E-text prepared by Suzanne Shell, Christine P. Travers, and the Project
Gutenberg Online Distributed Proofreading Team (https://www.pgdp.net)
Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this
file which includes the original illustrations.
See 24650-h.htm or 24650-h.zip:
(https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/2/4/6/5/24650/24650-h/24650-h.htm)
or
(https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/2/4/6/5/24650/24650-h.zip)
Transcriber's notes:
Obvious printer's errors have been corrected. All other
inconsistencies are as in the original. The author's
spelling has been retained.
Page 170: The end punctuation of "What means this affectation of
_naïveté_." has been changed to "What means this affectation of
_naïveté_?".
All illustrations are sketches of (possibly) Butterflies.
THE GENTLE ART OF MAKING ENEMIES
by
JAMES ABBOTT MCNEILL WHISTLER
[Illustration]
THE GENTLE ART OF MAKING ENEMIES
[Illustration]
_Chelsea_
_AN EXTRAORDINARY PIRATICAL PLOT_
[Sidenote: _"American Register," Paris, March 8, 1890._]
_A most curiously well-concocted piratical scheme to publish, without
his knowledge or consent, a complete collection of Mr. Whistler's
writings, letters, pamphlets, lectures, &c., has been nipped in the
bud on the very eve of its accomplishment. It appears that the book
was actually in type and ready for issue, but the plan was to bring
out the work simultaneously in England and America. This caused delay,
the plates having to be shipped to New York, and the strain of secrecy
upon the conspirators during the interval would seem to have been too
great. In any case indications of surrounding mystery, quite
sufficient to arouse Mr. Whistler's attention, brought about his rapid
action. Messrs. Lewis and Lewis were instructed to take out immediate
injunction against the publication in both England and America, and
this information, at once cabled across, warning all publishers in the
United States, exploded the plot, effectually frustrating the
elaborate machinations of those engaged in it._
_SEIZURE OF MR WHISTLER'S PIRATED WRITINGS_
[Sidenote: _"New York Herald," London Edition, March 23,
1890._]
_This pirated collection of letters, writings, &c., to whose
frustrated publication in this country and America we have already
alluded, was seized in Antwerp, at the printers', on Friday last--the
very day of its contracted delivery. The persistent and really
desperate speculator in this volume of difficult birth, baffled in his
attempt to produce it in London and New York had been tracked to
Antwerp by Messrs. Lewis and Lewis; and he was finally brought down by
Maître Maeterlinck, the distinguished lawyer of that city._
_THE EXPLODED PLOT_
[Sidenote: _"Pall Mall Gazette," March 27, 1890._]
_With regard to this matter, to which we have already alluded on a
previous occasion, Messrs. Lewis and Lewis have received the following
letter from Messrs. Field and Tuer, of the Leadenhall Press, dated
March 25, 1890:--_
_"We have seen the paragraph in yesterday's 'Pall Mall Gazette'
relating to the publication of Mr. Whistler's letters. You may like to
know that we recently put into type for a certain person a series of
Mr. Whistlers letters and other matter, taking it for granted that Mr.
Whistler had given permission. Quite recently, however, and
fortunately in time to stop the work being printed, we were told that
Mr. Whistler objected to his letters being published. We then sent for
the person in question, and told him that until he obtained Mr.
Whistler's sanction we declined to proceed further with the work,
which, we may tell you, is finished and cast ready for printing, and
the type distributed. From the time of this interview we have not seen
or heard from the person in question, and there the matter rests."_
_MR. WHISTLER'S PAPER HUNT_
[Sidenote: _"Sunday Times," March 30, 1890._]
_The fruitless attempt to publish without his consent, or rather in
spite of his opposition, the collected writings of Mr. Whistler has
developed into a species of chase from press to press, and from
country to country. With an extraordinary fatality, the unfortunate
fugitive has been invariably allowed to reach the very verge of
achievement before he was surprised by the long arm of Messrs. Lewis
and Lewis. Each defeat has been consequently attended with infinite
loss of labour, material and money. Our readers have been told how the
London venture came to nought, and how it was frustrated in America.
