tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-716677313232500716.post6433582780360592575..comments2024-03-19T08:37:39.010-04:00Comments on Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site: Elbows, Ankles and Décolletage: Myths of 18th Century Women’s Fashion Part 1Schuyler Mansionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02001179137546334580noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-716677313232500716.post-60880508130201147812017-04-12T12:26:43.009-04:002017-04-12T12:26:43.009-04:00The painting of Catharine Schuyler was done at som...The painting of Catharine Schuyler was done at some point in the early 1760s. Considering the hair style and the knotting at the front of the bodice, it was almost definitely a direct copy of Frances Cotes painting of the Duchess of Hamilton, or the 1752 mezzotint thereof - only the sleeves are different. As you can see from the link (above, and reposted here), there were many paintings spun off of this one, and the bust is emphasized in a number of them: https://b-womeninamericanhistory18.blogspot.com/2009/03/favorite-costume-of-south-carolina.html?_sm_au_=iVVMDPMS4g6qrN3R<br /><br />Catharine's bust is, perhaps, more-so, but she WAS described as a "big, Dutch woman" by at least one visitor (though, to be fair to Catharine, this visitor came after she had had all 15 of her children, rather than after only 4-6 children, as at the time of this painting).<br /><br />The shape of Catharine's body can very much be considered 18th-Century "Photoshopping", but at the time it would not have been considered 'bad'- more like the type of Photoshopping that is done to models on the front of magazines to turn the figure into the ideal rather than the reality. These proportions look very strange to our modern eyes, but within the time period, they were neither unheard of, nor as awkward as we perceive them to be. While our modern eyes are drawn to Catharine's chest, the artist's intent was probably to use the extra exposed flesh to create the illusion of a long neck. The other thing that looks strange to us is the extreme slope of the shoulders, which, although possibly exaggerated, may have been more accurate than we'd like to believe. As Linda Baumgarten discussed when Colonial Williamsburg made a mannequin of George Washington (see The Many Faces of George Washington: Remaking a Presidential Icon p. 46), both men and women of means wore stays (corsets) starting very young. This literally reshaped the body, like footbinding - pulling the ribs, and everything attached to them down and inward. Because it was a symbol that one was wealthy enough to be raised in stays, sloped shoulders became an ideal body shape. Catharine was both wealthy enough to be raised in stays and important enough that the artist would want to exaggerate these features to make Catharine look her best. Much like celebrities on the front of magazines, you did not want to be the person who gave Catharine Schuyler a bad "cover shot".Schuyler Mansionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02001179137546334580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-716677313232500716.post-25732478002211365372017-04-09T21:52:29.718-04:002017-04-09T21:52:29.718-04:00I'll also add, look at the portrait and see if...I'll also add, look at the portrait and see if you agree--I think the head looks disproportionately small compared to the body, which contributes even more to the unbalanced look of the figure.Lucynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-716677313232500716.post-47727932440466815922017-04-09T21:44:27.096-04:002017-04-09T21:44:27.096-04:00I just found this post through a link from the Two...I just found this post through a link from the Two Nerdy History Girls blog, and I'm particularly interested by Catharine Van Rensselaer Schuyler's portrait, because there are a couple of things that stand out to me.<br /><br />One, I wonder when in the century it was painted. I've seen a number of portraits from the 1730s/40s, and while the necklines are very low, the cleavage is not emphasized. If anything, it's played down to be quite discreet. The emphasis in this portrait seems to me to be more evocative of the work of Peter Lely, from the previous century.<br /><br />Two, I suspect that what makes Catherine's portrait so noticeable--and probably provokes many of the comments about low necklines--is that the model, who, as you say, may not have been Catherine, was a noticeably large-breasted woman, and appears to have been tightly corseted as well. This is somewhat incongruous with Catherine's face.<br /><br />So ... is this perhaps a bad case of 18th century Photoshop?Lucynoreply@blogger.com