Paintings

Gilbert Stuart’s paintings range from imposing full-length portraits to small, lightly worked studies of a head. Presidents share the career with artists, merchants, diplomats, women represented within domestic life and people whose professional activity shaped the portrait’s setting. Clothing, hands, furniture and background help establish each encounter, while the attention given to a face can make a conventional format feel unusually personal. ^[1]

His work developed across Britain, Ireland and America. Following those places provides a useful first route through the portraits, but format and purpose offer others. A likeness intended for a family collection invites different comparisons from a diplomatic gift or an image repeated for many customers. Paintings with the same sitter or title may also be separate versions with different dates and histories. ^[2]

The biography follows that changing career. The studies below concentrate on particular paintings, pairs and portrait types, linking the familiar Washington images with the larger body of work.

Finding your way through the portraits

A useful opening group is The Skater , Catherine Brass Yates and the Lansdowne Portrait . The first makes a gentleman’s movement on ice the basis of a full-length likeness. The second concentrates on a seated woman with her sewing. The third constructs the ceremonial presence of a president. Compare how much space each person occupies and what the surrounding setting contributes to the encounter. ^[2]

Scale changes the demands on both painter and viewer. A full-length figure requires the head, torso, hands, legs and surrounding space to hold together across a large surface. A smaller portrait can concentrate on fewer elements, allowing a face to carry more of the image’s effect. Stuart used both possibilities. The difference between his large exhibition portraits and the small Self-Portrait at the Met makes that range particularly clear. ^[3]

Finish provides another route. In some paintings clothing and setting are fully developed; in others the head emerges from broad indications or exposed canvas. An unfinished picture can make parts of the working process visible, but its appearance does not explain by itself why work stopped. The self-portrait, the Athenaeum pair and John Bill Ricketts have different circumstances and histories. ^[4]

Pairs deserve attention together. A pendant is a painting conceived in relation to another, often through corresponding dimensions, poses or settings. Comparing the partners can reveal choices that a single reproduction obscures. The Jáudenes portraits, the Adamses and the Bowdoin Jefferson and Madison paintings offer especially useful examples, even though each pair has a different purpose and chronology. ^[5]

Within a pair, look first at how the bodies occupy their canvases. A turn of the shoulders or the position of a hand can direct attention across the space between the pictures. Matching dimensions do not require matching activities, clothes or degrees of finish. In the Jáudenes pendants, coordinated display gives each sitter a place within an image of the couple. The Adams portraits instead make the different effects of delayed completion especially apparent. These are two ways for separate likenesses to acquire further meaning through their relationship. ^[5]

London and Dublin works

Stuart’s London portraits developed within a competitive culture of exhibitions, commissions and reproduction. The Skater , exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1782, gave William Grant of Congalton an unusual full-length setting. His folded arms and balanced body replace the architectural support and furnishings often found in grand portraits. The icy landscape extends the action beyond the sitter, while the dark figure remains the composition’s dominant presence. ^[6]

Captain John Gell , painted in 1785, offers a more formal full-length comparison. Naval dress and the arrangement of the figure bring public identity into the portrait. Set beside The Skater , the work shows Stuart using different settings and bodily attitudes for pictures that still demand a convincing likeness at a substantial scale. Both belong to the years in which he established an independent reputation in London. ^[7]

Portraits of fellow artists form another revealing group. Joshua Reynolds , John Singleton Copley and Benjamin West were connected with John Boydell’s commissions for likenesses of artists. Their presentation differs: West appears with a book and papers, Reynolds holds a gold snuff box, and Copley’s oval likeness concentrates on the figure. The group presents the artists as people worthy of public attention. They also record encounters between Stuart and men whose example or assistance mattered to his career. ^[8]

These are particular objects, rather than interchangeable illustrations of famous names. The West portrait at the National Portrait Gallery in London is distinct from Stuart’s earlier painting of him at Tate. The small Met self-portrait is likewise different from Stuart’s earlier self-image at the Redwood Library. Identifying the holding collection and object helps keep separate pictures from being collapsed into one title. ^{[3] [9]}

