The National Portrait Gallery was a treasure trove of art ranging throughout human history,  with even a small section on contemporary artists. Going in I was worried that I would find much of the museum uninteresting because I thought that having a museum containing only one type of painting would get repetitive, I was pleasantly surprised by the variety there. While There were still many paintings that felt very similar in subject and style, there were a lot that used the portrait format and did something really interesting with it, be it through style or interesting outfit or alterations made to the subject

While there were many intriguing pieces of work at the national portrait gallery, the one that stood out to me the most was the portrait of Charles Darwin by John Collier. Charles Darwin was a scientist and author of “The Origin of Species”, which introduced the theory of evolution to the world. This idea was very controversial, and remains so somewhat today, largely because of its contradictions of the church’s teachings. The idea even challenged his own beliefs, as before he was a christian and throughout his life seemed conflicted on his views on religion. He spoke of how the pain and suffering he saw in nature contrasted with his views of an omnipotent god, but to his deathbed never claimed to not believe in one. John Collier shared uncommon religious views for the time, although to a higher degree. He completely disagreed with the idea of a god and religion, saying “I am looking forward to a time when ethics will have taken the place of religion”. This painting was created one year before Darwin died, and portrayed him in a more casual outfit that according to his son was “familiar to those who knew him”. 

The thing that strikes me the most about this painting is the expression on Darwin’s face, which I can not quite pin down. He was a man who spent his life in the pursuit of controversial truths,  and I feel like something about his face captures that. There is wisdom and knowledge in his eyes, but also a certain amount of sadness. The lighting on his face adds to this feeling, which leaves his eyes in deep shadows. His worn down coat and hat humble his appearance, but his posture and silhouette have a certain regalness to them, with his coat almost giving the illusion of a cape. I feel like this contradiction matches who Darwin was as a person. He had to juggle his scientific research and the religious beliefs he had held his entire life prior. He wanted to spread information and knowledge, but received scorn and hatred for doing so. It is somewhat ironic that despite how religious institutions have historically viewed his work he was buried at such a religiously important space, Westminster Abbey.

The plain muddy looking background blends in somewhat with his closing, really bringing all attention to his face, primarily his eyes. By using more muted colors for his clothing and the background, the artist may have been attempting to force the audience to avoid thinking too much about the surroundings and circumstances of the painting, and just on the man portrayed.

Viewing this portrait spurred me onto my next outing of the day, which was to the Hunterien Museum, which is a surgical museum that focuses on the intersection between human and animal biology. Reflecting on Darwin’s work after seeing the painting, I feel like I was able to better connect the ideas presented at this museum, and better appreciate the interconnection between all organisms (at the request of the museum, no photos of its displays can be shown, but if you are at all interested in biology or anatomy I would recommend it) .

The National Portrait Gallery was everything I wanted it to be and more. It was completely full of portraits I’ve seen in all of my history textbooks for my entire life – and it was one of the coolest experiences to see them in real life. I didn’t realize how many of these completely historic and revolutionary portraits would be in this museum – but boy, was I pleasantly surprised!!

We walked around for about 2 hours, really taking in each portrait and their respective descriptions, and honestly, I probably could have spent more time in their, if it wasn’t for all of our rumbling stomachs. What immediately caught my eye (and seems to always catch my eye) was the Tudor Era portraits. There is something so enticing about this era, these people, and their stories. They lived in a time so different from ours – their daily life was something we could probably barely even imagine. I find this era so interesting, especially the fashion and the tradition of course the royal drama. But another era that I am deeply drawn to is a little bit later, around the late 1700’s to the early 1900’s. Honestly, this entire 200 year span is my favorite in books, in movies, in fashion, in art, etc. There is just something about it. Ive always said that if I could choose a TV show or a movie to star in, I would want it to be a period piece from this era. Pretty much anything related to Jane Austen I guess. But!!! Its just my favorite! As a little girl, I used to dream about going back in time and getting to live in Paris or London or New York as a girl in this time period, wearing the pretty dresses and speaking in a more formal manner, going to balls and parties and grand dinners. It was my favorite day dream, and honestly in some ways it still is. I really like to think about what life was like for people back then, especially the women.