The venue was then changed, and Belgium, as a neutral ground, was
supposed possible; but here again, on the very day of its delivery,
the edition of 2000 vols. was seized by M. le Procureur du Roi, and
under the nose of the astounded and discomfited speculator, the packed
and corded bales, of which he was about to take possession, were
carried off in the Government van! The upshot of the untiring efforts
of this persistent adventurer at length results in furnishing Mr.
Whistler with the first and only copy of this curious work, which was
certainly anything but the intention of its compiler, who clearly,
judging from its contents, had reserved for him an unpleasing if not
crushing surprise!_
_A GREAT LITERARY CURIOSITY_
[Sidenote: _"Pall Mall Gazette." March 1890._]
_I have to-day seen the printed book itself of the Collected Writings
of Mr. Whistler, whose publication has proved so comically impossible.
The style of the preface and accessory comments is in the worst style
of Western editorship; while the disastrous effect of Mr. Whistler's
literature upon the one who has burned his fingers with it, is
amusingly shown._
_In the index occur such well-known names as Mr. J. C. Horsley, R.A.,
Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Ruskin, Mr. Linley Sambourne, Mr. Swinburne, Tom
Taylor, Mr. Frith, and Rossetti. The famous catalogue of the "Second
Exhibition of Venice Etchings, February 19, 1883," in which Mr.
Whistler quotes the critics, is also given._
_A LAST EFFORT_
[Sidenote: _"Pall Mall Gazette," April 9, 1890._]
_We hear that a third attempt has been made to produce the pirated
copy of Mr. Whistler's collected writings. Messrs. Lewis and Lewis
have at once taken legal steps to stop the edition (printed in Paris)
at the Customs. A cablegram has been received by Mr. Whistler's
solicitors stating that Messrs. Stokes's name has been affixed to the
title-page of the pirated book without the sanction of those
publishers._
_THE GENTLE ART
OF
MAKING ENEMIES_
_AS PLEASINGLY EXEMPLIFIED
IN MANY INSTANCES, WHEREIN THE SERIOUS ONES
OF THIS EARTH, CAREFULLY EXASPERATED, HAVE
BEEN PRETTILY SPURRED ON TO UNSEEMLINESS
AND INDISCRETION, WHILE OVERCOME BY AN
UNDUE SENSE OF RIGHT_
[Illustration]
_A NEW EDITION_
_LONDON MDCCCXCII_
_WILLIAM HEINEMANN_
_Rights of Translation and
Reproduction reserved._
[Illustration]
_To
The rare Few, who, early in Life,
have rid Themselves of the Friendship
of the Many, these pathetic Papers
are inscribed_
_"MESSIEURS LES ENNEMIS!"_
[Illustration]
_Prologue_
[Sidenote: Professor John Ruskin in _Fors Clavigera_,
July 2, 1877.]
"For Mr. Whistler's own sake, no less than for the protection of the
purchaser, Sir Coutts Lindsay ought not to have admitted works into
the gallery in which the ill-educated conceit of the artist so nearly
approached the aspect of wilful imposture. I have seen, and heard,
much of cockney impudence before now; but never expected to hear a
coxcomb ask two hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the
public's face."
JOHN RUSKIN.
_The Action_
[Sidenote: Lawsuit for Libel against Mr. Ruskin Nov. 15,
1878.]
In the Court of Exchequer Division on Monday, before Baron Huddleston
and a special jury, the case of Whistler _v._ Ruskin came on for
hearing. In this action the plaintiff claimed £1000 damages.
Mr. Serjeant Parry and Mr. Petheram appeared for the plaintiff; and
the Attorney-General and Mr. Bowen represented the defendant.
Mr. SERJEANT PARRY, in opening the case on behalf of the plaintiff,
said that Mr. Whistler had followed the profession of an artist for
many years, both in this and other countries. Mr. Ruskin, as would be
probably known to the gentlemen of the jury, held perhaps the highest
position in Europe and America as an art critic, and some of his works
were, he might say, destined to immortality. He was, in fact, a
gentleman of the highest reputation. In the July number of _Fors
Clavigera_ there appeared passages in which Mr. Ruskin criticised what
he called "the modern school," and then followed the paragraph of
which Mr. Whistler now complained, and which was: "For Mr. Whistler's
own sake, no less than for the protection of the purchaser, Sir Coutts
Lindsay ought not to have admitted works into the gallery in which the
ill-educated conceit of the artist so nearly approached the aspect of
wilful imposture. I have seen, and heard, much of cockney impudence
before now; but never expected to hear a coxcomb ask two hundred
guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public's face." That
passage, no doubt, had been read by thousands, and so it had gone
forth to the world that Mr. Whistler was an ill-educated man, an
impostor, a cockney pretender, and an impudent coxcomb.
Mr. WHISTLER, cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, said: "I have
sent pictures to the Academy which have not been received. I believe
that is the experience of all artists.... The nocturne in black and
gold is a night piece, and represents the fireworks at Cremorne."
"Not a view of Cremorne?"
"If it were called a view of Cremorne, it would certainly bring about
nothing but disappointment on the part of the beholders. (_Laughter._)
It is an artistic arrangement. It was marked two hundred guineas."
"Is not that what we, who are not artists, would call a stiffish
price?"
"I think it very likely that that may be so."
"But artists always give good value for their money, don't they?"
"I am glad to hear that so well established. (_A laugh._) I do not
know Mr. Ruskin, or that he holds the view that a picture should only
be exhibited when it is finished, when nothing can be done to improve
it, but that is a correct view; the arrangement in black and gold was
a finished picture, I did not intend to do anything more to it."
"Now, Mr. Whistler. Can you tell me how long it took you to knock off
that nocturne?"
... "I beg your pardon?" (_Laughter._)
"Oh! I am afraid that I am using a term that applies rather perhaps to
my own work. I should have said, How long did you take to paint that
picture?"
"Oh, no! permit me, I am too greatly flattered to think that you
apply, to work of mine, any term that you are in the habit of using
with reference to your own. Let us say then how long did I take
to--'knock off,' I think that is it--to knock off that nocturne; well,
as well as I remember, about a day."
"Only a day?"
"Well, I won't be quite positive; I may have still put a few more
touches to it the next day if the painting were not dry. I had
better say then, that I was two days at work on it."
"Oh, two days! The labour of two days, then, is that for which you ask
two hundred guineas!"
"No;--I ask it for the knowledge of a lifetime." (_Applause._)
"You have been told that your pictures exhibit some eccentricities?"
"Yes; often." (_Laughter._)
"You send them to the galleries to incite the admiration of the
public?"
"That would be such vast absurdity on my part, that I don't think I
could." (_Laughter._)
"You know that many critics entirely disagree with your views as to
these pictures?"
"It would be beyond me to agree with the critics."
"You don't approve of criticism then?"
"I should not disapprove in any way of technical criticism by a man
whose whole life is passed in the practice of the science which he
criticises; but for the opinion of a man whose life is not so passed I
would have as little regard as you would, if he expressed an opinion
on law."
"You expect to be criticised?"
"Yes; certainly. And I do not expect to be affected by it, until
it becomes a case of this kind. It is not only when criticism is
inimical that I object to it, but also when it is incompetent. I hold
that none but an artist can be a competent critic."
"You put your pictures upon the garden wall, Mr. Whistler, or hang
them on the clothes line, don't you--to mellow?"
"I do not understand."
"Do you not put your paintings out into the garden?"
"Oh! I understand now. I thought, at first, that you were perhaps
again using a term that you are accustomed to yourself. Yes; I
certainly do put the canvases into the garden that they may dry in the
open air while I am painting, but I should be sorry to see them
'mellowed.'"
"Why do you call Mr. Irving 'an arrangement in black'?" (_Laughter._)
Mr. BARON HUDDLESTON: "It is the picture and not Mr. Irving that is
the arrangement."
