Robert Grant of Lurg

[figheadair]

Four versions of the portrait of Robert Grant of Lurg, erstwhile Sergeant in one of the Highland Independent Companies (HIC). The Old Cullen portriat is likely to be the oldest.

The similarity of the tartan with the 42nd sett is obvious and allowing for artisitic licence/error is pretty convincing evidence for the use of the Government tartan by the HICs. Not sure the source of the Inveray red setting which is obviously very different to the other portraits.

[Orvis]

Four versions of the portrait of Robert Grant of Lurg, erstwhile Sergeant in one of the Highland Independent Companies (HIC). The Old Cullen portriat is likely to be the oldest.

The similarity of the tartan with the 42nd sett is obvious and allowing for artisitic licence/error is pretty convincing evidence for the use of the Government tartan by the HICs. Not sure the source of the Inveray red setting which is obviously very different to the other portraits.

Peter - very interesting, and I agree that two of the portraits present compelling evidence for the use of the 42nd sett earlier than had been supposed. I presume the copies of the portrait that show different tartan coloring were painted to show the preferences of the clients for whom the copies were prepared.

Gerry

[figheadair]

Peter - very interesting, and I agree that two of the portraits present compelling evidence for the use of the 42nd sett earlier than had been supposed. I presume the copies of the portrait that show different tartan coloring were painted to show the preferences of the clients for whom the copies were prepared.

Gerry

Gerry,

That may be the case with the portrait at Inverary; the one at Luss may have intended to include bown (a faded black) rather than red. Unfortunately the artist in each case is unknown. Of note, the NMS portrait is inscribed Robert Grant of Lurg · Ætat 97 · 1769 · Craigelachie which is mysterious because he died in 1771 aged 97. One may assumed that it was painted after his death and presumably copied from an earlier portrait, possibly the one at Old Cullen and that the 1769 date is erroneous.

[OC Richard]

I know you guys are interested in analysing the clothing, but as a professional portrait artist let me give some perspective on the various painters' handling of the head.

When an artist has an actual 3 dimensional human head in front of him the anatomy will be more convincing. When an artist is copying a 2 dimensional work he can't make small changes in his viewing angle to check the shape of things, so distortion will creep in, and also the finished product will nearly always have a flattened feel to it. This stuff has always been true, and always will be true.

An experienced painter can nearly always tell which is which- it's obvious.

Like the telephone game, when a portrait copied from another portrait is in turn copied, the result is a further step removed from convincing anatomy, and the likeness drifts further from the original model.

So we have here

Rossdhu: This painting has convincing anatomy, and is the only painting of the four which evinces being painted from a live model by a trained artist. This artist has drawn the skull hundreds of times. (You learn to draw the head by drawing the skull.)

Royal Scottish Museum: Not too bad, but not painted from life. It was copied from the Rossdhu portrait.

Old Cullen, Inveraray: these are obviously related to each other, both showing the identical strangely distorted skull crushed in on one side, and elongated. No sitter could have anatomy like that, even if they suffered from acromegaly. One of these was copied from the Royal Scottish Museum portrait (in which you can see a hint of the smashed-in face) and the other was copied, in turn, from that.

I'm fairly certain the order goes

Live model > Rossdhu > Royal Scottish Museum > Inveraray > Old Cullen.

The red patch on the hat suggests that the Royal Scottish Museum version and the Inveraray version were independently copied from Rossdhu, but the anatomy of the Inveraray and Old Cullen seems clearly based on the Royal Scottish Museum version.

I wish I could see larger versions of all of these, especially the Rossdhu. A close examination of the hand would reveal at least as much as an examination of the head.

I can see the Rossdhu has the hand well-painted (it's a difficult pose to paint well) and the other three have the first joint of the thumb strangely elongated, once again making it obvious that those three were not done from life, but copied in a chain from each other, only one of the three being directly copied from Rossdhu. (Three different artists aren't going to independently make the identical anatomical mistake.) Once again the Royal Scottish Museum version has the thumb most like Rossdhu, while Inveraray and Old Cullen both share an identical and anatomically impossible elongated thumb.

Hard to tell from small images, but from what I can see I wouldn't be surprised if Old Cullen and Inveraray were painted by the same artist. Either that, or one was very carefully copied from the other. If I could see closeups of both I could tell- each artist has unique ways of working.

[Father Bill]

Peter,

Should the thread title be "Robert" and if so, would you like me to edit it?

[figheadair]

Richard,

An interesting observation. The other thing to bear in mind is that the photographs were taken at different angles and under different conditions and the perspectives of the paintings are probably distorted because of the angle of photography. The photo of the one at Cullen was taken as it was hanging on a wall above head height and at an angle. The one in the NMS war museum was shot it from angle so the glare from the lighting would not ruin the picture. I don't know anything about the circumstances of the actual photography of the ones in the Inveraray and Luss collections. From the detail of the tartan, etc., the Colquhoun painting appears to to be the worst quality by far -- no care was taken in reproducing the tartan.

[OC Richard]

Ah, thanks for the mention of different angles.

Now I really want to see good images of each painting photographed straight-on.

All of my observations about the head distortion could be moot, that is, if Old Cullen and Inveraray were taken from identical angles.

The NMS one was shot at an angle, yet has much less distortion than Old Cullen and Inveraray.

And still there's the thumb...

I found this image of Old Cullen online, which shows identical (and anatomically implausible if not impossible) distortion to the one posted above.



Here's NMS showing much less distortion of the skull than Old Cullen and Inveraray, much closer anatomy to an actual human subject.

[Liam]

Interesting discussion gents, to which I can add nothing but am following with interest.

[figheadair]

Peter,

Should the thread title be "Robert" and if so, would you like me to edit it?

Opps, yes please.

[Father Bill]

Opps, yes please.

Done! .