So, You Think You Love Horses? Some Reflections on the Nature of Horses and Man

More Discussions by “The Accidental Horseman”

Aelbert Cuyp 1620-1691 Unknown Lady and Gentleman on Horseback The bay looks good but the gray's head is too small for its body. A three-quarter view is technically demanding.

Iroquois, 1st American-bred horse to win the Epsom Derby, 1881 Was there ever a Thoroughbred who was this thin?

James Seymour 1702-1752 Sir Roger Burgoyne Riding Badger, 1740 Poor Badger, I believe he must have been a much more handsome horse in life. His eyes are poorly executed, giving him a bug-eyed look and head almost looks like it belongs on a seahorse.

People in prior times are certainly around horses, saw them, rode them or drove them on a daily basis. So why are there all those horrible, and I mean truly horrible, 17th and 18th century paintings of horses? I do not really have an explanation and maybe there are art historians who are in a better position than me to answer the question. Most artists are trained to portray human beings. People will hold still and models are available to sit while artists are in training. Live horses are rather difficult to work with in a studio and during the 17th and 18th century those artists who executed animal portraits were not afforded the same prestige as human portrait artists. They tended get the proportions of the animals wrong and paint a disproportionately small head on the animal. Some of this may have been an effort to exaggerate that was considered a mark of refinement in the animal. They also often exaggerated or otherwise failed to capture a good depiction of the eye of the horse. I think the truth may be very simple. It is no accident that we call the old masters masters. Many of the artists doing 17th and 18th century English and American sporting paintings were, I am afraid to say, simply hacks. They did not have the technical competence needed to produce a truly good image of a horse. In prior times owning art work was beyond the ability of all but the most wealthy individuals and institutions in their societies. During the 17th and 18th centuries owning art became possible for those who were somewhat less wealthy, the lesser nobility and the bourgeoisie and in that sense more democratic. However, the artists who served them were often less skilled. However, many of the images show well depicted and perfectly proportioned humans, so a lack of artistic skill is the not the entire story.

Frederic Remington 1861-1909 A Cheyenne Brave Mounted 1901 Remington is always a favorite and very skilled in capturing natural looking horses in his many depictions of them.

George Stubbs 1724-1806 John and Sophia Musters Riding at Colwick Hall 1777 George Stubbs is a towering figure in 18th century equestrian art. He diligently studied equine anatomy and frequently captured the spirit and personalities of his animals in a way never done before and yet like so many others he too frequently put disproportionally small heads on his equine subjects. This painting has an interesting story. You may want to check it out.

It was not until the 19th century and particularly after the introduction of photograph that the average artist finally seemed to successfully portray correct proportions for their equine subjects. I have one final thing to say in the sprite of humility and that is that it is easy to be an art critic but very hard to be an artist.