A discussion ensued as to the inspection of the pictures, and
incidentally Baron Huddleston remarked that a critic must be competent
to form an opinion, and bold enough to express that opinion in strong
terms if necessary.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL complained that no answer was given to a
written application by the defendant's solicitors for leave to inspect
the pictures which the plaintiff had been called upon to produce at
the trial. The WITNESS replied that Mr. Arthur Severn had been to his
studio to inspect the paintings, on behalf of the defendant, for the
purpose of passing his final judgment upon them and settling that
question for ever.
Cross-examination continued: "What was the subject of the nocturne in
blue and silver belonging to Mr. Grahame?"
"A moonlight effect on the river near old Battersea Bridge."
"What has become of the nocturne in black and gold?"
"I believe it is before you." (_Laughter._)
The picture called the nocturne in blue and silver, was now produced
in Court.
"That is Mr. Grahame's picture. It represents Battersea Bridge by
moonlight."
BARON HUDDLESTON: "Which part of the picture is the bridge?"
(_Laughter._)
His Lordship earnestly rebuked those who laughed. And witness
explained to his Lordship the composition of the picture.
"Do you say that this is a correct representation of Battersea
Bridge?"
"I did not intend it to be a 'correct' portrait of the bridge. It is
only a moonlight scene and the pier in the centre of the picture may
not be like the piers at Battersea Bridge as you know them in broad
daylight. As to what the picture represents that depends upon who
looks at it. To some persons it may represent all that is intended; to
others it may represent nothing."
"The prevailing colour is blue?"
"Perhaps."
"Are those figures on the top of the bridge intended for people?"
"They are just what you like."
"Is that a barge beneath?"
"Yes. I am very much encouraged at your perceiving that. My whole
scheme was only to bring about a certain harmony of colour."
"What is that gold-coloured mark on the right of the picture like a
cascade?"
"The 'cascade of gold' is a firework."
A second nocturne in blue and silver was then produced.
WITNESS: "That represents another moonlight scene on the Thames
looking up Battersea Reach. I completed the mass of the picture in one
day."
The Court then adjourned. During the interval the jury visited the
Probate Court to view the pictures which had been collected in the
Westminster Palace Hotel.
After the Court had re-assembled the "Nocturne in Black and Gold" was
again produced, and Mr. WHISTLER was further cross-examined by the
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: "The picture represents a distant view of Cremorne
with a falling rocket and other fireworks. It occupied two days, and
is a finished picture. The black monogram on the frame was placed in
its position with reference to the proper decorative balance of the
whole."
"You have made the study of Art your study of a lifetime. Now, do you
think that anybody looking at that picture might fairly come to the
conclusion that it had no peculiar beauty?"
"I have strong evidence that Mr. Ruskin did come to that conclusion."
"Do you think it fair that Mr. Ruskin should come to that conclusion?"
"What might be fair to Mr. Ruskin I cannot answer."
"Then you mean, Mr. Whistler, that the initiated in technical matters
might have no difficulty in understanding your work. But do you think
now that you could make _me_ see the beauty of that picture?"
The witness then paused, and examining attentively the
Attorney-General's face and looking at the picture alternately, said,
after apparently giving the subject much thought, while the Court
waited in silence for his answer:
"No! Do you know I fear it would be as hopeless as for the musician to
pour his notes into the ear of a deaf man. (_Laughter._)
"I offer the picture, which I have conscientiously painted, as being
worth two hundred guineas. I have known unbiassed people express the
opinion that it represents fireworks in a night-scene. I would not
complain of any person who might simply take a different view."
The Court then adjourned.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in resuming his address on behalf of the
defendant on Tuesday, said he hoped to convince the jury, before his
case closed, that Mr. Ruskin's criticism upon the plaintiff's pictures
was perfectly fair and _bonâ fide_;[1] and that, however severe it
might be, there was nothing that could reasonably be complained of....
