Attributed to Charles Bird King
(District of Columbia 1785-1862) Captain John Smith negotiating with and
seeking to persuade Indian Chief Powhatan not to take his life, after having
been captured by Powhatan's tribe in 1607. This painting portrays the encounter
of Captain John Smith with Chief Powhatan in 1607, after his capture by
Pocahantas' tribe, but before Pocahontas took the courageous act that actually
saved Captain Smith's life. This painting depicts Captain John Smith of the
early 17th Century English settlement of the Virginia colony, at Jamestown,
based on his armor, garb and certain facial images of him, e.g., the engraving
by Crispin de Passe, that show the same essential facial anatomy and Smith's
beard, as depicted in this painting. This painting depicts Smith in December 1607, while seeking food along the Chickahominy
River, after his capture
by the Indians of the Powhatan Confederacy and being taken to meet the Indian Chief, Powhatan. As
depicted in the painting, Captain Smith is talking to and negotiating with
Powhatan (seated in front of the Smith figure), seeking to have Powhatan spare
his life. Powhatan's daughter, Pocahontas is not visible in the painting, thus,
this scene antedates the famed story, as told by Smith, that his life was saved
by Pocahontas, who according to Smith, threw herself
across his body “at the minute of my execution, she hazarded the beating out of
her own brains to save mine; and not only that, but so prevailed with her
father, that I was safely conducted to Jamestown.” See Wikipedia biography of Captain Smith. Oil on canvas. 25”
x 30” Estimate: $30,000-??
Provenance: McLees Gallery,
Haverford, Pennsylvania
Note 1) The following biographical
materials are taken from the Wikipedia website:
“Charles Bird King was born in Newport, Rhode
Island as the only child of Deborah
Bird and American Revolutionary veteran Captain Zebulon King. The family
traveled west, but when King was four years old, his father was killed and
scalped by Native Americans near Marietta, Ohio. His mother took her son to
return to Newport, where they lived with her mother.[1]
Detail
of a self-portrait aged 30, 1815
When King was fifteen, he went to New York to study under
the portrait painter Edward Savage. At age twenty he moved to London to study under the famous
painter Benjamin West at the esteemed Royal Academy. King returned to the U.S. due to the War of 1812 after a
seven-year stay in London, and spent time working in Philadelphia, Baltimore,
and Richmond.
He eventually settled in Washington, due to the economic
appeal of the burgeoning city. In the nation’s new capital, the artist earned a
solid reputation as a portraitist among politicians, and earned enough to
maintain his own studio and gallery.[2] King’s economic success in the art world, particularly
in the field of portraiture, can be attributed to his ability to socialize with
the wealthy celebrities, and relate to the well-educated politicians of the
time: “His industry and simple habits enabled him to acquire a handsome
competence, and his amiable and exemplary character won him many friends”.[3] These patrons included John Quincy Adams, John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay, James Monroe, and Daniel Webster.[4] King’s
popularity and steady stream of work left him with little reason or need to
leave Washington.[3] Despite
his wealth and societal standing, the artist never married, and lived in
Washington until his death on March 18, 1862.
Styles and
influences
The Poor Artist's Cupboard, ca. 1815
Though King’s legacy lies in his portraiture, throughout his
career he also demonstrated a great technical skill in still life, genre,
and literary paintings. Scholars have thought he would have preferred to
focus on these styles throughout his career, but he needed to earn a living,
and the only money to be made within the art market of the United States in the
early part of the 19th century was in painting portraits. His inclination
towards genre and still life paintings can be traced back to his
seven-year stay in London. The 16th and 17th-century style attributed to
masters in Northern Europe, especially that of the Dutch and Flemish, was quite
popular in the upper echelons of the art culture. While attending the Royal
Academy, King was swayed towards the Dutch styles by the demand such works
commanded, and also was able to see the works and learn from them. It is
likely that through his schooling, he was able to study the British royal
collection, as “Prince of Wales, and Regent, George IV collected Dutch art
voraciously…” and the prints were the favored style at the time by other
members of European royalty.
