy to see you guys shown up in the dead of summer. so thanks for coming by. [ applause ] [ indistinct conversation ] friday night, american history tv in prime time continues with visits to archives, museums, and historic sites. at 8:00 p.m., programs on the pearl harbor attack and memorials. then a look at world war ii aircraft, and president woodrow wilson. and later, a tour of the ellis island immigration museum and the history of african-americans in congress. american artifacts, 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span3. tonight, book tv in prime time features politicians on "after words." at 8:00 p.m., senate majority leader mitch mcconnell on his memoir, "the long game." then retiring california senator barbara boxer. then j.c. watts on