Greatest American Painters

Jane Stuart (1812 – 1888)

Posted by A. S. Amberson on June 27, 2012

Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry

George Washington


George Washington

Lady Wearing A Dark Gown

George Washington

Weeping Magdalene

George Washington

Martha Washington

Portrait Of A Gentleman

Scene From A Novel or A Subject From Literature

Gilbert Stuart (Artist’s Father)

Coach Fording A Stream

Lady Macbeth

6 Responses to “Jane Stuart (1812 – 1888)”

  1. vincenzo said

    It ‘s clear, Jane Stuart was a good painter, but unfortunately she only has shone the light reflected by his father, the talented portraitist Gilbert. She was lucky to have his painter father, from whom he could learn so much about painting, but at the same time she was also unfortunate, because his father, while using much of the aid of his daughter, he never had the care of encourage her to make progress independently, ie to improve his painting even outside the family. Unfortunately, at that time the society had not seen favorably women who dedicated themselves to painting, which has always been considered exclusively male activity. Jane Stuart, evidently was not willful and rebellious character of Mary Cassatt, who was born only a few decades later, she did respect his ideas just asserting itself in painting, becoming one of the most important artists of modern art.
    However, the paintings presented here, it seems to me that something good while Jane Stuart has done, such as the portrait of “Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry” and the image of “Cherub”

    • Stephanie said

      One forgets that daughter Jane was six years old when Perry sat to her father, and 14 when the finished portrait (1826) was given to Perry’s widow. Stuart did have student assistants who worked anonymously.

      • Vincenzo said

        Thanks for the clarification. Something wrong sometimes escapes, and I apologize for that. This does not alter, however, that the artistic talent of Jane Stuart, due to the great father figure, has had difficulty in expressing themselves in its fullness.

      • Stephanie said

        My apology! The painting I was referring to was another portrait of Perry (not imaged here) which I believe she was too young to have finished. The one here looks more like her style, about which I agree with you — without her father, what kind of a painter would she have been?

      • Vincenzo said

        Personally I think, Jane Stuart, having been a child prodigy, born and raised in an artistic environment, in direct daily contact with the expressive means of painting, she could reach, and possibly exceed, the skill and fame of her father. In the history of painting and music, there have been many cases of child prodigies who have exceeded early in skill parents or teachers. Only for to do a few examples among many, it would be enough to think of Raphael and Picasso which overcame their fathers, they also painters, or Mozart, who darkened the musician father.
        It ‘obvious that then to make a difference will be the genius (when there is).
        But Jane Stuart, in my opinion, had the misfortune to be born in an era when women painters (and there were more than you can imagine) did not have an easy life.

  2. Linda W said

    Thank you for showing those. They are wonderful; love the Magdelene. I had heard of her father, of course, but was unaware of her work.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: