Home » Visual & Performing Arts » Women Painters » Authorship and the Woman Painter II: Two Case Studies

Authorship and the Woman Painter II: Two Case Studies

© Jessica Cresseveur

Last month, I outlined the basic arguments pertaining to the "death of the author." While many feminist scholars believe that this concept would bring about gender equality for artists, others are concerned that it would foreclose any opportunity for women artists to claim the agency that they have been denied since early modern times. One example of this lack of a claim to agency is the many cases of misattribution in the art world. Since "genius" is traditionally associated with men, scholars have often attributed high-quality works to male artists, although many were produced by women. Following are two case studies of paintings long-believed to be the work of Jacques-Louis David (1748-1825), an artist who has often been referred to as a "genius."

Case Study #1: Portrait of Mlle Charlotte du Val d'Ognes (c.1801)

In 1917, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City acquired this unsigned painting through a bequest under the assumption that it was a David. For those familiar with David's work, some familiar characteristics are obvious. First, the sitter is dressed in a simple white Classical- esque dress with an empire waist, somewhat reminiscent of that worn by Henriette de Verninac in her portrait. Second, the room in which Val d'Ognes sits is rather Spartan, a common characteristic of David's portraits both during and after the French Revolution. While it is impossible to know the exact grounds for the original misattribution, these three factors were most likely catalysts in the verdict.

In addition to these similarities are two key differences. Immediately obvious is the light source, which is located behind the sitter, leaving her face in a shadow. Conversely, in David's portraits, the light sources are always situated so that most of the sitters' faces are free of shadows. A second difference is the window through which a townscape and two lovers are visible. The backgrounds in David's indoor portraits consist of blank monochrome walls with no windows. Why would he suddenly alter his modus operandi for only one portrait?

Despite these differences, the misattribution continued until 1951, when Charles Sterling, then director of the Met, reattributed it to Constance Marie Charpentier (1767-1849), one of David's students. While conducting research, Sterling noticed the portrait in an engraving of the Salon of 1801, which David had boycotted.(1) However, several of David's students did exhibit at that Salon, among them Charpentier, who exhibited her painting Melancholy, produced the same year. Sterling points out similarities between the two paintings, including the Classical dress and hair styles, the forward motion of each woman's torso, and the similar position of each's fingertips.(2)