King took more than stylistic cues from these examples, as
he also employed some of the techniques which he saw. As Nicholas Clark wrote
in 1982, King “sometimes relied upon Dutch prints for formal solutions”[5],
as the prints provided a source of valued composition. As King’s formal
education included seeing revered art from the Netherlands and surrounding
regions, and many of his paintings include features that indicate influence of
Dutch art, the artist may be seen to have derived his favor for genre and still
life paintings from this style. As noted above, King incorporated the
techniques of Dutch painting into his portraits, though he recognized that the
United States was not yet as familiar the references to the style as it would
be in the sphere of “post-Civil War materialism…[3]“.
Portrait
of Senator
William Hunter of Rhode Island, 1824
Beyond his specific connection to Dutch painting, King is known
to have been especially committed to staying within the confines of the
traditional style of painting which he learned in his youth: “it is apparent
that the artist would adapt, time and again, traditional European mannerisms to
his new and native subject matter”[3].
While King completed a number of paintings that invoked
Dutch painting technique, he is better known as an important figure in the 19th-century
United States art world for his numerous portraits of Native Americans,
commissioned by the federal government. He was also commissioned by the
government for portraits of celebrated war heroes, and privately by the
political elite, all to portray important men before the time of photography. Despite his popularity at the time, King is often
overlooked in the broad scope of art history when placed amidst the talent of
his contemporaries. His relative obscurity may be due in part to his lack of innovation
in his work. It is also due to the loss of most of his numerous Indian
portraits to a fire in the Smithsonian; his work simply disappeared, so he was
overlooked in succeeding generations.
Native
American portraits
Charles
Bird King, Young Omahaw, War
Eagle, Little Missouri, and Pawnees, 1821, now in the Smithsonian
Institution.
The Smithsonian art historian Herman J. Viola notes in the
preface to The Indian Legacy of
Charles Bird King that he compiled the book was to acknowledge the
importance of King, as well as his Native American subjects, as part of the
creation of a federal collection of Indian portraits. The government, private
collectors, and museums hold portraits by a number of talented United States’
painters, including James Otto Lewis and George Cooke. King’s work makes up a bulk of the Indian portrait
collection, with more than 143 paintings done from 1822 to 1842[6].
Thomas McKenney, who served as the United States superintendent of Indian
trade in Georgetown and later as the head of the Bureau
of Indian Affairs, initiated the government's
commissioning of the portraits. Like many others, at the time he believed that
the indigenous people were nearing extinction, and he was seeking ways to
preserve their history and culture. He first tried to collect artifacts from
various tribes, then thought of having portraits painted for the government.
About this time, he met King, whose talent he appreciated. “The arrival of
Charles Bird King on the Washington scene inspired the imaginative McKenney to
add portraits to his archives.”[6] King painted the subjects in his own studio, as
McKenney easily obtained the consent for the portraits from Native American
leaders coming to Washington to do business with the US through his new
department. King’s 20-year role in painting works for the collection was
profitable for the artist. He charged at least $20 for a bust, and $27 for a
full-figure portrait, allowing him to collect an estimated $3,500 from the
government[6].
The portraits gained widespread publicity beyond Washington
during this period as McKenney broadened his project by publishing a book on
Native Americans. In 1829 he began what would become many years' worth of work
on the three-volume work, History of the Indian Tribes of
North America[6]. The project featured the many portraits of Native
Americans, mostly King’s, in lithograph form, accompanied by an essay by the
author James Hall.
After the administration changed and McKenney left the BIA,
the agency donated the Native American portrait collection to the National Institute, but shoddy care and displays kept it from the public eye[6]. When the National Institute deteriorated, it gave its work
in 1858 to the Smithsonian
Institution[6]. King's portraits were displayed among similar paintings by
the New York artist John Mix Stanley, in a gallery containing a total of 291 paintings of Native
American portraits and scenes. On January 24, 1865 a fire destroyed the
paintings in this gallery, though a few of King’s were saved before the flames
spread. Representations of many of the lost paintings have been found in
McKenney’s lithograph collection that supported the book (Emphasis added)."
