Figure 1.--J.W. Stock probably painted this boy in the 1830s, presumably in Massachusetts. Notice the frilly dress and elaborate pantalettes. We have been unable to fnd a better image. There are a lot of Stock images om the web, but tyhis does not appear tibe onr of them.

This American primitive/naive artist painted many New England portraits, providing valuable information on individual fashion in a period which encopases a period before and at the very beginning in wgich photography was just beginning to provide images--thevante-bellum era. Joseph Whiting Stock was born in Springfield, Massachusetts (1815). When he was 11 years old, an oxcart fell on him. As aresult, he was seriously injured, becoming a paraplegic. As a result of his accident, Jopseph began to study painting on the advice of his physician, something he was capable of physically. He studied under Franklin White, a pupil of the painter Chester Harding, and was commissioned to do a series of anatomical drawings by Dr. James Swan (1834). Dr. Swan constructed a wheelchair which enabled Stock to paint large canvasses and be lifted on trains so as to travel to complete commissions. Stock accepted commissions for portraits throughput New England, working in Warren and Bristol, Rhode Island, New Bedford, Massachusetts, and Middletown, Goshen, and Port Jervis, New York. His studios were located in his hometown of Springfield. He was known for his portraits, miniatures, and landscape paintings, most of which were commissions. He died of tuberculosis in Springfield, only 40 years old. Hus paintings are sometimes confused with those of Clarissa Peters Russell, a miniaturist, as her style was similar, but her work is usually unsigned.

Biography

We have little information on Joseph Whiting Stock, other than he was a American primitive artist from Massachusetts who painted from about 1835-55. This American primitive/naive artist painted many New England portraits, providing primarily individual portraits from ante-bellum America. This was a period during which photography had not yet been invented (1830sand in which photography was just beginning to provide images (1840s-50s). Joseph Whiting Stock was born in Springfield, Massachusetts (1815). When he was 11 years old, an oxcart over turned on him. As a result, he was seriously injured, becoming a paraplegic--paralized from the waist down. As live cganging as it is today, it was even more o in the 129th century, As a result of his accident, Jopseph began to study painting on the advice of his physicianl It is something he was capable of physically. While traguc for Joseph, it was a huge boon to America. His painyings or an imprtant part od our understanding of fashion dyring Ante-bellw America. And his work is if soecial interest to HBC because he painted so many children. Stock died of tuberculosis in Springfield, only 40 years old. Hus paintings are sometimes confused with those of Clarissa Peters Russell, a miniaturist, as her style was similar, but her work is usually unsigned. The jib of identifying the artis in these pintings is assisted bu=y the fact hat there are not akl tht mny artists creating such works. This of course makes us in debt for the witknof Stockn and his over 900 images.

Body of Work

Stock studied under Franklin White, a pupil of the painter Chester Harding, and was commissioned to do a series of anatomical drawings by Dr. James Swan (1834). Dr. Swan constructed a wheelchair which enabled Stock to paint large canvasses and be lifted on trains so as to travel to complete commissions. Stock accepted commissions for portraits throughput New England, especially in the Connecticvut River Valley. He worked in Warren and Bristol, Rhode Island, New Bedford, Massachusetts, and Middletown, Goshen, and Port Jervis, New York. At the time this wa the bustling hear of industrial America. His studios were located in his hometown of Springfield. He was known for his portraits, miniatures, and landscape paintings, most of which were commissions. Unortunarely few of his portraits are dated.Some of the paintings can be dated because we know idebntity and ages of some of the children. We think they were mostly painted during the 1830s-40s, but some were painted in the early-50s. To us, his paintings seem to have more of a 1830s-40s look than the 1850s. Stock maintined a journal of his daily activities. He reports pinting more than 900 works duruing 1832 and 1846. An amazing body of work, but only a fraction seem to have survived. We are not sure, but his output may have tapered off somewhat in the late-40s, prhaops due to health reasons. But another factor is that photography msy have been ear=ting into his clientelle. . He left a very substantial body of work which is a major source of infornmation on American life during the ante-bellum period, an ofen neglected period in Americn histoy. Unusally we see more children than adults. His paintings of course focus on the childrens clothing, but many are interiors and in some of his paitungs we get to see details of how people lived at the time. The interiors are usully painted in the living rooms. Many people at the time liked to see theirv living rooms painted in great detail to show case their material success in lifes. Most are single individul portraits. Stock did not normally sign his portraits so for the most part can only be attributed to him by art historians. Stock's death at a relatively early age limited his already prodigiousn output.