For this reason, I find myself continuously drawn to the same era of art every time I step into a museum. My body just knows where to go to find it. And that happened today too! I stumbled upon a portrait of Susannah Cibber, an incredibly admired singer and actress of her time. She was pushed into a career in musical theater to help support her family, and the composer Handel actually wrote the contralto arias in Messiah for Susannah. She went on to have one unhappy marriage, and one very happy marriage, in which she thrived as an actress and went on to establish a famous acting method with David Garrick.

This portrait is beautiful. Susannah is beautiful! Immediately from her clothing, we can tell that they are a symbol of her personality and status. She was an incredibly successful performer, and her style was elegant and reformed, so a choice like her white satin dress lined with bows and pearls, covered by a deep blue shawl, and the addition of pearl pins in her up-done hair, makes complete sense for her presence in society and her status as well.

This painting is oil-on-canvas, and is done in an oval shape, which was popular in the 18th century to promote a timeless and classic look to portraits. Susannah is painted in a half-length pose, facing slightly to her right, and with a gaze towards the viewer. This set up is intentional I think to show her strong but graceful personality, and still remain a timeless piece.

The background in this portrait is a plain brownish/green, I think to allow more focus to be drawn to the contrast of Susannah’s white dress and striking blue shawl. Her skin is also very fair, and her cheeks are perfectly pink, which I think the dark background highlights perfectly!

If I could step into this portrait, I think I would see an overwhelmed young woman. Overwhelmed by her career, her marriage(s), and her personal family life. But nonetheless, a clever, wickedly talented, and awfully inspiring young woman. I think I would probably hear her laughing, as that’s something she liked to make people do, and I would probably feel a sense of pride that she was being portrayed in such a beautiful way, knowing that her painting would live on in a museum for millions to see and hear her story – and a pioneering one at that!

Now, onto Hampton Court Palace! Then, to ITALY!!! This trip is going by so fast and I cant believe we only have a week and a half left to go. I don’t think I will ever be ready to say goodbye to London! I miss this trip already and its not even over yet. Thats all!

Also I was very excited to reunite with my dear cousin, Mary Queen of Scotts. Love u girl.

xo, jo

At the National Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery, I was both excited and overwhelmed by the sheer volume of portraits, paintings, drawings and more that filled the galleries. I wanted more than anything to linger at each and every item on display, read the entire plaque, and stare at it until it lost all definition, but I only had so much time I could spend at the galleries. Out of the vast assortment of pieces to which I bore witness—though only a fraction of a fraction of all the pieces demanding to be witnessed—I chose the following painting about which to write: 

This sitter and main focus of the painting above is chemist Dr. Dorothy Hodgkin (1910 – 1994). She was the first British woman to win the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1964 for defining the structures of penicillin, Vitamin B12, and insulin using x-ray crystallography. The Gallery commissioned British artist Maggi Hambling to paint Dorothy in 1985. 

Dorothy is clearly an intelligent, well-respected, and influential figure who does not have the time to sit and pose for a boring portrait. Maggi honors Dorothy’s character by painting Dorothy in her actual study, while she’s working, with a model of the penicillin structure in the bottom left corner. In the back, we can see shelves crammed full of books, binders, and folders, presumably for her thesis and teaching. Dorothy’s desk is scattered with papers, instruments, and other items she uses for her work. At her desk, we can see that Dorothy has four blurry hands working double-time. The plaque for this painting said the “two pairs of hands convey energy and activity,” but it also “refers to the subject’s acute arthritis.” All of these small details come together into a shrine to immortalize Dorothy Hodgkin’s life and her achievements as she wished them to be remembered.