Note 2) The attribution of the auction painting of Captain
John Smith and Powhatan to Charles Bird King is based on the following
considerations and processes. As the above biographical data makes crystal
clear, King was heavily involved in painting more than 143 Indian
portraits/subject matter from 1822 to 1842, twenty years. It is not
unreasonable to suggest that after King ceased painting Indian portraits/subject
matter in 1842, that he might very well have decided to explore the possibility
of executing an American history painting involving and depicting Indians. In
this regard, King was the supreme and most famous portrait artist in
Washington, D.C. at this time. In addition, he had attained a high level of
praise for his complex compositions of the “Poor Artist’s Cupboard” and “The
Itinerant Artist,” which strongly supports the proposition that King could have
planned and executed the complex composition manifested in the auction painting
of Captain John Smith and Powhatan.
“Poor
Artists Cupboard”
“The
Itinerant Artist”
King’s
portrait of Louisa Adams, wife of John Quincy Adams, c. 1821-1825 buttresses
the conclusion that King could have readily managed the complex composition in
the auction painting of Captain John Smith and Powhatan and paint a very
finished, shiny, smooth paint surface, that is also manifested in the auction
painting of Captain John Smith and Powhatan, especially in the skin of the
Indians.
Portrait
of Louisa Adams, wife of John Quincy Adams, c. 1821-1825
As
was stated in Wikipedia, “King’s economic success in the art world,
particularly in the field of portraiture, can be attributed to his ability to
socialize with the wealthy celebrities, and relate to the well-educated
politicians of the time: His industry and simple habits enabled him to acquire
a handsome competence, and his amiable and exemplary character won him many
friends" These patrons included John
Quincy Adams, John
C. Calhoun, Henry
Clay, James
Monroe, and Daniel
Webster.” King was most certainly aware of
the process by which Congress had been granting commissions to execute American
history paintings for the U.S. Capital since the 1820’s, and was still actively
granting commissions in the 1830’s and 1840’s for this purpose, after King had
ceased his practice of painting Indian portraits, pursuant to a U.S. Government
commissions, in 1842. In addition, he had also been commissioned in the past by
the Government “for portraits of celebrated war heroes, and privately by the political
elite, all to portray important men before the time of photography.” Given the
foregoing, it is somewhat surprising that King never was given a commission by
the Government for a portrait or a history painting to hang in the U.S.
Capital.
Mr.
Fastov had always believed that when he was able to locate an artist with the
artistic skills and techniques that manifested the capacity to paint and
delineate the very distinctive crisp, sharp angular faces and musculature in a
very smooth and silky manner and to use, if he chooses to, the shiny, vibrant
honey/oranges/tan skin coloring of the Indians in the auction painting of
Captain John Smith and Powhatan, he would have found the artist who painted the
auction painting of Captain John Smith and Powhatan. These characteristics
were, in fact, the telltale hallmarks or footprints of the artist who painted
this auction painting. King’s portraits of Indians make clear that King was
very much inclined to and did, in fact, manifest such characteristics in his paintings
of Indian portraits, as is manifested by the following illustrations of such
portraits.
Plains Indian Chiefs
Young Omahaw, War Eagle, Little Missouri, and
Pawnees, 1821
No
Heart (Nan-che-ning-ga)
1837
.
Black Hawk, 1821
Pawnee Chief Sharitarish done in
1822.
Peskelechaco
Tenskwatawa (The Prophet) 1768–1837
Henry Inman (1801–1846), after Charles Bird King
Wakechai
Crouching Eagle a Sauk chief, print after King
Pawnee
Chief, print after King
"Moanahonga, or Great Walker,"
print after King
,,
Shar-I-Tar-Ish,
print after King
To
test and hopefully buttress his attribution to King, as the author of the
auction painting of Captain John Smith and Powhatan, Mr. Fastov also researched
George Catlin (1796-1872) and Karl Bodmer (1809-1893) and Alfred Jacob Miller
(1810-1874), who, in addition to King, were the most famous painters of Indians
and Indian subject matter in the early through mid-19th century, Mr.
Fastov conducted thorough research on these other artist’s style and technique.
