tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post6174804147530195974..comments2024-03-27T22:52:12.619-04:00Comments on The Gossips of Rivertown: That Incendiary Ary PortraitCarole Osterinkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16010623982526286408noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-11764461610661472022012-08-29T20:23:01.725-04:002012-08-29T20:23:01.725-04:00sorry I'm very deslexic Henry ARYsorry I'm very deslexic Henry ARYPrison Alleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10059050028975347899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-8933705339997291002012-08-29T19:39:05.949-04:002012-08-29T19:39:05.949-04:00That would make sense,that Ayers would copy anothe...That would make sense,that Ayers would copy another earlier portrait,which was very common.The portrait seems to be of Van Buren much younger ,than when he was President,54-58 years old.He would have been 33-37 yrs old when he was N.Y.S. Attorney General.<br />Van Buren held so many government positions ,some for very short periods of time(like in 1828, being Governor of NY for only 1 yr),it must have been hard to get the guy to sit still for a portrait.His first position was in 1808 when named Surrogate of Columbia County, New York.He was only 26 yrs old.Prison Alleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10059050028975347899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-67919310932076659602012-08-29T17:24:32.439-04:002012-08-29T17:24:32.439-04:00They probably do, but I had asked for confirmation...They probably do, but I had asked for confirmation that the portrait had indeed been given to the Long Island Historical Society and for an image of the portrait, and that's what I got. I suspect the librarians don't have a lot of time to research beyond what people ask for when responding to such inquiries.<br /><br />There is no doubt in my mind that this is the portrait that incited the brawl. There is, however, doubt about its being the work of Henry Ary. In the account reprinted in the local newspaper, Schumaker said the painting was done when Martin Van Buren was elected President in 1836. That fits with what we know of Ary's career. The historical society's records, however, indicate it was painted when Van Buren was attorney general for the State of New York--1815 to 1819. If that's true, Ary couldn't have painted it, since he was born in 1807 and would have been somewhere between 8 and 12 during that time period. However, it could be the case that the portrait DEPICTS Van Buren when he was attorney general, but that it wasn't painted from life. Ary may have modeled his portrait after another portrait, as he did with the portrait of George Washington that hangs in City Hall. Carole Osterinkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16010623982526286408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-43757944745131822722012-08-29T16:52:12.769-04:002012-08-29T16:52:12.769-04:00Great sleuthing Gossips!It has to be it,since Schu...Great sleuthing Gossips!It has to be it,since Schumaker rescued it again ,this time from being a firescreen,and donated it to the L.I. Historical Society,which became the Brooklyn Historical Society.Deaccessioned,means that they sold it in 1987?If they did,wouldn't they have a record who bought it? <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Prison Alleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10059050028975347899noreply@blogger.com