This article is about Gilbert Stuart and his portrait of George Washington, officially known as the "Lansdowne Portrait" and the confusion over the true artist of the painting. Stuart was quoted saying "I did not paint it, but I bargained for it," (Page 2, paragraph 2) in the article but nobody knows what he means by that. There have been four total paintings of Washington linked to Stuart (Page 2, paragraph 3-4) commissioned by wealthy people, but some say that the Lansdowne that is in the White House is the worst one. Marvin Sadik, the former National Portrait Gallery director, described the head as "dead," in 1975 (Page 1, paragraph 2). This might be why Stuart refused to take credit for the work, even though the Washington Conservation Studio confirmed that it was an original Stuart painting (Page 1, paragraph 5). The controversy remains whether people in the White House should attribute the painting to him or not. In my opinion, the quote to the left really explains the situation well. An artist such as Gilbert Stuart does not make the work for himself, he/she makes it for an audience or for the public. Once the work is made, it does not solely belong to the artist anymore, it belongs to the people, because they are the ones who interpret and criticize the work. This is true for books, movies, videos, art, music, or any other imaginative work that a creator makes for an audience. Therefore, even though Stuart denied that the painting to the left was painted by him and we should respect his wishes, if there is substantial evidence to say it was his painting, we can continue to attribute credit to him. Maybe Stuart denied ownership of this work because he didn't like how it turned out. Maybe he did it because he failed to complete a deal with a commissioner (Page 3, paragraphs 2-3)? Or was he not denying, but historians are misinterpreting it. Even if the past of this painting is muddy, the present is still clear, it's a central part of the White House. There is no reason to continue to argue over who made it, because the evidence clearly says it was Stuart. Unless new evidence surfaces and historians can agree that it was made by another artist, people can continue to refer to it as Stuart's because we are the interpreters and viewers of the art.