How accurate of a depiction is a painting of a historical figure?

Answer 1

   This is a very interesting question, and one worth answering for the benefit of those who have wondered about the accuracy of portraiture in art history. A very brief answer one could present is that the accuracy of the portrait depends on the artist creating it, what time period it was produced in, and the intended use of the portrait itself. Let me address each part of my previous answer more specifically.

One must first address the time period and how it plays a role in the appearance of portraits. Popular thought and culture is knit within artwork produced during any given period of time, so if society desires pale skin, plump women, and powdered wigs, such as in 18th century European art, you are most likely to see these traits conveyed upon the person sitting for a portrait. Those who could afford the luxury of a portrait were often the upper class and therefore would like to be seen in the most ideal appearance of their day. Thus, portraits can be truth in part, but often reflect the biases of the day and the preferences of its patron.

   This fact leads one into a second consideration; how much the artist themselves prefers realistic outward appearances versus personal artistic preferences that would lean away from accurate realism. Some periods of time and artist groups, such as the Realists (Millet, Courbet, etc.) preferred a gritty realism in their subjects, often creating portraits of the lower working class rather than the upper crust of society. Conversely, ancient Egyptian artwork preferred a standardized stylization for an individual’s likeness, and the 20th century Expressionists, like Oskar Kokoschka, painted psychological landscapes of the soul of a person, rather than a realistic likeness. 

   Lastly, one must consider the purpose or function of the portrait itself. Portrait artists in a wide range of historical settings were specifically commissioned to make impressive and flattering images of culturally important patrons, with the express purpose of magnifying a patron’s accomplishments and enforcing positive public perception. Thus, causing artists to manipulate portraits to best fit the subject’s ego or intentions: a larger sized body, clearer complexion, chiseled features, heavenly lighting, and so on. One could draw comparisons of this to our society’s propensity to “photoshop” portraits in order to fit the blemish-free, brazen-clad muscles and curves of super models, or Hollywood actors and actresses. Other artists, like Kokoschka or Van Gogh, made a point to beyond physical appearance as an artistic statement, glorifying the subject of the portrait through expressive texture (impasto) and colors more fitting of the internal life of the person, rather than focusing on perfectly accurate physical resemblances. In conclusion, the realistic accuracy of portraits in art history must be assessed within the context of its creation, taking into account the preferences of society at the time, preferences or goals set out by the artist, or the intended purpose behind the creation of the artwork itself. Portraits provide a powerful and unique window into the past, but should be taken with a grain of visual salt. After all, appearances can be deceiving.