ARTISTS THAT PAINTED JOSEPH SMITH, WHEN HE WAS ALIVE
SUTCLIFFE MAUDSLEY |
Sutcliffe Maudsley
|
Joseph Smith sat for his profile drawing, June 25, 1842: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-december-1841-december-1842/30
Joseph Smith Jr. for the painting of the Map of Nauvoo, by Sutcliffe Maudsley, 1842. Courtesy of the Church History Library, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. M277.7343_M297_1842
Likely a second version of the image above, of Joseph Smith Jr., by Sutcliffe Maudsley, 1842. Courtesy of the Church History Library, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Joseph Smith in Black suit and Top Hat, by Sutcliffe Maudsley, 1842-1844. Courtesy of the Church History Library, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Sutcliffe Maudsley did many more depictions of Joseph Smith Jr. over a two year period, often changing how accurate he was in drawing/painting him, ironically you never see the massive bouffant hairstyle seen in the alleged Roger's forward facing painting, now owned by the Community of Christ. The ability of Maudsley seems to improve over time, initially Joseph looks too short, and young, but by the Black Suit and Top Hat painting, Joseph looks much older, his hairstyle has changed, making me think it was later than 1842. Two years hairlines can and do change in men, Joseph died at age 38, maybe by then he started wearing his hair combed to the side, as seen in the Black Suit painting, unlike the brushed forward and popped up hairstyle.
DAVID ROGERS
David Rogers spent four days painting Joseph Smith, with his brothers, September 16th, 17, 18 and 19 th, four days getting his painting done by David Rogers, note- Lucian Foster was still in New York : https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-december-1841-december-1842/82
Two paintings are quoted as being done by "David Rogers", the oldest account I think could be the most reliable, as we have Brigham Young's word, that is was one- authentic and done from life, by David Rogers, owned by Brigham Young, see the quote from 1855 below:
In the Deseret News November 29th, 1855, article titled “Returned Missionaries”, states:
“...On the west walls were suspended two profile likenesses, life size, executed in oil, of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. They were painted in Nauvoo by David Rogers of New York in the year 1842, are the property of President B. Young, and are the truest delineations of the features of those distinguished individuals in existence.”
We have the matching profile of Hyrum, and we also have a forward facing painting of Hyrum Smith from 1833, yet, I have to go with what Scholars say, that they believe the many statements by Junius Wells, who visited Emma Smith and heard Stories of the forward facing painting:
Page 53 of the Scholarly Article, “The Visual Image of Joseph Smith, a Thesis Presented to the Department of Art, Brigham Young University”, By William B. McCarl, August 1962. McCarl quotes, Junius Wells states,
“...the painting, which being finished hung first in the Mansion House... in possession of the Prophet’s widow, Emma Smith. Upon visiting her, in the winter of 1875-76, she entertained me very hospitably and showed me the painting, then hanging in her bedroom in the Nauvoo House. I asked her if it were a good likeness of the Prophet. She replied,
“”No. He could not have a good portrait- his countenance was changing all the time.” I then asked her what he thought of it and she replied,
“”I can tell you that, for I asked him and he said: “Emma, that is a nice painting of a silly boy, but it don’t look much like a Prophet of the Lord.”
Junius wells mentions many times that the forward facing painting, owned by the Community of Christ, is "not a very good likeness of the Prophet", if you click the video at the top, I show how the two copyrighted images, one called the Carter Image, the other I just call the Library of Congress image (copyrighted by Joseph Smith III), perfectly match the proportions of the painting in all the anatomically incorrect ways the painting does, that is NOT credited to camera distortion, I do think the Carter image is a photograph of a warped paper that was rolled and not fully flat, giving a more narrow look, and eyes too close together. Here is the quote by Junius Wells, as he speaks about an engraving he criticizes and how it is based on the Rogers forward facing painting, and how Charles Carter has made simply photographs of the daguerreotype and "touched them up", with links directly to The Contributor:
“...our engraving...originally taken from the painting, and while that was not a very good likeness of the Prophet, it nevertheless was the only front face view of him that was taken during his lifetime...
“Mr. C.W. Carter has made some very fine photographs from the daguerreotype and had them touched up and finished in good style...”
The Contributor 1885, page 34, link to the Book: https://books.google.com/books?id=tQfZAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=Joseph+smith,+The+Contributor+etching+by+Dan+Weggeland,+1885&source=bl&ots=5RiZbC5fTZ&sig=ACfU3U02KPgEj67UE-YafH5h-SiLqfRtMQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiThOncxpjrAhXMqZ4KHXp5BboQ6AEwDnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Joseph%20smith%2C%20%20etching%20by%20Dan%20Weggeland%2C%201885&f=false
I think it is possible that more than one painting was done by David Rogers in September in 1842, as four days were spent with him. The profile shows artistic liberties with Joseph Smith's nose, but no mercy on his hairline, which seem perfectly accurate in my opinion, I just could imagine his getting sick of the brushed forward style and just the excess hair off to the hairline, as seen in my image and on the death mask, a thick bluntly cut hairline.
