I am a longtime admirer of Simon Schama, as both historian and art historian, presenter and public intellectual. For me, his study of the Dutch Golden Age, The Embarrassment of Riches: An interpretation of Dutch culture in the Golden Age (1987) is a classic of cultural history, illustrating a masterful engagement of textual and material sources, almost Burckhardtian in its scope. I always have it close at hand. Even though Schama is not principally an English historian, I show bits and pieces of his History of Britain series in class, just because he is such a good communicator–and teacher. As any reader of this blog (or former student) knows, I’m always utilizing (I think of it as playing with, actually, as I am not trained) art in class, in large part due to Schama, even though I am far less knowledgeable and adept than he. Schama’s latest project focuses on British portraits in the National Portrait Gallery, probably my very favorite museum in the world: The Face of Britain is a multi-media history of Britain through its portraits, rather than a history of British portraits. Through an exhibition last year at the NPG, and an accompanying book and television series, Schama examines Britain’s relatively modern history (after all, the portrait is a Renaissance creation) through portraits of individuals which represent both precise historical moments and dynamic trends. A very representative, and compelling, vignette relates the creation of a famous (or infamous) portrait of Winston Churchill, commissioned for the Prime Minister’s 80th birthday by Parliament. There was quite a bit of push-and-pull between Churchill and the commissioned artist, Graham Sunderland, resulting in a portrait that is described by Schama as a “beautiful ruin” detested by the subject, the humiliation of the artist at its public unveiling in 1954, and its eventual destruction by Lady Churchill or one of her delegates. All we have are studies and photographs of the painting that captured this particular historical moment.
Preparatory Study for Winston Churchill’s 1954 portrait by Graham Vivian Sunderland, National Portrait Gallery.
The making of Churchill’s portrait is a study in power dynamics, and Schama explores other kinds of relationships in his exhibition/presentation/narrative: “The Face of Power” is accompanied by “Faces of the People”, “The Face of Fame”, “The Look of Love”, and “The Face of the Mirror”. The essential relationship in all of these categories, however, is between the artist and the subject, and consequently it is a bit difficult to string along an entire collective history. I didn’t see the exhibition, but I heard from friends that it was confusing because of its conceptual-rather-than-chronological structure. I do have the book and I’ve seen several episodes of the series, and (once again) Schama’s superior communication skills do seem to carry us along, especially as we move among variant genres: “portable portraits”, miniatures, statues, engravings, photographs. I didn’t learn too much from his analysis of the Tudor and Stuart portraits–I’ve heard all that virgin and martyr stuff before–though I do appreciate the inclusion of Oliver Cromwell’s “warts and all” portrait and the “mourning portraits” Kenelm Digby commissioned of his beloved Venetia. I got a little lost in the later seventeenth century, but thought he made effective arguments for the representational value of portraits from the eighteenth century up through much of the twentieth, and I LOVED his “faces of the mirror”: I always though of self-portraits as being exclusively individualistic and not particularly dependent on context, but no longer! As is often the case with Schama, his transitions were subtle and his connections convincing, so in the end I found myself agreeing with his assertion that”portraits bring you into their company”.
Historical faces from Schama’s Face of Britain: Sir Francis Drake, whom Schama calls “the first genuine heroic famous Englishman”, principally because he is a “man of action”; Two very different portraits by William Hogarth: David Garrick as Richard III and the convicted murderess Sarah Malcolm in prison; Two earnest expressions of love by Thomas Gainsborough (for his daughters) and Dante Gabriel Rossetti (for Jane Morris, the wife of his William), and some amazing artists’ self-portraits, for which Schama provides plenty of context: Gerlach Flicke (cropped), an imprisoned sixteenth-century artist who painted the first English self-portrait so that his “dear friends….might have something by which to remember him after his death.”, Sir Joshua Reynolds, and William Orpen, “Ready to Start” fighing (?) in the Great War. Apparently Orpen later regretted his trivializing accouterments.
Sir Francis Drake by an unknown artist, c. 1580, ©National Portrait Gallery
David Garrick as Richard III, William Hogarth, © Walker Art Gallery
Sarah Malcolm by William Hogarth, Sarah Malcolm © Scottish National Gallery
The Painter’s Daughters chasing a Butterfly, Thomas Gainsborough ©National Gallery
Blue Silk Dress (Jane Morris) by Dante Gabriel Rossetti, ©Society of Antiquaries of London
Gerlach Flicke, ©National Portrait Gallery
Sir Joshua Reynolds, ©National Portrait Gallery
William Orpen, Ready to Start, ©Imperial War Museum
September 21st, 2016 at 7:47 am
embarrassment of riches on my bedside table. didn’t know about Faces of Britain…checking it out thanks for this post
September 21st, 2016 at 3:16 pm
Very great and interesting! We especially love the Reynolds and the Orpen Soldier…and it’s nice to see Richard lll. Churchill doesn’t look so terrible.
September 21st, 2016 at 4:10 pm
I’m reminded of the portrait gallery of former Stuart rulers I saw in Edinburgh Castle(?). Most had no contemporary portraits, so the artist made up faces, making sure to use features from the face of the current monarch (James VI/I?) in previous monarchs’ portraits ot make it clear he was their legitimate descendant. Such is one use of portraits in British history: to establish lineage and the right to rule.
While Dante Gabriel Rossetti’s portraits of women could be used as a catalogue of women models for the Pre-Raphaelites, who were often also their wives or mistresses.
September 21st, 2016 at 7:44 pm
I’m not sure Schama can really do British history through these portraits –or any portraits–but he’s so gung ho I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt!
September 22nd, 2016 at 4:57 pm
I love that Churchill portrait…it seems so unique, full of life, and expressive of experience. I wonder what they wanted/expected instead. Can’t help thinking it would not have been half as compelling as this.
September 22nd, 2016 at 5:13 pm
That is Schama’s opinion as well, Laura–he feels it was a great loss. Apparently Churchill though the portrait made him look “dim-witted”.
September 23rd, 2016 at 8:18 pm
Dim-witted? Oh dear, that they thought that!