Through the Eyes of the Founding Fathers
July 11, 2005
The National Gallery of Art is currently hosting an exhibit of Gilbert Stuart’s paintings.. Stuart being the man who painted some of the best known portraits of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson.. along with other “founding fathers” of our country. The exhibit begins with examples of his work in England, but it expends the bulk of its space on the portraits completed here in America.
With George Washington there is not one picture to choose from, but many. There is a bust of him from the left side, another from the right side, and then yet another of him standing at his desk. In addition to having its own name, recognized by art specialists, each picture has semi-official copies completed by Stuart or someone in his studio. Much like a photographer will keep the negatives after a portrait is taken, so Stuart held onto his original paintings, and painted duplicates for those who could pay his price. With three side by side portraits of Washington hanging there.. yes, one can start to see all the subtle differences.. the rug is a little brighter here, the drapery is a little less crisp too, and the face not quite as detailed. Such are the marks of a copy.
The painting of Washington was considered by those who knew him as an amazing likeness.. and it is such recognition that gave Stuart’s paintings enduring significance. Washington looks quite stiff and serious in his portraits, and the notes to the exhibit mention that Stuart had a difficult time cracking Washington’s natural reserve and formality. Looking at the painting I can imagine Stuart making starts at small talk and getting beaten back by the stiff face in front of him. It is not a face that, Mona Lisa-like, is about to break into an open smile. It is a resolute face.
Staring at these faces of the founding fathers, I wondered just what these men have to do with me. They look distant, and a little severe, yet they are also uncannily present in current debates. The resignation of Sandra Day O’Connor has made their views on the Constitution the frequent subject of editorials and even front page articles.
The word used by conservatives to define their approach to the Constitution is “originalism” or “strict-constructionism”.. the idea being to interpret the Constitution strictly and in accordance with the original intentions of these founding fathers. “Originalism” slips, in my opinion, right off the block. Individual states ratified the Constitution by means of a vote, but they hardly voted on the “intentions” of the writers.. rather on the words of the document. So “intentions” can hardly be the point. Further, where is the evidence that the men who wrote our Constitution considered it to be a document whose interpretation could not evolve over the years? The very brevity of the Constitution seems to be an argument that growth is understood as part of the process.
Better spoken proponents of the philosophy.. such as Justice Antonin Scalia.. dispense with intentions and end up with a strict textualism. In a recent article in the New Yorker on Scalia, Margaret Talbot notes concerning his method: “ When judging a case, Justice Scalia will consult a dictionary if necessary to find out what a statute means, but he does not consider the legislative history of the statute, and he makes no attempt to divine the intent of the legislators.”
And here lies the popular strength of “strict constructionism”: it taps into deeply ingrained religious template. Nothing better summarizes Protestant biblical interpretation than a willingness to overturn religious tradition on the basis of a careful and literal reading of the Bible. Any number of current denominations, in fact, represent disparate attempts to take church practice back to the way it was in the 1st century.
But these translations are hardly possible.. whether religious or legal. Past worlds are really past; refashioning the modern world in the likeness of another only creates something entirely new..
Which is not to say that there is not much to admire in the men who sat for these portraits.. practical wisdom, for starters. But as soon as I start to think of jumping back into their actual world, and trying to see the world through their eyes.. as if we could morph into a Gilbert Stuart painting and see the world like these serious and learned men.. well, that strikes me as stifling.. and it also strikes me as the Quixotic aim of social conservatives.
