.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
Never before seen, this double-sided portrait is an exemplary work by itinerant American portraitist Ammi Phillips (1788-1865). The present portrait is painted on both sides: a format which has not been documented to Phillips before the discovery of this work. Questions arise when studying it; the two most obvious ones being who are the sitters and why are both sides painted? A close study of each portrait uncovers many details, presents several theories and may lead to an answer.
As Phillips is known to have been precise in the detailing of background props, it is likely that the sitter or sitters in this double-sided portrait resided in the same household as one of the several inter-related family members painted in circa 1815 around this time with the same pale blue and gilt chair. This chair appears in several portraits painted by Phillips of the Dorr Family of Rensselaer and Columbia counties in New York. In the portrait of Mrs. Polsapianna (Bull) Dorr (1783-1869), Phillips seats her on the same chair. [1] Polsapianna was the wife to Dr. Russell Dorr (1770-1824), and together they had seven children, all of whom were painted by Phillips. The fancy-painted chair appears in the portraits of their children: Catherine Van Slyck Dorr (1804-1892), Joseph Priestly Dorr (1805-1879), Paulina Dorr (1803-1844), and Russell Giffin Dorr (1807-1860).[2] One theory as to who is our mystery sitter is the younger sister of Polsapianna, Mehitable Bull (b. 1785). She may have been living with the Dorr family to assist her sister and brother-in-law with their many children.
Col. Joseph Dorr was brother to Dr. Dorr and lived in the neighboring town of Hoosick Falls. Another possible theory is the sitter or sitters are a wife of one of Colonel Dorr’s sons, all of whom would have been appropriately aged at the time. These women, and our potential sitters, are Melinda (Stone) Dorr (1793-1839), Elizabeth (Haight) Dorr (1789-1830) and Marcia (Ball) Dorr (1796-1855).
The same fancy-painted chair is also seen in the portraits of Cyrus Spicer (1750-1826) and Mary Eddy Spicer (1750-1828) of Pittstown, Rensselaer County, New York. [3] Together they had eight children and many grandchildren. Based on the dating of their portraits and the present portrait, it can be speculated that Cyrus and Mary’s granddaughters are our sitters. Roxellane (Spicer) Chapman (1793-1846) would have been aged 22 years old in 1815 and Abigail (Spicer) Button (1798-1820) would have been 17 years old. A third theory is that the pictured sitter or sitters were a guest or a member of the extended families of the Dorr’s or Spicer’s, and were visiting at the time that their portrait was taken.
The present double-sided portrait is characteristic of Phillips’s works from the “Border Limner” period with its simple muted grey background, and use of props such as the chair, table, book and handkerchief. Phillips, born in Colebrook, Connecticut, was a mysterious figure for almost five decades. 800 or so works now attributed to him were once thought to have been by the hand of several artists on the basis of the disparate styles observed. Some speculate that upwards of 2,000 works were produced by Phillips. The characteristics of his portraits are now understood in periods related to his development as an artist; most recognized are those of the “Border Limner” period (1812-1819) and the “Kent Limner” period (1829-1838). The names, which were previously used to identify distinct artists, are associated to the places where Phillips was creating.
The empire waist blue satin dress the sitter or sitters is wearing is fashionable of the period. It is accented with a sheer pelerine dotted with abstract flowerheads, tied at the center right below the bust, which is echoed in the ties at her wrists. A delicate pearl necklace is a simple and elegant accessory. A noticeable difference between the two portraits is the inclusion of a lace bonnet framing the top of one sitter’s head. Apart from this addition, the portraits are very similar in composition. Each depicted sitter sits on the same pale greenish blue fancy-painted chair, holds the same lace handkerchief in her right hand, and places her other hand atop of brown leather bound book accented with red on its binding, set on a straight-edge wood table that is heavily shadowed. The differences in the portraits are subtle, but impactful. On the reverse side, Phillips paints the woman slightly larger in scale and with a wider face, higher forehead, more pronounced nose and close-set eyes. Her ringlets are tight and more simplistic. A strong shadow accents her chin and her slightly fuller neck. The woman pictured on the primary side presents more feminine. Her petite face is framed with softer ringlets. Her nose is smaller, and her lips are more balanced. Her bust is flatter and creates a cleaner line of her body. These differences combined effectively create a more elegant portrait in comparison to the one on the reverse. All of these details are an interesting comparison and also firmly date the painting in the 1812-1819 period. One detail in particular helps answer the question of who might this sitter be. Upon close inspection, a beauty mark can be seen on the proper right cheek of the sitter on both sides, suggesting that the women painted are the same person.
This leads to the next question: why are both sides painted? It seems likely that the version seen on what is now the reverse was a rejected commission. The sitter or family was not pleased by Phillips’s work and being ever resourceful, the artist repurposed the canvas to produce a portrait that was then deemed acceptable. Whoever the sitter may be and whatever the story is, this unique double-sided portrait is an exciting and curious puzzle to be solved.
[1] David R. Allaway, My People: The Works of Ammi Phillips (2022), vol. I, p. 78, no. 161, vol. II, p. 20, no. 22
[2] Allaway, vol. I, pp. 75-77, 79, nos. 153, 156, 160, 164, vol. II, p. 20, nos. 22, 24, 25, 27.