Most simply stated, these artists, generally speaking, do not depict crisp,
sharp angular faces of Indians and the Indians’ massive, flexible musculature
in a very smooth and silky manner, even though they will sometimes paint
bemuscled Indians. They also do not manifest a predilection for using a
vibrant, almost shiny, honey/oranges/tan coloring of the skin of the Indians,
as it appears in the auction painting. These characteristics appear in the
above illustrations of King’s Indian art. All of these artists paint tree
leaves in differing manners, but all of them depict tree leaves in a manner
that is inconsistent with the depiction of leaves in the auction painting of
Captain John Smith and Powhatan. The foregoing precludes a finding that any of
them could have painted the auction painting of Captain John Smith and Powhatan,
and somewhat strengthens Mr. Fastov’s attribution to King. See a few samples of
their works of art:
Regarding
Catlin, see, e.g.:
Little
Bear Hunkpapa Brave
Sioux War Council-1848
The
Cutting Scene, Mandan-O-kee-pa Ceremony. 1832
Catlin’s tree
leaves are also different from those depicted in the auction painting of
Captain John Smith and Powhatan:
Indian
Encampment
Regarding
Bodmer, he did a lot of landscapes, which make manifest that his style and
technique of painting tree leaves is wholly inconsistent with the tree leaves
in the auction painting of Captain John Smith and Powhatan. See, e.g.:
Deer
In A Forest
His Indians in his paintings also do not
manifest the characteristics of the auction painting of Captain John Smith and Powhatan.
See, e.g.:
Horse Racing of the Sioux,
1832-1834, print
Psihdja Sahpa, Yanktonian Indian
Regarding,
Eastman, see Eastman’s 9 paintings of Indians in the U.S. House of
Representatives Office Buildings at pp. 160-168 of the Compilation of Works of
Art and Other Objects in the U.S. Capital by the Architect of the Capital and,
e.g.:
Worship of the Sun,
Dakota Dancers, 1852
Striking
the Post, 1852
Eastman’s
tree leaves are also different from those depicted in the auction painting of
Captain John Smith and Powhatan:
The Indian Council
Regarding
Miller, see, e.g.:
Crows
Trying To Provoke An Attack
Sioux
Indian at a grave.
Miller’s
tree leaves are also different from those depicted in the auction painting of
Captain John Smith and Powhatan. See e.g.:
Grizzly
Bear Hunt
Note
3) The reasons for Mr. Fastov’s attribution of the auction painting of Captain
John Smith and Powhatan to King and the detailed, thorough processes by which
he reached this conclusion are set forth herein. When Mr. Fastov bought this
painting approximately 25 years ago, he thought that it was probably painted by
one of the American history painters, active around 1850. When he initiated his
research process, he decided to scrutinize with care the American history
painters’ paintings in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capital, as he knew that a
number of these marvelous paintings in the Rotunda were commissioned by the
Congress and/or completed c. 1840-1850, which was consistent with Mr. Fastov’s
belief that the auction painting of Captain John Smith and Powhatan was
executed c. 1850. Mr. Fastov also knew that a number of the artists who
executed paintings for the U.S. Capital were also discussed in Grand Illusions: History Painting
In America by Professor William
H. Gerdts and Professor Mark
Edward Thistlethwaite, a copy of which, he owned.
The “Surrender of Cornwallis” at Yorktown (completed 1820;
installed 1826), “Surrender of General Burgoyne” at Saratoga (completed 1821;
installed 1826), “General George
Washington Resigning His Commission” in
the Maryland State House in Annapolis (completed 1824; installed 1826),
all by John Trumbull (1756-1843), all of which were executed well before 1850,
the “Landing Of Columbus” (completed
1846; installed 1847) by John Vanderlyn (1775-1852), and the “Embarkation Of The Pilgrims” (completed
1843; installed 1843) by Robert W. Weir (1803-1889) very clearly did not
manifest any of the techniques, style or characteristics of the auction
painting of Captain John Smith and Powhatan.
With regard to the “Baptism of Pocahontas” (completed 1839;
installed 1840) by John Gadsby Chapman (1808-1889) and Discovery Of The Mississippi By De Soto (completed 1853; installed
1855) by William H. Powell, Indian figures appear in each of these paintings.
However, close scrutiny of the manner in which such Indians were depicted, made
manifest they bore no resemblance to the style, techniques and characteristics
of the Indians depicted in the auction painting of Captain John Smith and Powhatan,
and the style and techniques in depicting other human figures in the rest of
the painting was also inconsistent with the style and technique of the painting
of Captain John Smith in the auction painting of Captain John Smith and Powhatan.
The credit line for all of the illustrations of the following works of art in
the U.S. Capital is the Architect of the Capitol.
