Art in Relation to Subject

Portrait of Charlotte Brontë by George Richmond.

George Richmond’s portrait of Charlotte Brontë is perhaps the most famous of the few existing likenesses of Charlotte. In general, Charlotte’s close relations believed that Richmond successfully captured her expression and intelligence, but several records indicate that others, such as the family servant, believed her portrait's expression to be too old-looking and that her features “far from flattered.” Charlotte accounts for this particular critique in a letter to her friend Ellen Nussey, stating that “[the servant] confuses her recollections of me as I was in childhood with present impressions.” The language of "impressions" implies a distinction between subject and interpretation, as Charlotte believes that the servant has judged the portrait based on a preconceived impression rather than on Charlotte herself.

The disparity of opinions about the likeness of the portrait suggests that the meaning of a work of art is determined not by the artist, but by the observer. As Charlotte suggests in the above statement, the inherent subjectivity of the observer’s perspective inevitably affects the interpretation of that particular observer, thus generating several distinct interpretations of a single work of art. In this way, a work of art becomes the property of each individual observer as soon as it enters the world, and consequently the artist relinquishes all control over its intended meaning.

Group portrait of the Brontë sisters by Branwell Brontë. From left to right: Anne, Emily, and Charlotte Brontë.

Charlotte is represented in another, earlier portrait alongside her two sisters, Anne and Emily. In The Life of Charlotte Brontë, Elizabeth Gaskell observes a “striking resemblance” between Charlotte and her likeness in the group portrait. What makes this observation particularly remarkable is that the likeness of the group portrait is quite different from that of the Richmond, which is also believed to be an accurate representation of Charlotte. Surely it can be argued that the angular features and stern expression of the Richmond are also present in the group portrait, at least to an extent. But the differences in execution are far more apparent. For instance, the youthful complexion of the Branwell portrait contrasts with the more mature and even solemn expression of the Richmond.

Perhaps it is these differences that are most revealing. Branwell’s perspective on his own sister will undoubtedly be more comprehensive than that of a mere acquaintance such as Richmond, and Richmond's distance enables him to judge with a comparatively unbiased eye. Thus, each artist is able to bring to light a different aspect of Charlotte’s character. Was Richmond able to detect an air of melancholy or solemnity that was lost on Branwell? Did Branwell’s more intimate knowledge of his sister’s personality allow him to better capture her soul? Perhaps both are correct. Essentially, each portrait is merely one interpretation of Charlotte among many existing interpretations. (For instance, Gaskell’s biography of Charlotte is another interpretation distinct from both the Richmond and the Branwell portraits.)

If any given work of art can have infinite meanings, and the person on which this art is based can be represented in any number of ways by any number of artists, is “true” representation really possible? Are none of the representations “true,” or is there a certain truth to all of them? And who is allowed to determine which are truthful and which are not? Ultimately, not even Charlotte herself could accurately and objectively determine which representations, if any, are entirely truthful. In fact, she is quite possibly the person least capable of making that determination, as it is often the case that others see us more clearly than we see ourselves. And if Charlotte can’t, can anyone? Should anyone?

Maybe the lack of a definitive answer to any of the above questions is the answer. Maybe the best way to approach the issue of true representation is to simply accept the possibility of infinite possible representations, and to not be afraid to delve as deeply as possible into the heart and soul of the subject even with the knowledge that there may never be a definitive answer. After all, using these various perspectives as avenues of exploration can lead to the discovery of some intriguing and perhaps previously unobserved facets of a person’s character, regardless of whether or not these observations have been accepted as wholly “truthful.” Are the respective observations of Richmond and Branwell merely projections of their own preconceived notions of Charlotte, or do they accurately represent her character? The fact that there will never be a definitive answer is in itself compelling. If anything, the ambiguity only adds to the intrigue.