History of Portraiture in America
Our nation’s first fine arts academy was established in Philadelphia in 1806. It was several decades before figure portraiture became a highly refined curriculum at the academy. America was not without artists. Nearly every community had its share of unskilled art enthusiasts. These unschooled artists are called “folk-artists.” The more gifted were kept busy by requests to paint images of those around them. There was an adequate living to be made and those interested in painting could be aggressive in obtaining work. Thousands of examples of America’s folk art remain for scholarly study. While each artist had his own technique, there are amateuristic qualities that tend to be universal: Most folk-art of that time is “flat” with little concern for: shadowing, flesh-tones, high lights, or realistic detail. Most folk-art portraits did not present the subject in correct anatomical proportions. In order to gain more professionalism in their art, it was common for a folk-artist to use a “crutch.” A crutch is any technique, other than the artistic eye, used by an artist to render life into art. There were several popular artistic “crutches” used during Joseph Smith’s lifetime. One popular “crutch” was the silhouette. A silhouette of a person could be made by projecting a shadow of the subject using candle light onto a piece of paper. (see Fig. 10)
Afterward, the artist could add the details of the face to the profile. While the method was crude in nature, if done carefully, could produce a recognizable image of the subject. It is believed by some that Sutcliffe Maudsley (see Fig. 11) used this technique to create his images of the Prophet. (see Fig. 12) Commenting on Maudsley’s work, Joseph Smith III said:
The recollections of the man [Joseph Smith, the Prophet] so far as Utah is concerned has been kept alive by flat side views, by pictures originally executed by Sutcliffe Maudsley, an English designer, and a good many of them are but caricatures.
The recollections of the man [Joseph Smith, the Prophet] so far as Utah is concerned has been kept alive by flat side views, by pictures originally executed by Sutcliffe Maudsley, an English designer, and a good many of them are but caricatures.
Profiles are the easiest form of art to execute and encompass the majority of early paintings. The invention of the camera obsurca and later the camera lucida was of great benefit to folk and professional artists. When this apparatus was used in connection with photography, the result was magical. The camera lucida mentioned previously, (see Fig. 13) allowed the artist to take a subject’s pose from a photograph and recreate it without knowledge of perspective or basic artistic training. Photography enabled an artist to capture his subject’s likeness days after the original sitting. No longer did the subject have to sit for hours, even weeks, in order to have a portrait painted. The artist could use the photograph to transfer the image to canvass. Aided by daguerreotypes, folk- artists showed great improvement. Many frontal portraits began to appear throughout the nation. It was so effective that today artists are taught in our modern universities how to use photography to improve their art-work. We believe that something to this effect happened with the Joseph Smith daguerreotype. Professional artists believe that no other explanation is possible. David Gould stated:
Because many paintings exist from what is apparently the same pose I believe it is important to examine how this might have happened. Only one of the portraits could have been made during the actual sitting, because even two portraitists working side by side would have drastically varied views of the subject, rather than the consistent viewpoints rendered by the paintings. I believe that the original portrait from which the others were painted must have been a photograph rather than a painting.
Because many paintings exist from what is apparently the same pose I believe it is important to examine how this might have happened. Only one of the portraits could have been made during the actual sitting, because even two portraitists working side by side would have drastically varied views of the subject, rather than the consistent viewpoints rendered by the paintings. I believe that the original portrait from which the others were painted must have been a photograph rather than a painting.
It has been suggested by some that the image copyrighted by Joseph III is nothing more than another piece of art- work. Such a conclusion is not possible when the facts are considered.
In order to preserve clarity, we will refer to the image that Joseph III copyrighted as the JS photograph and the painting that resembles it as the RLDS painting.
In order to preserve clarity, we will refer to the image that Joseph III copyrighted as the JS photograph and the painting that resembles it as the RLDS painting.
The RLDS Painting & the Smith family’s Photograph
Sometime during the 1840’s, a portrait of Joseph Smith was painted. Currently this painting is in the hands of the Community of Christ Church (formerly the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). (see Fig. 14) It is this painting that some historians suggest was re-photographed and copyrighted by Joseph Smith III. They contest that perhaps the Prophet’s son wished to secure the painting in his name by doing this. This is highly doubtful. Joseph Smith III was familiar with law. It is inconceivable that he did not understand how to copyright an image. The copyright description of the JS Photograph states that the image is a photograph of Joseph Smith. It does not describe it as a painting. To be a valid copyright of a painting, it would need to show all of the art in the painting (i.e. the hand, the ring on the hand, and the background). The JS photograph has only the face and shoulders against a blank background. A claim that Joseph III and his patent attorney copyrighted the painting automatically assumes they were inept enough to make their copyright invalid.