Maggi Hambling is iconic and, I believe, the perfect choice for this painting. One of her other, slightly more famous paintings is of Mary Wollstonecraft, the “foremother of feminism”. Also, when I looked Maggi up, the first picture was of her puffing smoke out of her nose while posing in front of a scene of monochrome, chaotic paintings:

– Hadley ❤

I LOVE Tudor history. Thanks Mom! So the part of the portrait gallery I was most looking forward to was the Tudor portion. Don’t get me wrong, I was excited for all of it, but the opportunity to see the original versions of these famous paintings I’ve seen all my life? Sign me up. The rest of the gallery was worthwhile perusing through till we got there, especially with all the school groups. There was a portrait that contained a naked woman, which naturally the children were giggling hysterically at. I noticed a little boy point it out to a little girl and couldn’t help but think about how when she’s my age she’s going to look back on this moment and realize just how young it starts. But we carried on, bobbing and weaving through British kiddos up the stairs to the Tudor portraits.

This room blew me away. When I say it has all of THEEEE Tudor portraits you know and love, I mean it. Plenty of Liz I, Henry VII, and most of his wives. The portrait I was most drawn to, however, was that of Anne Boleyn. She’s definitely my favorite of the six wives. There’s just something about her and her story that really sits with me. I feel the same about Catherine Howard. Funny how they’re both the ones who got beheaded.

You can tell that this portrait was painted before she became queen. While you can still tell she’s a woman of great privilege, she doesn’t come off like a queen. Most notably compared to a lot of the other Tudor women portraits, she wears a French hood on her hair rather than an English hood. This immediately shows us that she did spend most of her life in France and would be acquainted with the French style.

I’ve always thought she had a cheeky look in her eye in this portrait that really captures what we can glean about her personality. She’s not looking off into the distance, but directly at the viewer. When we view this in modern times, it’s almost like she’s gazing across history at us. Perhaps seeing us gives her all the knowledge of what happened after her death, and that’s why she’s smirking. Maybe she’s laughing at the irony of her death. Whatever it is, I found myself staring into her eyes when viewing the portrait. It was like talking to her. Now that’s one woman from history I’d invite to my dinner party.

While exploring the gallery, one portrait really stood out to me; it is unique 1926 photograph of Margaret Morris by Fred Daniels. I was intrigued in by the flowers wrapped around you head and in her hands over her chest. The portrait is soft and glowing, instantly capturing the essence of someone who seemed to be of higher status. Margaret Morris appears very elegant, wild, and youthful. She has a calm confidence in her expression which even radiates in a portrait, even though it is black and white. After seeing the portrait and reading the description, I felt a connection and deep interest in her.

Morris wasn’t just a dancer, she was a revolutionary. She grew up with strict ballet training she had received as a child but wasn’t satisfied with it. She created her own modern style, drawing from Classical Greek dance and the influence of American pioneer Isadora Duncan. For Morris, movement wasn’t only about performance, it was about health and wellbeing. She believed in the power of dance to heal and connect, and her exercises weren’t limited to dancers; she developed techniques for new mothers, children, and athletes. This became known as the Margaret Morris Movement, which is still taught and practiced today.

Fred Daniels, the photographer, was known for his work in the film industry, and you can see that in this portrait. There is a soft focus, a natural light, and the background is blurred, but it all works together to create a beautiful image. This doesn’t feel like a fake staged photo; it looks effortless and natural. I loved the simplicity of the setting draws your attention you just her. It lets you dive deeper into the portrait and feel something deeper.

If I could step into the photo, I imagine it would feel like a quiet garden on a warm spring morning. I’d hear the soft rustle of leaves blowing in the wind, maybe a few birds singing, and feel a light breeze brushing against my skin and my surroundings. It would feel peaceful, alive, and free, exactly the kind of space Morris seemed to create through her movement and teaching.

This photograph, while simple at first glance, holds so much power. It reflects Margaret Morris not only as a beautiful woman and artist but as someone deeply connected to nature, to the body, and to the human spirit. It’s a reminder that art and movement can be both gentle and revolutionary and that sometimes the softest images leave the strongest impression.

