| Joseph Henry Sharp (1859--1953), his art, his patrons, and their respective institutions played an important role in shaping ideas about Indians for turn-of-the-twentieth-century Americans. By means of the examination of Sharp's career and the part played by three of his most significant patrons---William H. Holmes, Phoebe A. Hearst, and Joseph G. Butler, Jr., who created public institutional policies---pervasive Euroamerican sentiments and monied influence can be evaluated, revealing the operative dynamic of expansionist ideology.;A matrix of history, mythology, and memory, Sharp's paintings not only invented but often misrepresented American Indians' cultural identities, despite his own sympathy with his subjects and his own sense of artistic integrity. Because of the prestige of his patrons, Sharp's reputation as an artist of the authentic Indian subject was legitimized and confirmed. But he, too, along with the press, took an active role in shaping his career persona. He recognized that his image was a commodity to be bought and sold, no different from his studio output of Indian imagery. He purveyed his Western lifestyle and experiences to authenticate his art becoming as unique himself as the Indians he painted, the story of his life as carefully constructed as his Indian canvases.;Through a documented chronicle of the artist's interactions with his patrons and of contemporary criticism of his art by the popular and critical press, his paintings can be contextualized and probed to illuminate a broad range of scientific, social, and political issues. In their sincere effort to provide aesthetic, historical, and scientific enlightenment, Sharp and his patrons became architects of Indian imagery and symbolism. Although there were differences of gender, class, social institutions, and professions among them, Sharp and his patrons constructed their version of Indianness. From both scientific and historical points of view, they perceived the Indian subject as a primitive conduit to the past. Sharp's paintings conferred societal meaning and authenticated Indian qualities, spawning conventional ways of seeing (as well as not seeing) his subjects that justified the individual aims of his collectors. |
