Washington in his prime (circa 1776) was generally described by his countrymen as looking "majestic," "noble," "dignified," and generally having a natural military bearing. But portraits of him at this time, like the famous Charles Wilson Peale painting, look awkward and even a bit ridiculous. Is this because:
the paintings just aren't very good?
the past is a different country, and cultural ideas about what a leader of men should look like are different?
people were generally poor and sickly in the 18th century, so anyone six feet tall who still had all of his fingers and toes counted as a prime physical specimen?
some other reason?
Really, what we're talking about is opinion and perception, not history. I'm not sure why Washington looks "awkward and even a bit ridiculous" to you; perhaps you could expand on it a bit and enlighten us?
These portraits of Washington were painted while he was in his thirties and forties, the first in 1772, the second in 1776, and the third in 1779. When I look at these images, I see a large, vigorous man in the prime of life. Washington, a Virginia aristocrat and once-and-future soldier, consciously patterned himself after the European officer class, and that is reflected in his dress. The formal pose, hand thrust in waistcoat, head tilted enigmatically, is a convention of period portrait painting, not a reflection of his natural posture.
