Most likely, there is no special backstory and the painting was simply commissioned. And most likely, there no super special composition in that portrait and the style is exactly the same as the style of surrounding paintings.

Most paintings dont have a cool backstories. They are just paintings. Art student can see technical details of how they were done, but those are not really interesting if you are not trying to learn to paint.

But even that basic context is useful and interesting: "in this era it was common for wealthy people to commission portraits." Etc

> But even that basic context is useful and interesting: "in this era it was common for wealthy people to commission portraits."

This is basic knowledge.

It is and it isn't.

"Rich people can afford a luxury" is obvious enough, but how rich did you need to be to hire that specific artist? Was Sargent knocking out two portrait a day for every local dentist or was this a one-off where the offer was simply too good to turn down? It'd be cool to know....

And of course, "commissioned by her father, a local merchant" is kind of interesting and it's even more interesting when it's not the case.

Unfortunately portraits are what used to put dinner on the table for an artist, which is why you see so many portraits of random rich person. The camera changed all that though.

Then there are the “artist statement” ladies on some exhibits where artist get to describe their work on self-aggrandizing terms that only make sense to people with a graduate degree in the field

The longer the artist statement, the worse the art.