The “Baptism of Pocahontas,” at
Jamestown, Virginia, 1613 by John Gadsby Chapman. This painting “depicts the ceremony in which Pocahontas, daughter of the
influential Algonkian chief Powhatan, was baptized and given the name Rebecca
in an Anglican church. It took place in 1613 or 1614 in the colony
at Jamestown, Virginia, the first permanent English settlement on the North
American continent. Pocahontas is thought to be the earliest native convert to
Christianity in the English colonies; this ceremony and her subsequent marriage
to John Rolfe helped to establish peaceful relations between the colonists and
the Tidewater tribes.” Of course, the subject matter of this painting,
Pocohontas, has clear ties to the subject matter of the auction painting of
Captain John Smith and Powhatan, as she was Powhatan’s daughter and saved
Captain Smith’s life, when Powhatan was preparing to kill Smith. The Indians
depicted in this Baptism painting obviously were members of Powhatan’s tribe,
but do not have feathers in their hair, bearing any resemblance to the feathers
of the Indians of Powhatan’s tribe in the auction painting of Captain John
Smith and Powhatan. The male Indians depicted in this Baptism painting lack the
crisp, sharp angular faces and significant musculature, that was painted in the
very smooth and silky manner, and also lack the vibrant honey/oranges/tan skin
coloring of the Indians in the auction painting of Captain John Smith and Powhatan.
The “Discovery Of The Mississippi By De Soto” by William H. Powell. “Powell’s dramatic and brilliantly colored
canvas was the last of the eight large historical paintings in the Rotunda
commissioned by the Congress. It shows Spanish conquistador and
explorer Hernando De Soto (1500–1542), riding a white horse and dressed in
Renaissance finery, arriving at the Mississippi River at a point below Natchez
on May 8, 1541. De Soto was the first European documented to have seen the
river.” The Indians depicted in the right of this painting do not match the
deftly and crisply delineated musculature or angular faces or skin coloration,
that is found in the Indians depicted in the auction painting of Captain John
Smith and Powhatan.
A major difference between all of the above Capitol Rotunda
paintings is that they are painted from a proscenium stage perspective, and
there is virtually no human action in any of these paintings, while the auction
painting of Captain John Smith and Powhatan is painted from a natural close-up
view, putting the viewer almost in the scene itself, not a proscenium stage
perspective and presentation, and there is, relatively speaking, a great deal
of human action in the auction painting of Captain John Smith and Powhatan,
that is absent in the Capitol Rotunda paintings.
In addition,
the frescoed
frieze of scenes
from American History in the belt just below the 36 windows in the Rotunda was
painted to give the illusion of a sculpted relief. Among the friezes executed by Constantino Brumidi (1805-1880) was “Captain Smith And Pocahontas,” which, again,
bears a very strong subject matter tie to the auction painting of Captain John
Smith and Powhatan. Brumidi prepared a sketch
for the overall frieze in 1859, but he was not authorized to begin work until 1877. Although
Brumidi depicts bemuscled Indians very effectively in “Captain Smith And
Pocahontas,” the Indian figures bear no
resemblance to the lithe, fluidly athletic, cat/tiger-like Indians and other
characteristics thereof in the auction painting of Captain John Smith
and Powhatan.
“Captain Smith And Pocahontas” by Constantino
Brumidi. Pocahontas saves Captain John Smith, one of the founders of Jamestown, Virginia,
from being clubbed to death. Her
father, Chief Powhatan, is seated at the left. This scene is the first showing
English settlement. (1607)
Other paintings by Brumidi,
elsewhere in the Capital, including those in the U.S. Senate wing, further rule
him out as the author of the auction painting of Captain John Smith and Powhatan.
Compilation
of Works of Art and Other Objects in the U.S. Capital by the Architect of the
Capital contains illustrations of other works of art, most of which are totally
irrelevant to the issue of ascertaining the name of the artist, who painted the
auction painting of Captain John Smith and Powhatan. However, a number of
paintings of Indians by Seth Eastman (1808-1875) are relevant in that Eastman,
along with Charles Bird King (1785-1862), George Catlin (1796-1872), Karl
Bodmer (1809-1893) and Alfred Jacob Miller (1810-1874), were the most famous
painters of Indians and Indian subject matter in the early through mid-19th
century. Even a quick scan of Eastman’s 9 paintings of Indians in the U.S.
