The Face of the Prophet
When the JS photograph and the RLDS painting are compared closely, several interesting differences emerge. These differences are anatomical. It is no secret that the Prophet was severely persecuted throughout his short life. There are many accounts of enemies abusing the Prophet physically. Several of the accounts are so brutal it is hard to believe any man would not suffer bodily damage as a result. Careful examination of the JS photograph reveals that the Prophet’s left cheek-bone is lower than his right one. (see Fig. 15)
There also appears to be a scar above his left eye (see Fig. 16) and one on the left side of the cupid’s bow on his upper lip. (see Fig. 17)
It is important to note all of these “injuries” appear on the same side of the face. None of these “human frailties” exist in the RLDS painting or any other art-work done of the Prophet. Such a difference is logical. Artists are not paid to present a man with all his scars and misshapen features. On the contrary, photographers capture life well enough, a portraitist’s job is to express the person larger than life. There is a famous story of the Sun-King, Louis XIV, refusing to allow his artist to paint his real legs. He insisted that a young boy with handsome legs be brought to stand in for him. Louis had terrible varicose veins.
Because photography so closely records life, it is common to hear people say, “Oh, do I really look like that.”
Most painters use the body’s inherit symmetry when creating a portrait. They paint the facial features at equal distances, given the angle and perspective of the subject. However, real faces are not symmetrical. When the JS photograph is cut in two and then reassembled using the same half twice, we can see how asymmetrical this photograph really is. (see Fig. 18) The same startling differences can be detected by printing the image backwards. This phenomenon is not as pronounced in artistic renditions of the Prophet. (The Prophet’s face and how it relates to the death mask will be discussed in great detail in a later section.)
Because photography so closely records life, it is common to hear people say, “Oh, do I really look like that.”
Most painters use the body’s inherit symmetry when creating a portrait. They paint the facial features at equal distances, given the angle and perspective of the subject. However, real faces are not symmetrical. When the JS photograph is cut in two and then reassembled using the same half twice, we can see how asymmetrical this photograph really is. (see Fig. 18) The same startling differences can be detected by printing the image backwards. This phenomenon is not as pronounced in artistic renditions of the Prophet. (The Prophet’s face and how it relates to the death mask will be discussed in great detail in a later section.)
These points — and others that will follow in the medical section — indicate that the photograph copyrighted by Joseph III is not a photographic reproduction of the RLDS portrait. There are too many differences between them that would not exist if they were one and the same. The facial injuries are not the only “unportrait-like” qualities found in the JS photograph. Art history reveals more interesting facts about this.
American Art in the 1800’s
America, for many years, was behind Europe in the arts. The American people were so busy laying the foundations for their unique society that fine art was not a major priority. Gould commented:
During the years of Joseph Smith’s physical maturity, (about 1830-44) in which the "photograph" would have been made, portraiture was a much sought after commodity which services were provided either by a select group of highly educated, well known, well paid artists, or by the much larger group of American folk artists who worked either for small pay, or merely for the privilege of painting a sitter’s portrait.
The picture believed to be the Joseph Smith photograph is uncharacteristic and unlikely of both classifications of artist. Of the folk or common painters, none to my knowledge had the ability to produce such a virtuoso example of human likeness in such perfect proportion or detail as we see in the Joseph Smith photograph.
Master portrait painters were small in number in early nineteenth century America. The nation’s first fine arts academy was established in Philadelphia in 1806, and it was several decades before figure portraiture had become a highly refined curriculum of the academy.
The great painters of the period were trained in Europe. The tradition in which they were trained also had mannerisms which are inconsistent with the Joseph Smith photograph. These painters tended to accentuate in detail the areas of greatest interest by "loosening" the secondary elements. The grain of the fiber of the coat for instance is especially reminiscent of a photograph, not of a fine nineteenth century painting. Also uncharacteristic to these painters would be the stark whitish-gray background over which the portrait is presented.
I have been unable to find even one example of a known painted portrait from this period which incorporates this treatment (or non-treatment) of the background. To the contrary, the typical technique incorporated a dark, scrubby ground against which the facial features could gain added luminosity.
Also to achieve added luminosity and to add naturalism to the form, the face and body were modeled with highlights and deep shadows. The relatively flat light on the features, and the flat white background are actually much more characteristic of early photographic portraits which placed the model before a white washed surface, or a white linen for what I presume to have been its reflective qualities.
