From Jezebel:Apparently historical women figures have to be hot in order for us to be interested in them. Well, that is according to the Washington Post. I know I am not one to talk seeing as The Duchess of Devonshire was a babe, but that isn't why I'm attracted to her. Her human nature appeals to me. She had eating disorders, was addicted to gambling, was passionate and involved in politics, and also took an interest in science while balancing being a fabulous fashionable trend-setter who was also an attentive mother. I'm more attracted to the fact that Georgiana bent the rules and took risks than the fact that she was a hotty. Actually, her contemporaries, including her mother never claimed her to be a great beauty.
So why does Martha Washington have to be one?
As Sadie at Jezebel asserts, The Washington Post kind of dumbs down their article in order to make Martha seem cool.
Isn't that what you did in high school to fit in too? Dumb yourself down? They talk about her wedding shoes being fabulous (which they are, I won't deny) and then goes into a flurry of explanation saying she wasn't always an old frumpy lady. Umm we believe it, there are some gorgeous portraits to prove it (see right). But no, this isn't good enough, now scientists are working on a computer generated image of what Martha would look like in her mid-20's, to prove she was a hottie. They also go into detail about how she must have been skinny because her dresses were blablablabla...Is this why the emaciated Kiera Knightly was chosen to portray Georgiana in The Duchess? Now even women from the past have to meet our contemporary standards of beauty in order for us to have a remote interest in them? Is that also why The Duchess focuses on Georgiana's not very interesting affair rather than her accomplishments? Sad sad.I'm all for getting people interested in history and it figures but are we so sad that this is what has to be done? Poor Martha, I think she would rather people were interested in her for her, not so they could paint hot interpretations of what she looked like in her 20's.
This is a most elegant post. Hear hear!
ReplyDeleteHave you read that ridiculous book, "Martha Washington:An American Life" by Patricia Brady? We sold it at the museum where I used to work, and it has that "hot interpretation" on the cover. While it has some educational value, and is entertaining, it gets unbearably lame at times. It mentions Martha being her husband's "strength" and other corny things like that. Actually, just go to the Amazon page for it and you'll see a quotation: "It was a quiet love story, but a lasting one, not one of those tempestuous romances that blaze up suddenly..."
ReplyDeleteWell, I can tell you right off the bat, I judge a book by its cover. I have not read that book but I saw the cover and was like YUCK, why! I find that using historical images on the cover has a much more dramatic effect. A contemporary painting just looks kitsch. It almost made me want to discredit it-which is awful to say!
ReplyDeletepathetic i think and agree! that is all that our society does i swear!
ReplyDeleteand she was extremely beautiful but thats not the point!
So if there is a painting of her when she was younger, why are they taking an older one and regressing it? It's an interesting article, but it is a shame that a historical figure has to be a "hottie" to be worthy of attention or praise.
ReplyDeleteThat's what I would like to know! It could be my art-historian talking but I prefer the print. And would martha really have a gown in those colours?
ReplyDeleteHorrible. I think the personality of different historical figures would be (naturally) the most interesting part! And besides, what we consider as a beautiful face is changing all the time, I just can't see the point...?
ReplyDeleteThat just makes me angry. No wonder women have so many body issues. We can't even look at historical figures without comparing them to ourselves. I think people need to remeber the ideal woman in the 18th century was curvy, kinda fluffy, and normal. Just look at the art work. The classical Greek figure was prized, aka Venius de Milo. Stick figures were considered to be poor and unable to afford food. Anyway, that's my two cents.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I have a book of extant dreses that range in waist size from 19"-30". Women came in all shapes and sizes just as they do today.
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to remember if, when I read Cokie Robert's fabulous book, 'Founding Mothers' she cites anything about Marty being a raving beauty... Not that it signifies. I have to agree that this article comes off as vapid and, like when Hillary was running, here again we have the subject of women in politics [or married to it] dominated by their physical attributes. I personally always assume that lanky ole Thomas Jefferson, with his red hair, might have been a cutie, but who would allow a sustained conversation about that in the serious academic world?
ReplyDeleteAll the same, wonder what she would think of it? I mean, if portraiture of you after you had died left an indelible national image of you in your stout, grey and waning years, as equal as that may be to your pink youth, would you really CARE that the world was reminded that, in your youth, you were a beauty?
That's a very good question! I think it's natural (esp for women) to want people to remember you in your best form. So by natural instinct Martha might be a bit horrified with the attention she is getting. But on the other hand, as you say, she didn't have to immortalize herself in her less-youthful form. If she was really bothered by that image of her, she would not of had herself painted. We don't have any accurate portrayals of Georgiana after her face was deformed by her eye inflammation; she was very insecure by her loss of beauty.
ReplyDeleteIn the end though, Martha was an Enlightened woman of Virginia, which leads me to think she would think the whole issue to be a bunch of poppycock!
I think I am gonna start demoralizing some founding fathers like they're Chippendale dancers; that will be the newest feature of this blog!
I like that idea. A painting of Washington, for instance, paired with an insightful editorial like, "This big daddy came to Philadelphia this week to sign on to this Declaration business, but, ladies, let's not be distracted by petty politics. Take a look at that nose! You know what they say, right? Rrrrowl! Yet we must ask the question that is most important in these troubled times - is that severe, backward swept hairstyle the best thing? Wouldn't a softer, more luxuriant crown of curls help to balance those jutting features? One really must question this gentleman's judgment. Still, take a look at those long thighs..."
ReplyDeleteHahaha! I love it!
ReplyDeleteReally now?
ReplyDeleteSomehow this unrealistic model age regression portrait reminded me of models, and of course I think of Alexa Chung.
I watched her show once and vowed I shall never watch it again.
But anyway, Martha was such a nice lady that supported George and loved her children: she was very strong for them both during the American Revolution- why should it matter if she was beautiful?
Heather, I agree. I doubt Martha would wear a purple and gold gown, atleast to be portrayed in. Wouldn't that give the idea of the Aristocracy in the Colonies during the American Revolution? The exact thing that The Revolutionaries were fighting about? I'm afraid to say I believe ol' George wouldn't approve.