We went to the National Portrait Gallery today! We got to see a million different portraits from a million different eras. Of all the portraits, I have to say the contemporary exhibit on the ground floor was my favorite. It was just one wall, and maybe it was because I was familiar with many of the people in the portraits (though I don’t think it was!) but I absolutely loved it. The ones on the upper floors were mostly paintings, which was amazing to see, and the talent as well as the way each person or people was captured was stunning, it just didn’t hit the same way that the photos did. There were photos of Marcus Rashford (boooooo), Andrew Scott (my forever Priest and Hamlet!), and the best portrait I have ever seen, which was The Duchess of Cambridge, Kate’s official 40th birthday portrait. It was the most beautiful photo I have ever seen. It looked like it was taken on an old-timey camera. But, the portrait that meant the most to me was the portrait of Harry Styles from the December 2020 Vogue cover. I will never forget the day it came out. Both my sister and I are massive Harry Styles fans, and she also has a Vogue subscription so it was such a big deal to us the morning the photos dropped. And then, the controversy happened. The slogan “bring back manly men” went crazy viral, and that Thanksgiving and Christmas it felt like all you saw were people making videos and jokes about how that was the only topic at the table. It was so polarizing, which I always found hilarious. The arguments against him wearing a dress fall apart the second you start pulling at the loose thread (see what I did there?!). “Women wear dresses, not men”, have you ever seen the portraits of Henry VIII, Scottish men, or Romans, both seen as the peak of masculinity in their culture and time. Men used to wear heels and wigs, our standard of masculinity is not a legacy of the entirety of the human race, it’s just a social standard we have for today, thats made up and dare I say stupid. 

Anyway, I’m getting off my soap box now. I love the question asking what I would feel if I stepped into this painting. Based on my minimal knowledge of the shoot and the photo itself, I would say I would feel some very fresh wind on my face. Light, but enough to move the fabric of the clothes I am wearing. It is a cloudy day, so I think I would alternate between feeling the sun on my skin and clouds stopping direct beams from hitting my skin. I am sure I would see the massive crew of people, as well as the wardrobe and trailer for changing and getting ready somewhere behind the camera. The noise would be lots of directions directed toward Harry, but also towards to the other creatives in the space, making sure his makeup was always touched up, the fabric was flowing right, and that he had water or whatever else he would need. I would hope that if I got a moment to step into this space, I would be fully present and soak it up. I would be standing in a historic moment for gender and societal norm shifts. 

I hope that one day this portrait is just a beautiful photo with a crazy backstory, and not sneered at or seen as controversial. It was, and is, such an important conversation starter, but my hope is that it moved beyond that and instead is recognized as a stepping stone. 

For this assignment, we were tasked with finding a portrait that we saw displayed in the National Portrait Gallery and discuss our reactions to the piece, and a short analysis on the art styles. Unfortunately, I am not a visual artist. I’m a theatrical artist. So a lot of my thoughts surrounding this piece should be taken with a grain of salt.

            The piece that I have chosen to discuss is a piece titled, “Me as Warhol in drag with scar” by Gillian Wearing. The piece, (as pictured below) is a self-portrait of Wearing dressed in drag as American Pop artist, Andy Warhol. The artist is wearing a pair a jeans, a black crop top, and a leather jacket. It’s also worth noting that along the artists stomach are multiple scars that appear to be very fresh and still have stitches in them. The plaque next to the portrait tells us that much of Wearing’s work focuses on “identity, self-preservation and the performative nature of portraiture.” The plaque goes on to say, “Wearing considers how identity can be a form of protection, as well as a form of exposure and here she creates the appearance of Warhol by using prosthetics, wigs and makeup. The scar relates to Warhol’s near-fatal shooting in 1968 and can symbolize the psychological aftermath of this event…the portrait becomes a dialogue about the public masks we war and the stories we tell about ourselves”.

            I found this portrait particularly interesting because as a queer person, I have always resonated with the image of masks and hiding behind different things for the sake of self-preservation. And I thought that the artist using the image of Andy Warhol, who was a trailblazer in the queer Pop Art movement was such a brilliant way to pay homage to the idea of putting different masks on. I also think that the contrast of the white background with all black clothing is really effective at making the artist pop. I also thought that it was incredibly effective including the scars on the stomach as a representation of the wounds that Warhol faced because of the Assassination attempt. I didn’t know anything about the assassination attempt, but upon learning about it, I think it was so clever how the artist included that detail. Gun violence is ever so present in our world today and is especially prevalent in the queer community. So getting to see someone comment on that aspect of queer life was a touching moment, and a great way to start off pride month!