The self-portraits also change the scale of attention. The earlier work belongs to Stuart’s development in West’s circle, while the small Met painting is connected through Jane Stuart’s later account with a private image made for his wife. Broadly indicated clothes and the pale surround allow the head to remain the principal event. It offers a useful counterpoint to the professional equipment and more substantial settings of the commissioned artists’ portraits. Intimacy, exhibition and public reputation could make different demands within the same career. ^[3]

The Dublin Baron FitzGibbon , dated 1789, extends the full-length portrait into the representation of high office. Robes, wig, furnishings and architectural setting establish the sitter’s official world. Cleveland’s qualified identification of the linen support as possibly a tablecloth adds a material question to the grand effect. Comparing it with Gell brings the different visual languages of military service and civil office into view. ^[10]

New York and the first American patrons

After returning to America in 1793, Stuart painted New York clients whose relationships often reached back across the Atlantic. Commissions moved through interconnected households, political acquaintances and business contacts. These portraits established the breadth of his American practice before Washington became its most widely recognized subject. ^[11]

Catherine Brass Yates , painted in 1793–94, gives a household activity a concentrated pictorial presence. The needle and thread lead attention through the hands, while white fabrics and a darker underlying dress frame the face. Horatio Gates presents a different kind of identity through military clothing and the sitter’s association with the Revolutionary War. Looking between them shows how the same painter could address domestic and public remembrance within closely related years. ^[12]

The John Jay painting at the National Gallery of Art belongs to 1794. Its robes and substantial figure give the sitter a formal presence, but the costume needs precise context: the robes relate to his Harvard honorary degree, not to a universal Supreme Court uniform. This canvas also has a different history from Stuart’s London portrait of Jay and the version involving Trumbull. The distinctions change how the image is understood. ^[13]

The Jáudenes pendants of 1794 bring the comparison back to a couple. Josef de Jáudenes y Nebot and Matilda Stoughton de Jáudenes appear in elaborate clothing within coordinated compositions. Later additions to the paintings include arms and inscriptions. Those visible marks form part of the objects’ histories, while their authorship must be distinguished from Stuart’s own work. A reproduction can preserve all these layers without explaining them. ^[14]

Washington portraits and their versions

Stuart’s George Washington portraits are best approached through three principal types: Vaughan, Athenaeum and Lansdowne. A type identifies a basic likeness or composition that could generate further versions. It is different from a count of surviving canvases or of sittings. The same familiar head can therefore appear in objects made for different patrons, at different dates and sometimes by different artists. ^[15]

The Vaughan Portrait at the National Gallery is a replica of Stuart’s first Washington likeness of 1795. Earlier scholarship treated it as the original painted from life, but Stuart’s later statement that he erased the first portrait complicates that identification. Naming the exact NGA painting keeps its history separate from other examples of the Vaughan type. ^[15]

The Athenaeum portraits represent both George and Martha Washington in 1796. Their unfinished surfaces are central to seeing them as paintings. George’s developed head and the surrounding exposed or broadly worked canvas offer an encounter very different from a cropped reproduction of the face alone. Martha’s companion belongs within the pair’s commission and later ownership, even though George’s image became far more widely repeated. ^[15]

Lansdowne places Washington at full length within a ceremonial interior. The civilian clothes, extended hand, sword, books and furniture contribute to an image of presidential authority. The NPG’s painting is distinct from related canvases at the White House and other institutions. Comparing versions requires attention to more than the sitter: composition, dimensions, provenance and the particular holding collection all help identify the object. ^[16]

Engravings add another stage in the image’s circulation. A print described as being “after Gilbert Stuart” may reproduce his composition while being made by another artist, sometimes long after his death. It is evidence of the portrait’s reach, with its own medium and history. It does not become another painting by Stuart merely because his name and Washington’s appear in the same record. ^[17]

The names of the types carry histories too. Athenaeum identifies the institution that acquired the unfinished Washington pair after Stuart’s death, while Lansdowne connects its composition with the intended recipient of the Bingham gift. Such names can remain in use as a work changes owners or versions enter different collections. They help explain the image’s history, but they do not replace an accession number when two museums hold paintings with closely related titles. ^{[15] [16]}

