Isaac Barre 1785

Editor: This is Gilbert Stuart's 1785 portrait of Isaac Barre, made with oil on canvas. The somber mood really gets to me, but it's fascinating to see such a lifelike rendering. What do you see when you look at it? Curator: I'm drawn to the way Stuart used layers of oil paint. Note the impasto in the face. The labor-intensive process reinforces Barre's status; think about the raw materials needed, the canvas, the pigments, the time commitment from both sitter and painter. All these resources underscore power and class. Editor: I see that. The subject would have needed to be pretty wealthy to sit for an extended period of time. What would it be like back then? Curator: Exactly! Consider how paint itself was produced – the grinding of pigments, often by apprentices. This process reflects the broader societal structures of the late 18th century, particularly wealth and social standing. The deep reddish brown coat, could that specific hue symbolize something? Or could the tailoring process, the number of buttons denote additional clues about the identity of the man. Editor: That's a really insightful point. It’s almost as though the materials themselves are communicating Barre’s importance. What happens when this portrait get commodified in our gallery as a tourist good, then? Curator: Excellent point. Reproductions, postcards… it flattens the materiality, obscuring the social context of its creation, cheapening the value tied to the work done for its realization.. It distances us from the actual production and labor involved, focusing on the aesthetic alone. The painting, stripped from its process. What’s left is consumption, and how to make the portrait easier for mass appeal? Editor: I hadn’t thought about it that way before, but now it’s impossible not to see the painting and even its recontextualization within capitalism, together. Thanks!