* * * * *
ENGLISH ACADEMIES FOR PAINTING ANTERIOR TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
ROYAL ACADEMY IN LONDON.
The first attempt to form an academy for the encouragement of the fine
arts in this country was made in Great Queen-street, in the year 1697.
The laudable design was undertaken by Sir Godfrey Kneller, and by the
most respectable artists of the day, who endeavoured to imitate the
French Academy founded by Lewis XIV. Their undertaking, however, was
wholly without success; jealousies arose among the members, and they
were ultimately compelled to relinquish the project as fruitless. Sir
James Thornhill, a few years afterwards, commenced an academy in a room
he had built for the purpose at the back of his own residence, near
Covent-garden theatre; but his attempt, likewise, proved abortive.
Notwithstanding these failures, Mr. Vanderbank, a Dutchman, headed a
body of artists, and converted an old Presbyterian meeting-house into an
academy. Besides plaster figures, Mr. Vanderbank and his associates
procured a living female figure for study, which circumstance tended to
gain a few subscribers; but, in a very short space of time, for want of
money sufficient to defray the necessary expenses, all the effects
belonging to the establishment were seized for rent, and the members, in
disgust, accordingly separated.
On the demise of Sir James Thornhill, in 1734, the celebrated William
Hogarth became possessed of part of his property.[2] Although much
averse to the principles on which academies were generally founded, Mr.
Hogarth considered that one conducted wisely would probably be of great
advantage to the public, as well as to the artists in general. He,
therefore, proposed, that a body of artists should enter into a
subscription for the purchase of a house sufficiently large and
capacious to admit thirty or forty persons to draw from a naked figure.
This proposition being unanimously agreed to, a place was forthwith
taken in St. Martin's-lane; and Hogarth, to forward the undertaking as
far as he could, lent them the furniture, &c. formerly belonging to Sir
James Thornhill's academy.
[2] The remaining part was left to Lady Thornhill, who lived
several years with her son-in-law after the death of Sir James.
The failure of all preceding attempts to form an academy was attributed
by Mr. Hogarth to the principal members assuming too much authority over
their brother artists; he, therefore, proposed, that every member should
contribute an equal sum of money to the establishment, and should have
an equal right to vote on every question relative to the society. He
considered electing presidents, directors, and professors, to be a
ridiculous imitation of the forms of the French Academy, and liable to
create jealousies.[3] Under Hogarth's guidance, the Academy continued
for thirty years, with little alteration, to the high satisfaction of
its several members, and the public in general.
[3] Our Royal Academy is _now_ governed precisely on the same
principles as is the French Academy. What would Hogarth have
said, had he lived at the present day?
On ascending the British throne, George III. evinced so much interest
for the arts, that most of the members of the academy (though contrary
to the wishes of their leader, who possessed a most independent spirit,)
solicited the royal patronage to a plan they had in view of establishing
an academy for _painting, sculpture_, and _architecture_. The success of
this appeal is too well known to English readers to need much comment.
His majesty was pleased to appropriate those very splendid apartments in
Somerset-house for the use of artists, who shortly formed a _new_
society, over which, by his majesty's special command, the great Sir
Joshua Reynolds presided.