-R

Westminster Abbey was by far probably one of the most interesting places we’ve been on this trip so far. Anything that old is bound to be interesting, and most everything in London is around that old, give or take. When we first got there we got to learn a lot about the Abbey while surrounded by graves from as early as the 1100’s. We made our way through current living quarters, till we entered the nave itself. Here we got to see the coronation chair and, right by the door way, the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior. This is their version of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier (which you probably could’ve gathered), and if you know anything about me at all it shouldn’t surprise you that seeing this part made me cry a good deal.

Even with all my weeping about the Unknown Warrior, we carried on through the nave. We saw the burial sights of monarchs like Edward the Confessor, Mary I and Elizabeth I, the “boys in the tower” (if it is really them), and Mary Queen of Scots. There are plenty of little chapels, my favorite of which was the Royal Air Force Chapel, which once again should surprise no one.

We ended our tour in Poets Corner, which is filled with either dedications or actual graves of influential British writers. My favorites who had dedications in Poets Corner were Jane Austen (duh), Dylan Thomas, and John Keats.

Jane Austen was born on the 16th of December, 1775 to George and Cassandra Austen. She grew up in an open-minded home, where complex discussions were regularly encouraged. She began writing at an early age, before eventually anonymously publishing Sense and Sensibility in 1811. She would follow this with 1813. She would die only four years later on the 18th of July, 1817. After her death, most of her works were posthumously published.

Dylan Thomas was born on the 27th of October 1914 in Swansea, Wales. His parents were Florence Hannah and David John. Thomas. He was educated in Wales before moving away at 17 to become a news paper reporter. When this didn’t work out, he moved back in with his parents. It was during this time that he wrote half of the poems he would publish in his life. He wrote propaganda films for the UK during World War Two in order to support his family. Once he became the most famous poet in the world, he started doing grueling literary tours to support them. It was during one of these tours that he died on the 9th of November, 1953.

John Keats was born on the 31st of October, 1795. Both of his parents died when he was relatively young. This forced him to live the school he was attending to intern to be a doctor. In 1816, he visited a friend who showed him Chapman’s translation of The Odyssey and The Illiad, which spurred him to start writing. He would quit the medical practice at age 21, opting to become a full time writer instead. Sadly, only four years later in 1821, Keats would die believing he was complete failure. Jokes on him, because now he has a plaque in Westminster Abbey!

Some of the world’s most prolific writers are buried and/or memorialized within Westminster Abbey. Some of these graves and monuments include Mary Ann Evans/ George Eliot, Henry James, Lord Byron, the Brontë sisters, Rudyard Kipling, Mary and Percy Shelly, W.H. Auden, Jane Austen, T.S. Eliot, and Charles Dickens. Obviously, because I’m such a chill person all the time, I was completely fine and normal about some of my favorite writers being there (this is sarcasm btw). 

The actual grave of Charles Dickens was probably the monument that struck me the most. Known for his advocacy for the poor and his serial style stories, this 19th century writer was born on February 7, 1812. From an early age, Dickens had a complex relationship with poverty. His father, who had made poor financial decisions, was arrested for his debt, and Dickens’s entire family (excluding himself) was thrown into prison. At 12, Charles became responsible for correcting his father’s debt and was put to work at Warren’s Blacking Company. The trauma experienced during this time inspired Dickens’s activism, particularly towards poor children, and inspired/ can be found in some of his most well known books: David Copperfield, Great Expectations, and even A Christmas Carol. Unlike most writers who do not become popular until after their deaths, Dickens’s rise to fame began in 1836 with his series Sketches by Boz. His success really kicked off with The Pickwick Papers, a novel that was separated into short, illustrated monthly installments. Charles soon became a revolutionary of the serial publishing style. After much traveling and many books, Dickens died of a stroke on June 9, 1870 at the age of 58. 

