The Eyes of the Prior-Hamblins: Part 1 (Blake, Prior, Hartwell, Hamblin, Kennedy)

By -
The members of the so-called “Prior-Hamblin school” weren’t a school at all. Colleagues? Competitors? We still barely know. The five usual suspects - W.M. Prior, S.J. Hamblin, G.G. Hartwell, W W. Kennedy, and E.W. Blake - are constantly compared, mixed up, and conflated. However, despite their profound similarities, they all had their own quirks - especially when it comes to a pair of eyes.
Part 1 of this post will address, illustrate, and explain the PHS's five unique methods for the so-called windows to the soul. The PHS problem has been tackled by exceptional folk art scholars for generations before me, so I don't expect this post to solve it. However, I hope that it will offer some useful clues. Read on for the Eyes of the Prior-Hamblins. 
- - -
Before we begin: please note that most of my portrait examples are sourced from auction sites – therefore, the URLs might say “Hartwell” about a Blake, or “Prior” about a Kennedy, so on and so forth. For those interested in more than just the eyes, I have offered links to American Folk Portraits Wiki (signed) and my Pinterest compilations (attributed) for reference.  
Attributions are my own. However, my recent Prior-Hamblin efforts have been a joint effort with Dr. Paul D’Ambrosio, whose recent article on Sturtevant J. Hamblin I enthusiastically recommend. Research and collaboration is ongoing.
E.W. BLAKE
He’s the least famous of the Prior-Hamblins, and maybe he’s an unexpected choice to start this article with. But E.W. Blake is an odd man out. We know vanishingly little about him, and he’s most difficult to learn about, let alone identify. Ongoing research has revealed that Blake painted in the manner of at least four other painters - Hartwell, Hamblin, Prior, and even Samuel Miller (who isn’t even a Prior-Hamblin at all.) Invariably, Blake’s portraits can be found in auction houses and museums, masquerading as one or more of the above. 
Nevertheless, under close scrutiny, Blake’s work stands out from his colleagues. There are certain “tells” that the other artists don't possess. One of them is unnaturally huge eyes! 
Blake has a very particular handling of the eyeball: a very large, oversized iris, with a tiny dot in the center for the pupil. His eyes also have a certain flatness that stands apart from the other PHS painters. 
The caterpillar-like eyelashes seen in his works are notable and unique to Blake, especially the lower-lid lashes. They appear on women and men alike. 
As Blake evolved in ability, his eyes became less blatantly oversized, but the tiny pupil remains highly distinctive. Usually, he places the white highlight near the center of the eye.
Sometimes he skips the eye highlight altogether, which makes some of his portraits less lifelike.
Other realistic Blake portraits - presumably later in his career - demonstrate an increased knowledge of eye anatomy, but he makes no effort to paint those tiny pupils any larger. He also still favors a flat shading/coloring method. 
That small pupil/huge iris quirk is one of the strongest identifying factors for Blake. It's consistently present, especially in those unnervingly big-eyed adults.
Here is a fine pair of Blake eyes on one of his more appealing portraits (though less appealing with just the eyes visible!) She's lacking the white eye highlight altogether. There is some improvement at eye anatomy, compared to the example above, indicating evolution over time, likely self-taught.
Blake's children are just the same. The highlight is placed at or near the center of the eyeball, and the irises are distractingly large.
There is some variation within the Blake child portraits, including experimentation with eye highlight placement. I am not entirely convinced this child is by Blake, although the picture, as a whole, exhibits all the characteristics I'd expect (pointed finger, etc). But it could hardly be somebody painting in the manner of Blake. He was painting in the manner of everyone else!

WILLIAM MATTHEW PRIOR
Prior has been studied more than most, but it's still worth addressing him. His eyes are the most realistic of the group; he specializes in thoughtful, languid eyes, almost wet and shiny. He accomplishes the effect with two highlights - a shiny dot of white on one side of the pupil, a dab of brighter color on the other side. The method is highly effective.
Notably, Prior seems to have a great grasp of the actual anatomy of the eyeball, particularly the caruncle (fleshy inner corner of the eye). Opinions vary on the extent of his training, but it seems evident to me that he received academic instruction.
Another Prior quirk is peculiar eyelashes, a quick brushstroke that appears directly above the iris, sometimes seeming to point outward, or the wrong way.
His eyes also often have an almost rectangular shape.
Note again those unique eyelashes - and Prior's recurring technique of dual iris highlights: the white dot on one side, and the bright highlight on the other. It makes the eyes almost marble-like in their shine and complexity.
Other times, in the flat style, he renders lashes with a noticeable downturn at the corners, as well as leaving brushstrokes strongly visible.
He likes to define the outer corner of the lower eyelid, but not the inner one.
The quirk of highly visible brushwork isn't shared by any other painters in the PHS, and doesn't appear in Prior's earlier 1830s works, which display much smoother rendering. However, the downturned lashes are consistent - as is the great attention to detail, regarding eye anatomy with the sclera, caruncle, etc.
His child portraits also display all of the above, including those marble-like eyeball highlights and quirky eyelashes.
The shaded definition of that outer corner of the eye is very consistent with Prior. Children have larger eyes, and his tendency towards the rectangular eye shape is more prominent than ever. Examples abound; there is no shortage of credible Priors, since, unlike most, he loved to sign his work!