Boston likenesses and completion dates

The paired John Adams and Abigail Adams portraits demonstrate why a painting can need more than one date. Begun in 1800 and completed in 1815, they contain different relationships to the passing years. John’s head largely reflects the later sittings, while Abigail’s earlier face survives within costume completed later. Their dating describes a prolonged commission rather than a single shared sitting. ^[18]

The Bowdoin Thomas Jefferson and James Madison portraits date to about 1805–07 and were finished after Stuart’s move to Boston. They were commissioned together for an intended diplomatic setting. Jefferson was president; Madison was secretary of state. The fact that both men later belong to a series of American presidents should not erase their different positions when these pictures were ordered. ^[19]

Dolley Madison supplies another important distinction. Her 1804 White House portrait was paired with a James Madison likeness now at Colonial Williamsburg, rather than with the larger Bowdoin picture. A couple can have more than one portrait history, and the present location of one canvas does not establish the original partner of another. ^[20]

Sarah Wentworth Apthorp Morton appears in several different Stuart paintings. The Worcester veil portrait, the MFA’s finished black-dress canvas and the Winterthur panel with writing materials and a Washington bust are separate works. They invite different accounts of a poet’s identity. The Worcester catalogue also preserves a broad date range for its painting, so its precise position in a sequence should remain open rather than being manufactured from the sitter’s name alone. ^[21]

Late presidential portraits on wood provide a further warning about dates. An object painted around 1821 can use a likeness developed much earlier. The date on its collection label describes that object’s making; it does not prove that a president sat again in that year. Reading the medium, version and supporting history together makes a chronological list much more informative. ^[22]

The appeal of unfinished work also extends beyond presidential likenesses. In the Ricketts portrait, the much more developed head is surrounded by lightly established passages and altered horse imagery. That unevenness makes the sequence of work a visible subject. The painting’s later admirers valued what it revealed about Stuart’s methods, while stories about the artist’s impatience supplied another account of its condition. Keeping the visible evidence beside those attributed recollections allows an unfinished picture to remain interesting without requiring one anecdote to explain every mark. ^[4]

How to read the artwork directory

Begin with the whole entry: sitter or title, date, medium, attribution and collection. Repeated titles can identify separate physical objects. A change from canvas to wood may help distinguish versions, while an accession number identifies an object within a particular museum. The label “oil on canvas” names both the paint and its support; “engraving” or “etching” identifies a print with a different making process. ^[17]

Attribution words carry different degrees and kinds of responsibility. “Attributed to Gilbert Stuart” preserves uncertainty. “After Gilbert Stuart” identifies a relationship to his image, while another named artist may be responsible for the actual painting or print. A work described as completed by someone else has another history again. Retaining these qualifications gives a more useful account of the object than collecting every mention of Stuart under his name alone. ^[17]

Dates need similar care. “Circa” means approximately; a range can represent uncertainty or a work developed over time. The Adams pair offers a documented example of delayed completion, while the Morton veil portrait has a different dating problem. These distinctions explain why sorting by a single year can conceal the very history that makes a portrait interesting. ^{[18] [21]}

Historical catalogues remain valuable records of earlier ownership, identifications and opinions. They also belong to the scholarship of their own time. Park’s 1926 publication separates its main portrait sequence from Washington portraits and an uncertain-attribution section. Its structure and individual judgments need to remain visible when an older entry is compared with later museum scholarship. A catalogue number is a reference to a record, not a guarantee of present-day attribution. ^[23]

An inscription has to be read within the same history. A name or date can belong to the original painting, a later owner’s annotation or another hand’s attempt to identify the work. The additions to the Jáudenes portraits make this especially clear. Technical examination and documentary evidence help establish the relationship between those marks and the painted image. A signature-like inscription alone cannot settle questions that the object’s longer history leaves open. ^[14]

For a closer account of surfaces and working decisions, continue to style and technique . The artist overview places the work within American portraiture , while the biography and individual studies follow the social circumstances behind commissions. Reading those histories alongside the images brings a varied career into view without treating every likeness, version and reproduction as the same kind of object.