House of Representatives Office Buildings at pp. 160-168 makes it crystal clear
that Eastman’s style and technique of painting Indians has nothing to do with
the paintings of Indians in the auction painting of Captain John Smith and Powhatan.
Eastman’s paintings of forts in the U.S. at pp. 143-159 are totally irrelevant.
12 other American history paintings in the U.S. Senate Wing of the Capital, at
pp. 126-142, by Francis Bicknell Carpenter (1830-1900), William H. Powell,
Cornelia Adele Fassett (1831-1898), Regis Gignoux (1816-1882), Augustus G.
Heaton (1844-1931), Emanuel Leutze (1816-1868) and Howard Chandler Christy
(1872-1952) are all totally irrelevant to the auction painting of Captain John
Smith and Powhatan, in terms of style and technique, and most of the artists
were born too late to have executed this c. 1850 painting. In the cases of
James Walker (1818-1889) and John Blake White (1789-1851), who painted 2 of
these 12 paintings, they lacked the adequate level of artistic skills to have
executed the auction painting of Captain John Smith and Powhatan. Given the tie
between Pocahontas and Captain John Smith, the 17th century portrait
of Pocahontas located in a U.S. Senate office, artist unknown, is well done and
very arresting.
Mr.
Fastov also reread Grand Illusions: History
Painting In America and thought that it was theoretically possible that some of
the American history painters, active c. 1850, discussed in this book, in
addition to John Blake White, John Gadsby Chapman, William Henry Powell and
Robert W. Weir, like William D. Washington (1833-1870),
Dennis Malone Carter (1827-1881),
William W. Walcutt (1819-1882), Constant Mayer (1832-1911), Peter Rothermel
(1817-1895) and Junius Brutus Stearns (1810-1885) might have been capable of
executing the auction painting of Captain John Smith and Powhatan. He did
further research on White, Chapman, Powell and Weir and conducted new research
concerning the other artists.
Mr.
Fastov concluded with no mental reservation whatsoever, that all of these
artists, with the possible exception of Rothermel, could not have
executed the auction painting of Captain John Smith and Powhatan, because of a
lack of level of sufficient artistic skill to paint the complex composition and
to depict the Indians with the exceptional high quality, very smooth brushwork
and sophisticated, crisp delineation of the angular facial features and musculature
of the Indians depicted in the auction painting of Captain John Smith and Powhatan.
Some of the artists appeared to have the basic level of artistic skill,
requisite to attempt to painting the auction painting of Captain John Smith and
Powhatan, but from a stylistic and technique standpoint, they all totally
differed in various ways from that which was evident in the auction painting of
Captain John Smith and Powhatan. As to Rothermel, Mr. Fastov thought that
Rothermel certainly had the skill to render a complex composition, such as the
auction painting of Captain John Smith and Powhatan; and could apply paint in a
sufficiently smooth manner and to delineate the human figure with sufficient
precision to warrant detailed research and consideration as the possible
artist, who painted the auction painting of Captain John Smith and Powhatan.
However, Mr. Fastov was never able to locate a relevant Rothermel depiction of
an Indian or a Caucasian without clothes to ascertain if Rothermel could paint
the Indian musculature in the auction painting of Captain John Smith and Powhatan,
and had reservations about Rothermel based on his primarily proscenium stage
perspectives and his delineation of the human figure generally.
Nonetheless,
he raised the possibility of an attribution to Rothermel with Professor William
Gerdts and Professor Mark Thistlethwaite, even though Mr. Fastov had such
reservations with such an attribution, and advised both Gerdts and
Thistlethwaite, that he had reservations in advance. Professor Gerdts referred
Mr. Fastov to Professor Thistlethwaite, who is an expert on Rothermel.
Thistlethwaite had similar reservations to Mr. Fastov and declined to support
Mr. Fastov’s attribution to Rothermel.
Thus,
Mr. Fastov, having eliminated all of the most relevant American history artists
active c. 1850 from his list of possible “suspects,” he decided to explore the
possibility of very fine American portrait painters, active c. 1850, who
ostensibly had the sophisticated skill and precision in their depictions and
brushwork and fluidity of brushwork, with, perhaps, some capacity and
inclination to plan and execute a complex historical composition, such as the
auction painting of Captain John Smith and Powhatan, even if they were not
known to or had a reputation, as having engaged in American history painting or
the painting of Indian subject matter or portraits.