GEORGE G. HARTWELL
Hartwell is maybe the third or fourth most popular Prior-Hamblin. His features are reasonably distinctive - his trademark cupid’s bow mouths are even more unique than his eyes, so I would recommend prioritizing that for attribution judgments. 
By nature, he leans towards artistic stylization, but he understands the anatomy of the eye unexpectedly well. Given the evolution of his work, he was probably taught these methods - if not by Prior, then by some other highly competent instructor. For example, the caruncle at the inner corner of the eye appears in a few of Hartwell’s works, rendered with great precision and attention, which came as a surprise to me when I started writing this. Eyelash styles vary - he's trying out a downturned lash here, though upturned lashes are more common.
Hartwell usually shapes the pupil very clearly and roundly. Notably, he puts the eye-shine white dot in the same direction the sitter is looking (there are a mere handful of exceptions to this). He rarely, if ever, defines the lower eyelid at all. Here are those upturned lashes.
In his most strongly stylized works, the eyes are rendered as minimally as possible - a dark line for the upper lid, an iris/pupil, and almost nothing else.
Other paintings, while equally recognizable as Hartwell's work, document the evolution of his skill from simplicity towards realism.
As he progresses, Hartwell hasn't quite grasped the eye anatomy yet, although he's verging on it. There is an interesting shift over time, but the vivid white near-side highlight remains consistent, most of the time. Note, again, the lack of a lower lid line.
Compare with a sophisticated later Hartwell: it's obviously the same hand, but more refined. One would almost think the above picture is a rough draft for the below picture!

STURTEVANT J. HAMBLIN
Hamblin's eyes are less of a telltale characteristic than for the other Prior-Hamblin painters. Nevertheless, there are certain consistencies worth pointing out. Overall, Hamblin's eyes tend to look big and innocent, with vividly white scleras. He uses a strong, thick round line to define the iris. The lashes are either highly stylized or not present at all. His technique for eyes is simplified, and he prefers an almond shape.
He probably has a grasp of eye anatomy, but nowhere near the level of Prior. His version of the caruncle is just a dab of pink in the inner corner of the eye. It's also not consistently included, even between two paintings nearly identical otherwise (above and below).
Hamblin’s work exhibits less change over time than Hartwell. His later eyes look very much like his early ones, although with a bit more nuance in the shaping and lashes. He, too, prefers a near-side white highlight to the eye, in the same direction the sitter is looking.
In Hamblin's classic format of children facing forward, there are fewer distinctive quirks, and eye identification methods are even less reliable. Nonetheless, the simplicity of shape and form is consistent.
The difference between Prior and Hamblin eyes is well illustrated by this 1858 portrait of the Hodgson children, George and Matilda, in which Hamblin probably painted the boy on the left, and Prior painted the girl on the right. 
Observe how much brighter the whites of George’s eyes are, as painted by Hamblin.
Prior, on the other hand, shades Matilda’s eyes with darker definition and depth and greater contrast. While both artists have a good understanding of eye techniques, the result is very different.
A small extra note: sometimes Hamblin's eyes have obvious, although probably not deliberate, commonalities with other painters. Such as Blake's eyelashes and oversized round irises, or Prior's dual-highlight technique. In these cases, other comparative methods must be used to determine attribution, although one should be doing that already, anyway. 
I don’t recommend relying on the eyes alone for identification; I simply wrote this guide to note down the quirks and eccentricities I was seeing. In many cases, it is difficult to tell the Prior-Hamblins apart. But it’s not always impossible!