Why would Rogers depict Joseph Smith with less hair, than in another painting? I don't know, the descriptions in the article linked above details. depressed Joseph and how difficult it was paint him, he was always changing his expression according to Emma, maybe some of the "drollery" included what I image in my head, Rogers stating,
"Hey, Samual, sit down! I'll paint your hair and put it on Joseph!! Let's give you back your hair from your youth!!"
Art 101, I learned in Junior High how to paint a dog's face onto the body of a famous person, it turned out so good my Art teacher stole it, I liked that piece... but growing thicker and more hair in September 1842, than Joseph had in June, unlikely.... people... #artisticliberties #oritisamatching1833paintingtomatchHyrumsforwardfacing1833painting :D
Two paintings are quoted as being done by "David Rogers", the oldest account I think could be the most reliable, as we have Brigham Young's word, that is was one- authentic and done from life, by David Rogers, owned by Brigham Young, see the quote from 1855 below:
In the Deseret News November 29th, 1855, article titled “Returned Missionaries”, states:
“...On the west walls were suspended two profile likenesses, life size, executed in oil, of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. They were painted in Nauvoo by David Rogers of New York in the year 1842, are the property of President B. Young, and are the truest delineations of the features of those distinguished individuals in existence.”
We have the matching profile of Hyrum, and we also have a forward facing painting of Hyrum Smith from 1833, yet, I have to go with what Scholars say, that they believe the many statements by Junius Wells, who visited Emma Smith and heard Stories of the forward facing painting:
Page 53 of the Scholarly Article, “The Visual Image of Joseph Smith, a Thesis Presented to the Department of Art, Brigham Young University”, By William B. McCarl, August 1962. McCarl quotes, Junius Wells states,
“...the painting, which being finished hung first in the Mansion House... in possession of the Prophet’s widow, Emma Smith. Upon visiting her, in the winter of 1875-76, she entertained me very hospitably and showed me the painting, then hanging in her bedroom in the Nauvoo House. I asked her if it were a good likeness of the Prophet. She replied,
“”No. He could not have a good portrait- his countenance was changing all the time.” I then asked her what he thought of it and she replied,
“”I can tell you that, for I asked him and he said: “Emma, that is a nice painting of a silly boy, but it don’t look much like a Prophet of the Lord.”
Junius wells mentions many times that the forward facing painting, owned by the Community of Christ, is "not a very good likeness of the Prophet", if you click the video at the top, I show how the two copyrighted images, one called the Carter Image, the other I just call the Library of Congress image (copyrighted by Joseph Smith III), perfectly match the proportions of the painting in all the anatomically incorrect ways the painting does, that is NOT credited to camera distortion, I do think the Carter image is a photograph of a warped paper that was rolled and not fully flat, giving a more narrow look, and eyes too close together. Here is the quote by Junius Wells, as he speaks about an engraving he criticizes and how it is based on the Rogers forward facing painting, and how Charles Carter has made simply photographs of the daguerreotype and "touched them up", with links directly to The Contributor:
“...our engraving...originally taken from the painting, and while that was not a very good likeness of the Prophet, it nevertheless was the only front face view of him that was taken during his lifetime...
“Mr. C.W. Carter has made some very fine photographs from the daguerreotype and had them touched up and finished in good style...”
The Contributor 1885, page 34, link to the Book: https://books.google.com/books?id=tQfZAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=Joseph+smith,+The+Contributor+etching+by+Dan+Weggeland,+1885&source=bl&ots=5RiZbC5fTZ&sig=ACfU3U02KPgEj67UE-YafH5h-SiLqfRtMQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiThOncxpjrAhXMqZ4KHXp5BboQ6AEwDnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Joseph%20smith%2C%20%20etching%20by%20Dan%20Weggeland%2C%201885&f=false
I think it is possible that more than one painting was done by David Rogers in September in 1842, as four days were spent with him. The profile shows artistic liberties with Joseph Smith's nose, but no mercy on his hairline, which seem perfectly accurate in my opinion, I just could imagine his getting sick of the brushed forward style and just the excess hair off to the hairline, as seen in my image and on the death mask, a thick bluntly cut hairline.
Why would Rogers depict Joseph Smith with less hair, than in another painting? I don't know, the descriptions in the article linked above details. depressed Joseph and how difficult it was paint him, he was always changing his expression according to Emma, maybe some of the "drollery" included what I image in my head, Rogers stating,
"Hey, Samual, sit down! I'll paint your hair and put it on Joseph!! Let's give you back your hair from your youth!!"
Art 101, I learned in Junior High how to paint a dog's face onto the body of a famous person, it turned out so good my Art teacher stole it, I liked that piece... but growing thicker and more hair in September 1842, than Joseph had in June, unlikely.... people... #artisticliberties #oritisamatching1833paintingtomatchHyrumsforwardfacing1833painting :D