Gould later went on to state that if the JS photograph were a piece of art, it would take even a highly skilled artist several weeks to complete, not to mention countless hours of sitting by the Prophet. He noted:
Documentation, or the lack thereof, in reference to these paintings leaves much doubt to the possibility that a portrait sitting by a highly prolific figure before a highly talented artist could have taken place without documentation of the event either in the biography of the Prophet or the artist. A portrait of such quality would certainly have required many hours of work over several weeks of time. It is my understanding that the activities of the Prophet were well documented. It seems unlikely that such a large episode in his life would not be documented. Also, while it was not uncommon for less talented and lesser known painters to leave their works unidentified, this was much more unusual for artists of stature at this place and time.
If this photograph were to have been painted I believe it could only have been carried out by a highly trained painter. On the other hand, it does not seem unlikely that a few minutes with an unknown photographer, with a new technique yet of little renown would pass without notice.
Gould’s argument is well founded. The Prophet’s journals do record two sittings in front of Nauvoo folk-artists. Each sitting took less than one day for the artist to construct the painting. The LDS Church has these portraits and as Gould suggested, they are of an amateur nature.
Great masterpieces take time, a commodity the Prophet did not have. With the exception of only one sculptor, every artist and art historian we interviewed could not believe that the JS photograph was a painting. Our next course of investigation took us to photographers and photo archivists.
During the years of Joseph Smith’s physical maturity, (about 1830-44) in which the "photograph" would have been made, portraiture was a much sought after commodity which services were provided either by a select group of highly educated, well known, well paid artists, or by the much larger group of American folk artists who worked either for small pay, or merely for the privilege of painting a sitter’s portrait.
The picture believed to be the Joseph Smith photograph is uncharacteristic and unlikely of both classifications of artist. Of the folk or common painters, none to my knowledge had the ability to produce such a virtuoso example of human likeness in such perfect proportion or detail as we see in the Joseph Smith photograph.
Master portrait painters were small in number in early nineteenth century America. The nation’s first fine arts academy was established in Philadelphia in 1806, and it was several decades before figure portraiture had become a highly refined curriculum of the academy.
The great painters of the period were trained in Europe. The tradition in which they were trained also had mannerisms which are inconsistent with the Joseph Smith photograph. These painters tended to accentuate in detail the areas of greatest interest by "loosening" the secondary elements. The grain of the fiber of the coat for instance is especially reminiscent of a photograph, not of a fine nineteenth century painting. Also uncharacteristic to these painters would be the stark whitish-gray background over which the portrait is presented.
I have been unable to find even one example of a known painted portrait from this period which incorporates this treatment (or non-treatment) of the background. To the contrary, the typical technique incorporated a dark, scrubby ground against which the facial features could gain added luminosity.
Also to achieve added luminosity and to add naturalism to the form, the face and body were modeled with highlights and deep shadows. The relatively flat light on the features, and the flat white background are actually much more characteristic of early photographic portraits which placed the model before a white washed surface, or a white linen for what I presume to have been its reflective qualities.
Gould later went on to state that if the JS photograph were a piece of art, it would take even a highly skilled artist several weeks to complete, not to mention countless hours of sitting by the Prophet. He noted:
Documentation, or the lack thereof, in reference to these paintings leaves much doubt to the possibility that a portrait sitting by a highly prolific figure before a highly talented artist could have taken place without documentation of the event either in the biography of the Prophet or the artist. A portrait of such quality would certainly have required many hours of work over several weeks of time. It is my understanding that the activities of the Prophet were well documented. It seems unlikely that such a large episode in his life would not be documented. Also, while it was not uncommon for less talented and lesser known painters to leave their works unidentified, this was much more unusual for artists of stature at this place and time.
If this photograph were to have been painted I believe it could only have been carried out by a highly trained painter. On the other hand, it does not seem unlikely that a few minutes with an unknown photographer, with a new technique yet of little renown would pass without notice.
Gould’s argument is well founded. The Prophet’s journals do record two sittings in front of Nauvoo folk-artists. Each sitting took less than one day for the artist to construct the painting. The LDS Church has these portraits and as Gould suggested, they are of an amateur nature.
Great masterpieces take time, a commodity the Prophet did not have. With the exception of only one sculptor, every artist and art historian we interviewed could not believe that the JS photograph was a painting. Our next course of investigation took us to photographers and photo archivists.