WILLIAM W. KENNEDY
Kennedy's eyes are difficult to mistake for any other PHS painter. They may be considered a defining element of his style. They are wide-set, large and striking, with a stark black line to delineate the upper eyelid.
He prefers large pupils/irises, but not in the same manner as Blake: the irises almost look like ovals, vertically squashed.
He tends to neglect the epicanthic fold above the upper eyelid, only minimally outlining it.
Kennedy's most complex portraits show a real grasp of eye anatomy, reflecting his overall artistic ability, which was considerable. We have no way of knowing the extent of Kennedy's formal training, but he must have received some, either firsthand or secondhand. He seems to really understand how an eye is put together.
Children are painted similarly, though often very simply. Note again the black eyelid line and those oval-shaped pupils. His eyes tend to come to a sharp triangular point in the outer corner, unlike Prior’s rectangular shape.
Above all, the telltale thin, strong black line (as opposed to brown) remains the most distinctive quirk of Kennedy's eyes, no matter how stylized or realistic.
On light-colored irises, he also outlines with black, adding visual emphasis.
Kennedy's art style is distinctive enough on its own that the eyes aren’t even fully necessary for an attribution judgment. But, like all things, it is a helpful clue.


An extra note: I’m not counting Jacob Bailey Moore as #6. However, my attribution collection is here, if anyone’s very invested in JBM. His Prior-Hamblin connection is too tenuous for me to decisively include him in the whole group, but he’s a very fine painter.  
https://www.pinterest.com/paintingsworthlookingat/jacob-bailey-moore-prior-hamblin-%2B-manner-of/ 

Popular posts from this blog

The Elusive Kitten: How To Spot A Peckham (Deacon Robert Peckham)

By -
Image
In which a cat is very hard to find, because art imitates life. It may not come as a surprise that my recent interest in the works of folk portraitist Deacon Robert Peckham has led me to compile a full catalog of known and unknown Peckhams. After all, when one discovers a new favorite artist, it’s a natural instinct to gather together all of their works, arrange them in proper detailed order, and then go find some more. Fortunately, the job’s much easier when the artist is consistent. So far, during the Peckham-scavenging process, I’ve spotted about a half-dozen of them. They’re usually not too difficult to track down. However (at risk of sounding like the Wicked Witch of the West) this little girl and her little cat escaped me for months. 
READ MORE »

Misattribution Musical Chairs (Various Artists)

By -
Image
What's your favorite Joseph Whiting Stock portrait? Maybe his charming niece and nephew? How about the one he painted after his death? - - - The girl on the left was sold as “Attributed to Joseph Whiting Stock (American, 1815-1855)” with much pomp and circumstance. It provides some wonderful catalog copy analyzing Stock’s difficulty with perspective, which I’m still very fond of, even if the attribution is dead wrong. Pun not intended. Guess what: the auction record for the identical companion portrait, the girl on the right , surfaced recently.
READ MORE »

Eminently Artful? (Deacon Robert Peckham)

By -
Image
The art of resemblance is a tricky one. People don’t like being committed to memory in an unflattering likeness (just ask any photographer). Historically, artists often chose to enhance a person’s appearance, smoothing out any blemishes and modifying their features for the better. Most frequently, portraits aspired towards whatever the contemporary ideal of conventional beauty happened to be, which varied widely over time and culture. However, the underlying principle is the same: Don’t make them look bad.
READ MORE »

Old Finds: A Nantucket Legacy (James S. Hathaway)

By -
Image
Folk art is fraught with loss. One of the best-known artists, Joseph Whiting Stock, recorded 900 paintings in his lifetime, but only 100 still survive . It is quite possible that this statistic applies to every folk artist we know, prompting the grim realization that only a slim fraction of these major and minor masterpieces are still intact at all. The same may be true for folk artists themselves. For every single one we have identified, there might be another whose name we’ll never know. And even among the artists who have survived — the lucky ones by name, the unlucky ones as a “limner” — a large number of them have slipped through the cracks. I’d like to help bring them back.  Our first is James S. Hathaway.  I first saw these while scrolling an endless search of Frick Digital Collections, using the magnificently unsophisticated approach of looking at a lot of pictures and hoping something will stick. This one made me stop and stare. It’s James S. Hathaway’s striking repre...
READ MORE »

The Chapbook Children (Jonas Welch Holman, Lyman Parks, and Deacon Robert Peckham)

By -
Image
This story starts with an entirely different painting, by an entirely different artist. It arrives at the right answer despite itself. - - - PART I. THE MIX-UP - - - I first encountered this charming double portrait on an online auction site, allegedly sold as the work of Deacon Robert Peckham. It’s a lovely folk depiction of children in an interior, which, in all fairness, was Peckham’s specialty. As is typical for the style and era, they’re bright, alert, and look like they know too much. Notably, the props include a chapbook (a small printed pamphlet book for children) and a rose.
READ MORE »