THE EARLY American portraitist Gilbert Stuart, who painted the first six presidents and is best known for his unfinished portrait of George Washington, also captured the complexity and beauty of femininity in his canvases of Colonial women. Here is his portrait of Mrs. Harrison Gray Otis, another oppressed drudge and domestic deadbeat from our collective past. She even called herself Mrs. Harrison Gray Otis. What a fool. She loved her husband so much she actually used his full name. Imagine that. I call that slavery, pure and simple.

Perhaps men turned to Cubism and other forms of abstraction in portraiture because femininity was being drained from the world. There were fewer faces left to paint.

Notice the lack of adornment on Mrs. Otis’s face. She wears no makeup or earrings. With her artfully arranged tendrils and white bodice, she radiates femininity from within. The more women possess the character and manner of a woman, the less make-up they require.

                                                      — Comments —

Thomas F. Bertonneau writes:

Seeing the Gilbert Stuart item on the same page with my attempt at “reading” the character behind Janet Napolitano’s expression reminds me that the underlying rationale of portraiture is that the face expresses character. That Cubism and Abstract Impressionism might be the passive artistic results of a draining away of human character in the period of modernity, is a striking notion; a complementary theory is that abstraction in painting is an ideological refusal to acknowledge that the face is the outward sign of character. Incidentally, the notion, which I freely borrow, that femininity is largely a development of medieval Christianity (think of the great Lady Churches) comes from Kenneth Clark, the twentieth century art historian. In one of his “Civilization” lectures, Clark argues that civilization requires the combined differentiation and balance of the sexes; he is particularly (but I think plausibly) severe on Protestantism for annihilating that balance, granting to Gothic Catholicism the credit for having achieved it.

Physiognomic is not an exact science. Maybe it is more an art (something intuitive) than a science. Whether art or science, it is real, and it is (among many other things) a survival-faculty. The ability to “read” face and mien is what tells us prudentially that we ought not to make eye contact or that we should, for the sake of life and limb, cross to the other side of the street.

To be sexually even-handed, permit me to say that J. Edgar Hoover was at least as creepy in his facial composure as Janet Reno. His furtive eyes were those of a moral fugitive.

Laura writes:

Yes, it is an art, and a difficult one. Sometimes a severe and cold countenance hides a sensitive nature. But those who are good at the art of reading faces understand this rule and look more closely.

Kimberly writes:

This topic of physiognomic is connected to the “child-care” topic. Physiognomic is an “art” one learns in infancy, according to Gregory K. Popcak in his document entitled “Parenting and the Theology of the Body: Implications for Catholic Culture and Clinical Practice”. You may or may not agree with all that Popcak says, but this is a fact he backs up with good studies.

“Conventional wisdom encourages sleep training or “Ferberizing” in which parents leave their babies and toddlers alone in a room for longer and longer periods, letting the child “cry it out” until the child learns to get him or herself to sleep (Ferber, 1986). This technique appears to work because after several nights of crying, many children will cease to cry out at night and seem to learn how to sleep on their own.” (pg.19)

“The problem is that children who stop crying as the result of sleep training exhibit the same levels of cortisol as children who are actively crying (Schorr, 2003). The absence of a behavioral indicator of distress (i.e., crying) suggests to parents that the child has “learned to self-soothe” but the physiological data suggests that the child has simply gone into a stress-induced state in which social help-seeking behavior becomes unhooked from the biological process. This state is the biological manifestation of learned helpessness, a trait that has been implicated in many studies on depression (Seligman, 1990). In the most extreme cases, the prolonged distress related to being left alone in infancy causes damage to the temporal lobes of the brain (largely responsible for emotional regulation) which can be seen using functional imaging technology like fPET (Chugani, et al., 2001).” (pg. 19)

“Continuing our investigation of the biological foundations of the child’s moral sense, let us turn to the conneciton between biology, bonding, and morality. Psychologically speaking, bonding refers to the strength of social connectedness between the child and the other, as well as the child’s capacity for both recognizing and interpreting social cues, and expressing empathy (Rossi and Rossi, 1990). Empathy is essential for the development of a moral sense because it allows one person to evaluate the impact of his or her actions on another.” (pg. 21)

“In the brain, there are two structures heavily involved in bonding and empathy; mirror neurons, and the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC). When an individual’s mirror neurons are well developed, that individual is able to understand subtle social cues like facial expressions, tones-of-voice, postures, and gestures and respond accordingly [emphasis added].”(pg 21)

“A basic principle of neuroscience is that the more a neuron fires, the more sensitive it becomes (Cozolino, 2002). Mirror neurons are triggered by interpersonal contact. Therefore, the more interpersonal contact a child has with a parent, especially in the early stages of life during critical periods of brain development, the more sensitive to social cues and fellow-feeling the mirror neurons become and the greater the child’s capacity for moral sense.” (pg.22)

Generally, when a child goes to daycare, it’s because the parents have to work. When both parents have to work, they tend to adopt this “conventional wisdom” to let their babies cry themselves to sleep. And when a baby or toddler is in daycare, they are not likely receiving the “interpersonal contact” needed to gain moral sense. So it makes sense that we have a country full of lost morals. Putting our children in institutions is physically destroying their minds; how can this be justified?

Breastfeeding my babies through the night has been mostly easy, since I am a housewife and the routines of my day are totally flexible. I can nap with my kids during the day if I had a rough night. Getting decent sleep and being in constant rhythm with their baby antics helps me manage and keep cheerful. But for women who have to work, this is a huge burden. So what do we need, America? HOUSEWIVES!!! :)

I’d like to add that it isn’t hopeless, once a child is raised without this affection, for them to learn and develop mirror neurons. I think it’s more difficult, but it’s possible. I don’t think my mother was able to nurture me in this way as a child because she had to work. I had terrible, terrible social skills. But I managed to make two close relationships; my best friend in childhood that is still dear to me today, and my husband. I still make moral/social mistakes, big and small, all the time. But everyone in my family sees a noticeable improvement from my childhood to now. My husband has definitely been the key factor, and it amazes me that he was able to see my potential through all my faults enough to keep trying to help. I’m sure many people have similar stories, or at least I hope they do.

Do you know what I see in that simple, beautiful face of Mrs. Otis? Confidence and humility. They certainly go hand in hand, and your little note about her going under her husband’s entire name confirms it. She knows who she is, and you can tell just by looking at her. She’s a precious little gem, and chooses to stay safely within the identity of her husband, knowing her own value. I think it’s so beautiful when I’m addressed on a letter as “Mrs. Anthony Basile.” I see no greater glory than being identified entirely with him. No matter what faults he has, or mistakes he makes, he has given me his name, his identity, and united me to him, concealed me within him as something most precious, forever, until death do us part. Our children are born united to his identity, which has a whole different sort of beauty. But for me, this unity was given as a gift, as a proof that he trusts me to make his name a great name, and his identity a worthy one.

Lisa writes:

For a rattling exercise in comparative physiognomy, watch some lovely old movie like 1930’s Robin Hood or Little Lord Fauntleroy, taking note of women’s demeanor and expressions, then go to Walmart.

Nora writes:

I admire Gilbert Stuart’s work and I think this portrait is a particularly lovely example. Although I wouldn’t be too sure about the lady’s lack of makeup. If she didn’t have any rouge on when sitting for the portrait then the artist painted some in–and very tastefully too. Not many women naturally have that much color in their cheeks.

Laura writes:

I agree. There is something not quite natural about those rosy cheeks. I think Clinique charges $35 for that blush. : – )

Please follow and like us: