How do we move away from being a civilization that produces art that causes comments like, “my five year old could make this,” back to being one that creates beauty and inspires deep questions? We must reject modernity and embrace tradition.
Let’s study art history together.
Declaration of Independence
Artist
John Trumbull
Year
commissioned 1817; purchased 1819; date of creation 1818; placed in U.S. Capitol rotunda 1826
Medium
Oil-on-canvas
Dimensions
3.7 m × 5.5 m (12 ft × 18 ft)
Location
U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C., U.S.
You can almost smell this room, right? I feel like I can – wood, parchment, and body odor. There’s another strange smell, too… the olfactory delight of the powdered wig (they were called perukes at the time.) I sometimes struggle to imagine that this time in history was real, let alone the time when the Republic was born, or re-born, depending on whether you view the American experiment as a revival of the Roman Republic.
[Quick side trail: Washington D.C. – built using a neoclassical architectural style evoking the Romans – was originally called Rome, Maryland. The land was originally acquired by Francis Pope in 1663. It sits today directly between Virginia and Maryland. Part of the Potomac River, which runs through D.C., is called Tiber Creek. It purports to sit on seven hills – Capitol Hill, Meridian Hill, Floral Hills, Forest Hills, Hillbrook, Hillcrest, and Knox Hill.]
As for the painting itself, it’s one of the most famous ever created, concerning the founding of the United States. It depicts a presentation of the draft of the Declaration of Independence (not its signing, as is commonly believed.) Trumbull only included 42 of the 56 signatories because he was unable to obtain likenesses for the other 14. He also included five other people who participated in the creation of the document but did not sign it. (More via wiki)
The painting is sometimes incorrectly described as depicting the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The painting shows the five-man drafting committee presenting their draft of the Declaration to the Congress, an event that took place on June 28, 1776, and not its signing, which took place mainly on August 2.
The painting shows 42 of the 56 signers of the Declaration; Trumbull originally intended to include all 56 signers but was unable to obtain likenesses for all of them. He also depicted several participants in the debate who did not sign the document, including John Dickinson, who declined to sign. Trumbull had no portrait of Benjamin Harrison V to work with, but his son Benjamin Harrison VI was said to resemble his father, so Trumbull painted him instead. Similarly, Trumbull painted Rufus Hopkins, who resembled his father Stephen Hopkins, for whom no portrait was available. As the Declaration was debated and signed over a period of time when membership in Congress changed, the men featured in the painting never were in the same room at the same time.
Although Thomas Jefferson appears to be stepping on John Adams‘ shoe in the painting, which many thought symbolized their relationship as friendly rivals, upon closer examination it can be seen that their feet are merely close together. This part of the image was correctly depicted on the two-dollar bill version.
On the farthest wall hangs a display of trumpets, drum, and regimental colours captured from British regiments. This is not depicted in all versions, most notably the one seen on the two-dollar bill.
Key to historical figures depicted in the painting
Trumbull’s Declaration of Independence Clickable image: Point at a face to identify the person, click to go to the corresponding article. Click anywhere else in the image to go to the image’s file page and view a larger version.U.S. government’s key to the painting
The key to the 47 figures in the painting follows the numbering used by the U.S. government publication “Art of the Capitol” (in the illustration of the key shown in this section) but provides a different (hopefully clearer) description of which figure is where in the painting, so numbers are not entirely in order.
Key to figures (in each group, listed from left to right):
(Note: † – Not a signer of the final Declaration of Independence but depicted in painting. Although Charles Thomson was one of two members listed by name in the earlier Dunlap Broadside as having attested to the Declaration, and many historians believe he had signed the original document that was lost. Clinton was not present at the signing of the Declaration.)
Unpainted signers
There were 14 signers of the Declaration who did not appear in the painting:
The peruke (powdered wig) era was an important time in history. Just as we saw Revolution in the Americas, we also saw Revolution in France and war across the continent of Europe. Perhaps that looks is too dangerous a one for men to wear.
In the 17th century, hairlines were an important aspect of fashion – a good hairline was the mark of a well-bred man. Unfortunately, syphilis was also on the rise in Europe, ultimately affecting more Europeans than the Black Plague. This happened well before the discovery of antibiotics, so people afflicted with syphilis suffered all the effects, including sores and patchy hair loss. As good hair was associated with status and style, baldness and hair loss compounded the shame of having syphilis.
Wigs were commonly used to cover up hair loss, but their use did not become widespread until two Kings started to lose their hair. King Louis XIV of France experienced hair loss at the early age of 17, and he hired 48 wigmakers to help combat his thinning locks. His English cousin, King Charles II, began wearing wigs a few years later, when his hair began to prematurely grey – both conditions being syphilitic signals. A fashion was born, as courtiers started wearing wigs, and the trend trickled down to the merchant class.
The wigs, or perukes as they were called, were convenient because they were relatively easy to maintain, only needing to be sent to a wigmaker for a delousing. As wigs became more popular, they became a status symbol for people to flaunt their wealth. An everyday wig cost 25 shillings, a week’s worth of wages for a common Londoner. The term ‘bigwig’ stems from this era, when British nobility would spend upwards of 800 shillings on wigs. In 1700, 800 shillings was approximately £40 (about $50 today) which when calculated for inflation, comes out to around £8,297 or $10,193 in today’s currency.
[…]
Where are all the wigs now?
Wigs have made such an impact in historical remembrance that they seem to be represent the symbol of late 17th century history. Hollywood seems to be particularly attached to misrepresenting the proliferation of wigs. TV shows, such as “Turn,” can’t seem to get enough of the white powdered wigs, with every British soldier depicted wearing one. Although Pirates of the Caribbean largely depicted British sailors without wigs, those pesky powdered perukes still made their appearance.
If you’re hoping to catch a glimpse of these artifacts in person, some museums – notably London’s Victoria & Albert Museum – have wigs in their collection. However, relatively few remain, as they were not particularly easy to preserve.
The lasting legacy of wigs is undeniable – British judges and barristers still wore wigs well into the 21st century, although the practice is largely ceremonial now. Despite not being quite as prevalent as depictions in modern day popular culture might suggest, wigs still had a major impact on fashion of the 18th century. And since fashion is ever-changing and often cyclical, maybe someday the big wig will be back in style!
,_by_John_Trumbull.jpg)
