I shall take advantage of Sir John's[3] mention of Reynolds and
Gainsborough to provoke some useful refutation, by stating that it seems
to me the latter is by no means the rival of the former; though in this
opinion I should expect to find myself in a minority of one. Reynolds
knew little about the human structure, Gainsborough nothing at all;
Reynolds was not remarkable for good drawing, Gainsborough was
remarkable for bad; nor did the latter ever approach Reynolds in
dignity, colour, or force of character, as in the portraits of John
Hunter and General Heathfield for example. It may be conceded that more
refinement, and perhaps more individuality, is to be found in
Gainsborough, but his manner (and both were mannerists) was scratchy and
thin, while that of Reynolds was manly and rich. Neither Reynolds nor
Gainsborough was capable of anything ideal; but the work of Reynolds
indicates thought and reading, and I do not know of anything by
Gainsborough conveying a like suggestion.
_Watts._
[Footnote 3: Sir John Millais.]