Because
Mr. Fastov had purchased the painting on the Philadelphia mainline in
Haverford, Pennsylvania and the dealer had advised Mr. Fastov that the painting
came from a Philadelphia area home, he decided to explore and research the
possibility of Rembrandt Peale having executed the auction painting of Captain
John Smith and Powhatan. He concluded that while Peale would have possessed the
requisite level of skill and sophistication to have painted the auction
painting of Captain John Smith and Powhatan, none of his paintings, primarily
portraits, manifested any keen interest in an Indian subject matter or the
requisite capacity to delineate the Indians with the kind of crisp, sharp
angular facial characteristics and musculature present in the auction painting
of Captain John Smith and Powhatan.
Having
been unable to find a portrait artist who had been involved with painting
Indian subject matter or portraits, he decided to focus on portrait painters,
who had, in fact, or were known to have executed Indian portraits or subject
matter. The “light bulb” went on, when Mr. Fastov remembered the portrait by Charles Bird King, Young Omahaw, War Eagle, Little Missouri,
and Pawnees, 1821 (above in Note 1 and in Note 2) and refreshed his
recollection of this portrait, which led to the above attribution of the
auction painting of Captain John Smith and Powhatan to Charles Bird King.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note 4) The foregoing details
concerning Mr. Fastov’s above attribution and the process that led him to
attribute the auction painting of Captain John Smith and Powhatan to King; the
above biographical considerations and the following auction records regarding
King sales of Indian portraits warrant the conclusion that the presale estimate
of $30,000-$????? is more than reasonable and is justifiable. The amount of the
uncertain high estimate of ????? is a function of the extent to which two
sophisticated art collectors accept, rely upon and bid on the auction painting
of Captain John Smith and Powhatan, based on Mr. Fastov’s attribution to King.
Most certainly, the auction records pertaining to the sales of King’s rare
extant portraits of Indians make clear the low estimate of $30,000 is absurdly
low, and would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, but for the fact
that the auction painting of Captain John Smith and Powhatan lacks a King
signature. King apparently failed to sign a number of his paintings. With
the exception of King’s full length portrait of Nesouaquoit, a Fox Chief (35.50
x 29.50), the auction painting of Captain John Smith and Powhatan is much
larger (25” x 30”), than the two other relatively small King portraits of
Indian portraits (18" x 14.50" and 17.50" x 13.20") and
depicts a significant passage of one of the earliest events, in 1607, of
America’s history.
During his lengthy career in
Washington, D.C., King spent 20 years, 1822-1842 on a commission to paint
members of a five-tribe Indian delegation, which came to the city in 1821. The
results became the basis of the National Indian Portrait Gallery. As noted
above, most of the originals were burned in a catastrophic fire of 1865, along
with the Indian portraits of John Mix Stanley, but King had painted some
replicas and lithographic copies remain. Thus, in part, because of the
scarcity; the realistic depiction of his Indian subjects in King’s oil
portraits of American Indians, and the quality of King's portraiture, some of
such Indian oil portraits fetch several hundreds of thousands of dollar at
auctions. The King portrait of Ottoe Half Chief, Husband of Eagle of Delight
(18 in. x 14 ½ in.) brought a record of $1,352,000 on 12/1/2004 at Sotheby’s NY
as lot 137. See the auction records of this sale and of two other American
Indian portraits that fetched $457,000 on 9/12/2007 and $385,000 on 5/24/1990
below. The second lot, John Ridge, Cherokee Chief, which brought $457,000,
which was painted on wood panel, had two full length vertical splits, one of
which went through Ridge's face and body and the other ran through his body,
and suffered from incredibly crude inpainting and other surface damage, as
well. In contrast, the auction painting of Captain John Smith and Powhatan has
experienced relatively minor restoration. The subjects of these King American
Indian portraits are, at best, equivalent in American historical significance
to the auction painting of Captain John Smith and Powhatan, which was executed
by a major American portraitist of Indians, Charles Bird King, who was the
leading portrait painter in Washington, D.C. for more than the first ½ of the
19th century.
|
