This Painting Is More Political Than It Looks. Here's Why

Looking at this painting, you must be thinking, is this how people cropped out their exes back in the day? Or is that supposed to be a ghost? Or is it the inescapable void of existence he may be wondering about? Well, this painting captures the moment when the American Revolutionary War ended. The war finished, but it's sad that the painting didn't. Keep on watching to know why. This painting, The Treaty of Paris, was made by the first American painter to have trained in Europe, Benjamin West, in 1783. Yes, this guy. This unfinished piece depicts the peace negotiations which were happening in the French capital in 1782 through 1783. The left part of the canvas shows the American diplomats of the negotiation. The artist drew the figures, first with a light gray layer, with a brush drawing in brown. Benjamin completed the hair and all the figures, even if he let the pants be. Who needs pants when you're having a good hair day? The green curtains in the background make the setting look kind of important and formal. So does the vast landscape behind them with the classical building and everything. Fancy! In contrast, the right half of the piece is left unpainted. The painting was going so well. Just look at those curls! Then what happened, Benjamin? This portrait shows the faces of those who were present when negotiations were only beginning. But not all the participants, only the Americans. But why only the Americans? The painting is a depiction of the signing of the Treaty of Paris, which ended the American Revolutionary War. And it did so in a very lavish language indeed. To establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse between the two countries, upon the ground of reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience. Well, that sounds friendly. That aside, this is the piece of paper which recognized the independence of the United States from Great Britain. The right empty side of the painting was meant to feature the British representatives, Richard Oswald and his secretary, Caleb Whiteford. The then British Prime Minister, Lord Shelburne, appointed Richard Oswald as a negotiator. Oswald was on good terms with Franklin. He also had some knowledge about the American colonies. Yet in Britain, he was accused of being overly sympathetic to the US and forced to withdraw. Some say he didn't want to sit for the painting because he felt like he was a very ugly man and blind in one eye. Doesn't look very true to me. Then one David Hartley was dispatched to sign the Treaty of Paris and represent Britain. But he refused to sit as well. Is that a coincidence or did he too have a very low self-esteem? I doubt that not sitting for the painting was only a matter of looks. After all, the painter, Benjamin West, was not some amateur. But by the time of this painting, he was well acclaimed. After garnering great respect in Rome, he settled in London. He was King George III's historical painter and best buddy. And even though Benjamin Franklin didn't physically sit for the painting, he did West the courtesy of sending a portrait for study. In actuality, the loss of the American colonies was a painful defeat for Britain. And thus, the government had no intention of having it commemorated. The 10 articles of the treaty recognized the US as an independent nation. All British ownership was revoked. No wonder the Brits didn't want to sit for the portrait. Imagine a losing football team at the World Cup finale was asked for a selfie right after the game. And this was no quick selfie. Imagine how awkward it would be for the Brits to sit for hours just to have their defeat recorded. It was a firm no. The artist, Benjamin West, was planning to make a series of historical events from the American Revolution. Well, to know what's not happening on the right, we need to know what's happening on the left. Starting from the extreme left. The gentleman standing in the brown suit. Holding rolled papers in one hand. Lit nose. And what's that? Pointing fingers. This is John Jay. He was to become the first Chief Justice of the United States. But sire, it's not very nice to point fingers, is it? Maybe that's why monsieur here is giving you that look. He is also the person who in 1799 succeeded in abolishing slavery in New York. The guy with half-painted pants next to him is John Adams. He later became the second President of the United States. This is quite a group, huh? I'm guessing you already know the person sitting next to him on his right. From those $100 bills or his experiments with electricity, the artist and Benjamin Franklin were BFFs. And Franklin was not just the U.S. Constitution's godfather, but also the artist's son. Aww, so cute. The man standing behind Franklin in a red coat. Whose face looks awfully red, like he's having a bad day or a bad year even, is Henry Lawrence. He was a rice planter and politician from South Carolina. And last but not least at all, he was also one of the biggest slave traders in North America. That explains the expression. He later liberated his slaves only when his son kept urging him to do so. He really doesn't look happy about it though. Lastly, the man next to him who seems to be in a world of his own. He is Benjamin Franklin's grandson, William Temple Franklin. Of course there's perks to being Franklin's grandson, like being in one of the new nation's first great works of art. At first, it might look like this is how the treaty was really signed. As if it's a photographic rendering of a historic event. But Henry Lawrence was no longer part of the American delegation after a point. Good choice, pals. And grandson Franklin really had no authority to sign. Like his earlier, 1771, The Death of Wolfe. This painting depicted General Wolfe's death in the battle to conquer Quebec in 1759. Even though many other artists depicted this event, what West did was revolutionary at the time. All the other works adhere to the customs of showing it as an event, which occurred in the distant past. A norm well set at the time. But Benjamin dressed his figures in contemporary dress. This might seem like nothing today, but was pretty scandalous during the 18th century. This move revolutionized history painting forever. The Treaty of Paris was painted after West took a long break from history paintings. But sadly, neither this painting nor the others that West planned came to fruition. But here's the kicker. Since this moment in history is so, so, so important, the U.S. Postal Service in 1983 commissioned a painting for the 200th anniversary of the treaty. Artist David Blossom made the image for the stamp and showed the British heartleaf only from behind. I guess this painting became even more historic as an unfinished piece than it would have otherwise. After all, it rose from just a literal manifestation to a metaphorical one. If you think about it, the work reflects the divide that had developed between the U.S. and Britain along with the tensions, incompleteness, and fragility of post-Revolution America. Be sure to hit subscribe and let us know what you're thinking in the comment section along with any other ideas you may have. We love to hear from you. As always, make your life artful.