During the 18th-19th century, although European colonists settled the lands and manipulated the economies of the cities in America, they could not prevent the emergence and restrict the development of the art history. Nicholas Boylston and Nathaniel Sparhawk were two portraits made by John Singleton Copley, an American painter who is famous for his portrait paintings of important figures in colonial New England. Both created in the same time period and by the same painter, these two portraits share some similarities and differences.

John Singleton Copley painted Nicholas Boylston and Nathaniel Sparhawk in the 60s in 18th century, the former one in 1769, and the later one in 1764. They are both oil on canvas. However, they are of apparent difference in dimension. Nicholas Boylston is 125x99.5 cm and Nathaniel Sparhawk is 231.14x149.86 cm, which is almost twice as large as the former one.

Unlike Nicholas Boylston, Nathaniel Sparhawk is Copley’s first full-length, life-sized portrait. Sparkhawk is standing in the outdoor hallway of a villa with his left hand leaning on the corner pillar and holding an architectural drawing, and with left hand in the coat pocket, and looking ahead with fortitude. This pose was inspired by King George III, who was the King of Great Britain and King of Ireland. On the contrast, Boylston chose to portrait an image at leisure. He is sitting on a rosewood chair in a silk damask banyan morning gown with a red-velvet turban on his head and two books under his left elbow. Although he dressed down in this picture, the texture of his frock and the exquisite design on it show out his status and richness in the society.

Copley made some conscious distortions in the portrait of Nathaniel Sparhawk. the villa in this portrait is completely imaginary. Also, Copley exaggerated Sparhawk’s belly width. He intended painting more buttons on his coat to show his excess weight. According to the perspective people had at that time, an excess of weight represented health and prosperity. Unlike Nathaniel Sparhawk, the background of Nicholas Boylston is real. He is sitting in a room with silky curtains and a painter behind. He is right in the middle of the picture and his body accounts for 80% of the total area of the picture. However, the full-length portrait of Sparhawk only accounts for 50% of the total picture area.

Copley used Linear and volumetric perspective in both portraits. There are three spaces in Nathaniel Sparhawk: Sparhawk himself, the outstretched railing and the villa gate in the behind. The European style railing was highlightened in grey and it is the medium that divides the other two spaces apart. Comparably, there are only two spaces in Nicholas Copley: Copley with the table, chair and the books in one space, and the view out of window in another space. Because of the dominance of the image itself, the sea view from the window is not easily noticed at the first glance. However, Copley did not just randomly chose the sea view as background. He painted it because Boylston accumulated his fortune by running business on sea. Possibly Boylston wanted his offspring and all the people who have seen this portrait to remember his social status and the financial significance in the colonial period of America, so he used the sea as background along with his own portrait to make it a heritage in the American art history.

What is similar in these two paintings is their lightening skill -- Copley applied naturalistic light in both Nathaniel Sparhawk’s and Nicholas Boylston’s portraits, and the lights are both coming from the right side. The lightening source in Sparhawk is more like sunlight, because he is standing outdoors and his left face, which is facing the pillar, is in shadows. The edge of the buttons on his coat is glazing, and the highlightened drape of the outer layer implies the power Sparhawk has got. Unlike Sparhawk standing outdoors, Boylston is sitting back against the window. Obviously the light is not coming from the window, so there must be another light source on the right side in front of Boylston. It might be a door or another window in the direction that Boylston is looking into. The light is very intensive so that it has made his left cheek look waxy. In the meantime, the light has also intensified the material difference of Boylston’s green gown – with fabric leaf-shaped design on the outer side and glazing silky lining on the inner side.

From these two portraits, we can also figure out that all the cultural patterns were actually used to show their economic capabilities and social statues. The imaginary villas background in Nathaneil Sparhawk implies that Sparhawk did have the financial ability of having a European style palace-like villa. The chart he is holding in left hand may prove it or at least shows that he has the ambition to build a villa like it. As I mentioned at the end of the third paragraph, the exaggeration of his belly width indicates his prosperous life for the much food he ate. His inspired pose, facial expression and all the details show that Sparhawk is an ambitious and wealthy person celebrity back in the colonial period of America. In reverse, Copley presented Boylston at leisure to impress people about Boylston’s luxurious life. Although Boylston is dressing down, but it can be seen as “up” to many people. Velvet hat, green coat and even the scarlet tablecloth are all silky. Also, the expansive view of the sea and the sailing ship point out from where Boylston accumulated fortune. Although Sparhawk is dressing up in his portrait and Boylston is dressing down in his portrait, Copley did good jobs on describing the details through pigments and paintbrushes, which present us two images of wealthy, ambitious and elegant men.

In conclusion, John Singleton Copley painted Nathaniel Sparhawk’s and Nicholas Boylston’s portraits in some similar ways, such as the spatial illusion, lighting and the luxurious lives they had. However, the techniques that Copley chose to present his work in are of slight differences, just like the dimensions and the extent of distortion in paintings. In the art history of the colonial America, these two masterpieces reflect the great lives of two celebrities and they bring us lots of cultural concepts to help us better understand the historic meaning behind the portraits.