While they are buried elsewhere, the memorials of T.S. Eliot and Jane Austen were also very impactful for me. Thomas Sterns Eliot was born 18 years after the death of Dickens on September 26, 1888. He was well educated, attending institutions such as Harvard University and Oxford University. It was at these universities Eliot began to write and publish his poetry. There are three distinct periods of T.S. Eliot’s writings: his undergraduate and postgraduate studies (“The Love Songs of J. Alfred Prufrock” 1911), World War I and his marriage (“The Waste Land” 1922), and the rise of Nazism and financial despair (Four Quartets 1943). Eliot died in 1965. Jane Austen was born in 1775 to a large family of ten. Unlike many women of the time, Austen was educated and given unrestricted access to her father’s library. From the age of 11, Jane began writing and creating stories. However, it was not until she moved to Bath that she began crafting her first novels Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility, and Northanger Abbey. It was not until after her death in July 18, 1817 that her works were finally published.

Dickens- https://www.victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/dickensbio1.html

Eliot- https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/t-s-eliot

Austen- https://janeaustens.house/jane-austen/jane-austen-a-life/

(holding space for Westminster Abbey)

Westminster Abbey is one of those things you hear about all your life, but never think you’ll actually visit or stand in. That was certainly the case for me – I’ve heard so much about this place. The royal weddings, the funerals, and of course, the coronations, it all takes place in this Abbey. And it is a beautifully fitting place. I knew it was a gorgeous church, and that it had a lot of connection and relativity to the royal family and has for hundreds of years, but I never knew the extent of the artifacts, the tombs, and the window into the past that this place really is.

I was lucky enough to spend a good amount of time here, and with that I was able to hit all the main points. There were things that really stood out to me, like the tomb of the “unknown” little boys (who we think are the two princes murdered by King Richard), Queen Elizabeth I tomb, with her from-life cast on top of it, showing what her face really looked like. That was the best part of the entire Abbey for me. It brought so much reality into this imaginary person Ive always had in my head. To me she looks like her portraits – flushes white and caked with makeup, thin and sharp features, a small pointy nose, and draped with gorgeous fabrics and jewels. Though the fashion and adornment remains true for her, I realized that the portraits were only what she really wanted people to think she looked like, and all along she really was this beautiful and imperfect human, with a slopey nose and a few wrinkles in her forehead. It was so beautiful to see what she would look like if you saw her without all the makeup, like you were a friend of hers. It felt deeply personal for each person walking through.

There are many significant people buried/memorialized at Westminster Abbey, and three that stood out to me were Jane Austen (duh), Charles Dickens, and William Shakespeare.

Jane Austen was born in Hampshire, England, in 1775. She was born into a large family, and started writing from a young age. Her family was incredibly supportive of her writing, and her brothers actually helped her publish her books. Though Jane had a few romantic relationships, she never married – she lived much of her life in the English countryside and in Bath, which she loved to call her “Home”. Jane is known for her 6 novels, Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility, Mansfield Park, Emma, Northanger Abbey, and Persuasion. She fell ill and died in 1817, but even to this day is considered one of the most famous authors of all time.

Charles Dickens was born in 1812 in Portsmouth England. He is remembered heavily as a famous English novelist and social critic, and was actually said to hang out in the same tea room (where we had tea at the pump room at the Baths!) with Jane Austen. As his father was sent to a debtors prison when he was very young, Dickens worked in a shoe factory as a child to help support the family. He began writing in early adulthood, and went on to write some of the classics like A Christmas Carol and Great Expectations. His stories often featured themes of child labor, poverty, and injustice, which for him were all very real, and were a huge part of his personal story. He was buried in Poets Corner in Westminster Abbey in 1870.

William Shakespeare born in 1564, is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and one of the most influential dramatists in the world, and rightfully so. To begin to encapsulate Shakespeares life and accomplishments would take way more pages than I have available right now, but being able to still see his work on major display in todays world is more than enough proof that he is one of the greats. Not much is known about his early life, but he married his wife, Anne Hathaway, at 18 years old and they had 3 children. He became a shareholder in the Globe Theater, and within a short span of years he wrote 39 plays. He died in 1616 and is buried in Holy Trinity Church where he was born, in Stratford-upon-Avon.