Read on Twitter
I have a number of art pet peeves, but one of them is that most modern people assume Grant Wood& #39;s painting & #39;American Gothic& #39; depicts a married couple. Look at it! It& #39;s a father and daughter. She& #39;s too young. So often we don& #39;t really see or think about the women depicted in art.
Specifically, the models are Nan Wood Graham (1899-1990), the artist& #39;s sister, and Dr. Byron Henry McKeeb (1867-1950), their family dentist, who was meant to portray their father. At the time the painting was made, in 1930, Nan was 31 and Dr. McKeeb was 63.
Of course it wouldn& #39;t be impossible to find a married couple with a 32-year age difference, in 1930 or now, but this wasn& #39;t the painting& #39;s intent. Often the woman painted in & #39;American Gothic& #39; is not "seen" adequately enough for this age different to even be meaningfully noted.
Adding this since it& #39;s been mentioned below. Writer Guy Davenport did an interesting analysis of this painting in his book & #39;The Geography of Imagination.& #39; He said of & #39;American Gothic:& #39; "Let us look at this painting to which we are blinded by familiarity and parody."
Davenport has some awareness of the paintings& #39; origins, but assumes the two models depict a husband & wife, comparing them to ancient Egyptian imagery of married couples. However if you look more closelyâunblind yourself with familiarityâit does not show a classic married pose.
Classic art historical poses of married couples, particularly in ancient Egypt, often show the woman touching the man (left). To show a younger woman not touching the male subject and standing just behind him can be more indicative of a father and a daughter (right).
The specific reference in Davenport& #39;s essay is to the ancient Egyptian depictions of Prince Rahotep and his wife Nofret, but if we examine images of them we will again see the traditional depictions of marriage: of the wife touching her husband, or as royals shown side by side.
We are indeed blinded by our familiarity to famous works of artâbe we casual viewers or professional criticsâso that not only do the identities and signifiers of the models get lost, but the meanings and narratives of the paintings& #39; original intent becomes lost, too.
When we understand the woman in American Gothic to be a daughter, and recognize her youth, a very different plight is revealed to us. Eyes looking elsewhere, guarding by her pitchfork-weilding father, a different & perhaps more sympathetic drama is seen unfolding on the canvas.
Fathers and their adult or adolescent daughters are a relatively rare subject in art history, and even then are more likely to depict Biblical, mythological or literary characters like Lot, Cimon or King Lear, than ordinary people.
Secular images of fathers with their children become more common in extant art as women artists gained more notoriety in particular, along with the rise in depictions of domestic scenes generally. But men shown with grown daughters still suggested a more complex story.
More common in the realm of genre painting, there is daughter as muse, daughter as caretaker, and the unmarried daughter who can figure as a work partner or burden, depending on the family& #39;s financial station.
The intent of these comments is not really to chastise the viewer for failing to know of the artist& #39;s intent, but to point to the ways that we don& #39;t always really "see" the women shown in famous art.
When we look closer, we see that her hair is blonde, not gray, that her neck is smooth, her face unlined compared to his, and that while she is frowning she isn& #39;t very old after allâcertainly not as old as the man beside her. She has her own story.
I think this is most interesting as an exercise in noticing. What we see is heavily influenced by what we think we know and what we assume. How does the picture change before our eyes with new information? What details do we miss because of how we view the world?