Unfortunately, the RLDS painting was never signed, making it impossible to tell, for certain, who painted it. Historically, it has been credited to William Major, a folk-artist from Nauvoo. Art Historians familiar with Major’s work have long questioned this assertion. They believe that Major did not have the talent to produce the RLDS painting.
In 1970, Nelson Wadsworth addressed the question by showing evidence of Major’s techniques. He showed that Major used photography to off-set his lack of talent. As an example, Wadsworth found evidence that Major used a daguerreotype of Brigham Young to paint his portrait. While the original daguerreotype of Young has been lost, we have an engraving that was taken from it. (For a discussion of the similarities between Major’s painting techniques and the photographs used to create them see Appendix C —The Major Question, below.) Wadsworth believed that Major used Foster’s daguerreotype to paint the RLDS painting after the Prophet had died. Joseph Smith III corroborates this idea in this letter to the tribune:
There is an authentic oil painting now in the possession of my son. Frederick M. Smith, at Independence, Mo., ...It fortunately happens to us that this portrait... is sustained in its characteristic likeness to my father by the daguerreotype in our possession...
In other words, the painting is authentic in appearance because it looks like the Prophet. Joseph III can prove this because he has a photograph of his father. That the RLDS Painting is “sustained in its characteristic likeness” indicates it came from the daguerreotype. It only makes sense that the images would be similar if one “sustains” the other, however, since a painting is a subjective form, one would find differences between the source and the artist’s interpretation. One singular difference between the JS photograph and the RLDS painting is the gaze of Joseph Smith. Try this experiment: hold the JS photograph in front of you and ask yourself in what direction the Prophet is looking. He is looking straight at you. Next hold the RLDS painting in front of you and ask the same question. In the painting he is looking at your left shoulder. In the JS photograph there is no hand shown.
One professional artist and LDS museum guide stated she believed that Major did paint the RLDS painting. She based her belief on the hand that appears in the painting’s lower left corner. She noted that this hand revealed the true artistic ability of the artist. She pointed out that the hand was not consistent in quality with the face. While the face of the Prophet is well fleshed, well proportioned and well executed, the hand is flat, amateurish, and out of proportion. The hand, she said, revealed the artist’s natural ability and that no artist capable of painting such a face would ever paint such a terrible hand. When asked for an explanation, she replied, “whatever the artist used as a model — or crutch — did not contain a hand.” The JS photograph does not contain a hand.
When overlaid, the JS photograph and the RLDS painting, do not line-up exactly. If both images were exact copies of the other, they would line up exactly when over laid. These differences between the two images were found to be most profound because they shed light on the life of the Prophet.
In 1970, Nelson Wadsworth addressed the question by showing evidence of Major’s techniques. He showed that Major used photography to off-set his lack of talent. As an example, Wadsworth found evidence that Major used a daguerreotype of Brigham Young to paint his portrait. While the original daguerreotype of Young has been lost, we have an engraving that was taken from it. (For a discussion of the similarities between Major’s painting techniques and the photographs used to create them see Appendix C —The Major Question, below.) Wadsworth believed that Major used Foster’s daguerreotype to paint the RLDS painting after the Prophet had died. Joseph Smith III corroborates this idea in this letter to the tribune:
There is an authentic oil painting now in the possession of my son. Frederick M. Smith, at Independence, Mo., ...It fortunately happens to us that this portrait... is sustained in its characteristic likeness to my father by the daguerreotype in our possession...
In other words, the painting is authentic in appearance because it looks like the Prophet. Joseph III can prove this because he has a photograph of his father. That the RLDS Painting is “sustained in its characteristic likeness” indicates it came from the daguerreotype. It only makes sense that the images would be similar if one “sustains” the other, however, since a painting is a subjective form, one would find differences between the source and the artist’s interpretation. One singular difference between the JS photograph and the RLDS painting is the gaze of Joseph Smith. Try this experiment: hold the JS photograph in front of you and ask yourself in what direction the Prophet is looking. He is looking straight at you. Next hold the RLDS painting in front of you and ask the same question. In the painting he is looking at your left shoulder. In the JS photograph there is no hand shown.
One professional artist and LDS museum guide stated she believed that Major did paint the RLDS painting. She based her belief on the hand that appears in the painting’s lower left corner. She noted that this hand revealed the true artistic ability of the artist. She pointed out that the hand was not consistent in quality with the face. While the face of the Prophet is well fleshed, well proportioned and well executed, the hand is flat, amateurish, and out of proportion. The hand, she said, revealed the artist’s natural ability and that no artist capable of painting such a face would ever paint such a terrible hand. When asked for an explanation, she replied, “whatever the artist used as a model — or crutch — did not contain a hand.” The JS photograph does not contain a hand.
When overlaid, the JS photograph and the RLDS painting, do not line-up exactly. If both images were exact copies of the other, they would line up exactly when over laid. These differences between the two images were found to be most profound because they shed light on the life of the Prophet.