[3] Allaway, vol. I, pp. 180-181, nos. 476-477, vol. II, p. 23, no. 37
As Phillips is known to have been precise in the detailing of background props, it is likely that the sitter or sitters in this double-sided portrait resided in the same household as one of the several inter-related family members painted in circa 1815 around this time with the same pale blue and gilt chair. This chair appears in several portraits painted by Phillips of the Dorr Family of Rensselaer and Columbia counties in New York. In the portrait of Mrs. Polsapianna (Bull) Dorr (1783-1869), Phillips seats her on the same chair. [1] Polsapianna was the wife to Dr. Russell Dorr (1770-1824), and together they had seven children, all of whom were painted by Phillips. The fancy-painted chair appears in the portraits of their children: Catherine Van Slyck Dorr (1804-1892), Joseph Priestly Dorr (1805-1879), Paulina Dorr (1803-1844), and Russell Giffin Dorr (1807-1860).[2] One theory as to who is our mystery sitter is the younger sister of Polsapianna, Mehitable Bull (b. 1785). She may have been living with the Dorr family to assist her sister and brother-in-law with their many children.
Col. Joseph Dorr was brother to Dr. Dorr and lived in the neighboring town of Hoosick Falls. Another possible theory is the sitter or sitters are a wife of one of Colonel Dorr’s sons, all of whom would have been appropriately aged at the time. These women, and our potential sitters, are Melinda (Stone) Dorr (1793-1839), Elizabeth (Haight) Dorr (1789-1830) and Marcia (Ball) Dorr (1796-1855).
The same fancy-painted chair is also seen in the portraits of Cyrus Spicer (1750-1826) and Mary Eddy Spicer (1750-1828) of Pittstown, Rensselaer County, New York. [3] Together they had eight children and many grandchildren. Based on the dating of their portraits and the present portrait, it can be speculated that Cyrus and Mary’s granddaughters are our sitters. Roxellane (Spicer) Chapman (1793-1846) would have been aged 22 years old in 1815 and Abigail (Spicer) Button (1798-1820) would have been 17 years old. A third theory is that the pictured sitter or sitters were a guest or a member of the extended families of the Dorr’s or Spicer’s, and were visiting at the time that their portrait was taken.
The present double-sided portrait is characteristic of Phillips’s works from the “Border Limner” period with its simple muted grey background, and use of props such as the chair, table, book and handkerchief. Phillips, born in Colebrook, Connecticut, was a mysterious figure for almost five decades. 800 or so works now attributed to him were once thought to have been by the hand of several artists on the basis of the disparate styles observed. Some speculate that upwards of 2,000 works were produced by Phillips. The characteristics of his portraits are now understood in periods related to his development as an artist; most recognized are those of the “Border Limner” period (1812-1819) and the “Kent Limner” period (1829-1838). The names, which were previously used to identify distinct artists, are associated to the places where Phillips was creating.
The empire waist blue satin dress the sitter or sitters is wearing is fashionable of the period. It is accented with a sheer pelerine dotted with abstract flowerheads, tied at the center right below the bust, which is echoed in the ties at her wrists. A delicate pearl necklace is a simple and elegant accessory. A noticeable difference between the two portraits is the inclusion of a lace bonnet framing the top of one sitter’s head. Apart from this addition, the portraits are very similar in composition. Each depicted sitter sits on the same pale greenish blue fancy-painted chair, holds the same lace handkerchief in her right hand, and places her other hand atop of brown leather bound book accented with red on its binding, set on a straight-edge wood table that is heavily shadowed. The differences in the portraits are subtle, but impactful. On the reverse side, Phillips paints the woman slightly larger in scale and with a wider face, higher forehead, more pronounced nose and close-set eyes. Her ringlets are tight and more simplistic. A strong shadow accents her chin and her slightly fuller neck. The woman pictured on the primary side presents more feminine. Her petite face is framed with softer ringlets. Her nose is smaller, and her lips are more balanced. Her bust is flatter and creates a cleaner line of her body. These differences combined effectively create a more elegant portrait in comparison to the one on the reverse. All of these details are an interesting comparison and also firmly date the painting in the 1812-1819 period. One detail in particular helps answer the question of who might this sitter be. Upon close inspection, a beauty mark can be seen on the proper right cheek of the sitter on both sides, suggesting that the women painted are the same person.
This leads to the next question: why are both sides painted? It seems likely that the version seen on what is now the reverse was a rejected commission. The sitter or family was not pleased by Phillips’s work and being ever resourceful, the artist repurposed the canvas to produce a portrait that was then deemed acceptable. Whoever the sitter may be and whatever the story is, this unique double-sided portrait is an exciting and curious puzzle to be solved.
[1] David R. Allaway, My People: The Works of Ammi Phillips (2022), vol. I, p. 78, no. 161, vol. II, p. 20, no. 22
[2] Allaway, vol. I, pp. 75-77, 79, nos. 153, 156, 160, 164, vol. II, p. 20, nos. 22, 24, 25, 27.
[3] Allaway, vol. I, pp. 180-181, nos. 476-477, vol. II, p. 23, no. 37