Figure 2.--This is full-length portrait of an unidentified boy wearing a blue belted tunic. He looks to be about 3 years old. There is an open neck and small frill. He also wears pantalettes, white socks, and strap shoes. He holds a whip, basically like those use to move on horses, He has a toy pull waggon. Notice the plain wall, but elaborate carpet. It is unsigned, but attributed to Joseph Whiting Stock. -

Social Class

The clothing styles we see here seem much more fashionable than what we see in the photograohic record. We are not sure how to interpret this. We think it may relate to social class factors. Photography opened of creating family images to a much wider swath if the population than ever before possible. A Dag may have cost $5 or so, a not inconsiderabkle amount at the time, perhaps $500 in 2023 currency (based on gold prices). A painted portrait would have cost much more. Thus the people depicted in Stoick's paintings come from a much more affluent class than average Americans. Photography of course did not exist in the 1830s, but we have Dags in the 1840s ahd Dags and Anbros in the 1850s. Now givem the cost of a photographic portrait, we are also selcting out a good chuck of societyy, butv nothing like the select griup which could afford painted portraits. Especuially notable is the extent to which panatalettes are depicted in the oufits wiorn by the children, bith boys and girls. Oanralettes were especially common for girls who are shown wearing dresses in all of Stock's portrits. But we also see younger boys wearing dressess with pantalettes and somewhat older boys wearing them with tunics.

Figure 3.--.

Garment Portraits

Most of the portraits Stock painted are not identified. And they are thus identified orimrily by describing the garmets the children are wearing. We see examples of the major garment types worn during the ante-bellum period. It should be understood that painted porrtraits were expensive even when commisioniong folk artists. Thus what you are seeing is how children from affluent familes were dressed. We have less information as o how children from less estanlished families were dressed, especially working-class families and families on the frontier. The fashions we see do not seem at sll ditable for most of the population, the great bulk of which lived on farms with modest incomes for buying fashionsnle clothes. .

Orange dress

This portrait is attributed to Stock, but it is often difficult to determine with certainty who the various American folk/primitive artists are. HBC has no information on who the boy in the dress here is or his age (figure1). The portrait was owned by the family of Massachusettes Senator Murray Crane, so it may have been a member of his Crane family. The very fancy dress and pantalettes suggest that the boy came from a well to do family. Clearly this boy's mother had the time and money to devote considerable attention to his attire. Also notice the boy's distinctive red hair. The boy wears a dress as was common for young boys at the time. It is difficult to estimate the boy's age, but we would guess he is about 5 years old. The dress has short sleeves with frilled ruffles at the elbow and ribbions decorating the shoulders. Notice the elaborate frills on both the dress and pantalettes which cover the boy down to his ankles. Not all boys, or girls for that matter, wore such elaborately frilled pantalettes. See for example another American primitive artist: E.W. Blake. We re not sure when the portrait was painted, but we believe the 1830s. Also notice the pendant he is wearing and the book and rose he is holding.

Blue tunic

This is full-length portrait of an unidentified boy wearing a blue belted tunic Figure 2). He looks to be about 3 years old, but that is diificult to assess with any degree of sccuracy with these folk/primitive portraits. . There is an open neck and small frill. He also wears pantalettes, white stockings and strap shoes. he holds a whip, basically like the ones used to move on horses, He has a toy pull waggon. Pull toys were a very imortant btyoe vofvtoy, especsilly for boys, in the 19th century. Notice the plain wall, but elaborate carpet. The portrait is unsigned, but attributed to Joseph Whiting Stock.

Named Commissions

Farnum children (1855)

Here we have the Fanum chikdren, Henry Harrison (1844-1924), Lizzie (1846-1906), and Catherine Farnum (1849- ). They were the children of Samuel Bernard Farnum. The three children are standing in front of their home in Port Jervis, New York; a portion of the Delaware and Hudson Canal, which their father was primary builder can be seen in the background. Given the ages of the children, thportrait was probanly painted about 1855. Assessing ages for folk are is difficult. The clothing is beautiifully depicted, but folk artists had trouble accurately capturing ages.deoicting ges. The portrait has been attributed to Stock. As he died in 1855, this would have been one of his last, if not his final commission. Henry wears a black suit with brass buttons. His blouse or shirt has a small collar. We don't see any neckwear.The girls wear while and blue dresses with lacy pantalettes and white socks.

Stock children (1845)

The children in his portrait are probabkly J.W. Stock's younger brother, Isaac C. Stock, and sister-in-law, Sarah Hunt Stock, of Springfield, Massachusetts where his studio was located. This is a large painting. He pain the pair at full length. He skimoped on the background, employing some kind of curtain to simplify the painting. All we get to see in the way of furnisings is two pieces of furniture and the carpet which is for some reason painted in full detail. Carpets were important in afflunt homes at the time. This was both for decorative purposes, but also reflects the lack of central heating. We do not have the ages of the children, but given the skirt length, Sarah is probbly younger than suggested by her depiction, perhaps 5 years old or so. Issacc may be about 8-9 years old. Sarah wears a blue-green dress with a low neckline, short sleeves, and plain white pantalettes. Her ringlet curls were a popular style at the time. It is difficult to make out much about Issac's dark blue outfit. He has a proiment ruff. He wa wearing a jacket, but the buttons are hard to see. Thy are dine in same color as the jacket. The long pants are loosely cut and grey. His hair style looks very modern. Both children wear white socks. They may have been painted about 1845. Issac is shown with a book. Girls were rarely depicted this way. br>

Sources