Let them examine the nocturne in blue and silver, said to represent
Battersea Bridge. What was that structure in the middle? Was it a
telescope or a fire-escape? Was it like Battersea Bridge? What were
the figures at the top of the bridge? And if they were horses and
carts, how in the name of fortune were they to get off? Now, about
these pictures, if the plaintiff's argument was to avail, they must
not venture publicly to express an opinion, or they would have brought
against them an action for damages.
[Note 1: "Enter now the great room with the Veronese
at the end of it, for which the painter (_quite
rightly_) was summoned before the Inquisition of
State."--Prof. JOHN RUSKIN: _Guide to Principal
Pictures, Academy of Fine Arts, Venice_.]
After all, Critics had their uses.[2] He should like to know what
would become of Poetry, of Politics, of Painting, if Critics were to
be extinguished? Every Painter struggled to obtain fame.
[Note 2: "I have now given up ten years of my life
to the single purpose of enabling myself to judge
rightly of art ... earnestly desiring to ascertain, and
_to be able to teach_, the truth respecting art; also
knowing that this truth was _by time and labour_
definitely ascertainable."--Prof. RUSKIN: _Modern
Painters_, Vol. III.
"Thirdly, that TRUTHS OF COLOUR ARE THE LEAST IMPORTANT
OF ALL TRUTHS."--Mr. RUSKIN, Prof, of Art: _Modern
Painters_, Vol. I. Chap. V.
"And that colour is indeed a most unimportant
characteristic of objects, would be further evident on
the slightest consideration. The colour of plants is
constantly changing with the season ... but the nature
and essence of the thing are independent of these
changes. An oak is an oak, whether green with spring, or
red with winter; a dahlia is a dahlia, whether it be
yellow or crimson; and if some monster hunting florist
should ever frighten the flower blue, still it will be a
dahlia; but not so if the same arbitrary changes could
be effected in its form. Let the roughness of the bark
and the angles of the boughs be smoothed or diminished,
and the oak ceases to be an oak; but let it retain its
universal structure and outward form, and though its
leaves grow white, or pink, or blue, or tri-colour, it
would be a white oak, or a pink oak, or a republican
oak, but an oak still."--JOHN RUSKIN, Esq., M.A.,
Teacher and Slade Prof. of Fine Arts: _Modern
Painters_.]
No Artist could obtain fame, except through criticism.[3]
[Note 3: "Canaletto, had he been a great painter,
might have cast his reflections wherever he chose ...
but he is a little and a bad painter."--Mr. RUSKIN, Art
Critic.
"I repeat there is nothing but the work of Prout which
is true, living, or right in its general impression, and
nothing, therefore, so inexhaustively _agreeable_"
(sic).--J. RUSKIN, Art Professor: _Modern Painters_.]
... As to these pictures, they could only come to the conclusion that
they were strange fantastical conceits, not worthy to be called works
of Art.
... Coming to the libel, the Attorney-General said it had been
contended that Mr. Ruskin was not justified in interfering with a
man's livelihood. But why not? Then it was said, "Oh! you have
ridiculed Mr. Whistler's pictures." If Mr. Whistler disliked ridicule,
he should not have subjected himself to it by exhibiting publicly such
productions. If a man thought a picture was a daub[4] he had a right
to say so, without subjecting himself to a risk of an action.
[Note 4: "Now it is evident that in Rembrandt's
system, while the contrasts are not more right than with
Veronese, the colours are all wrong from beginning to
end."--JOHN RUSKIN, Art Authority.]
[Sidenote: _REFLECTION:_
"In conduct and in conversation,
It did a sinner good to hear
Him deal in ratiocination!"
[Illustration]]
He would not be able to call Mr. Ruskin, as he was far too ill to
attend; but, if he had been able to appear, he would have given
his opinion of Mr. Whistler's work in the witness-box.
He had the highest appreciation for _completed pictures_;[5] and he
required from an Artist that he should possess something more than a
few flashes of genius![6]
[Note 5: "I was pleased by a little unpretending
modern German picture at Dusseldorf, by Bosch,
representing a boy carving a model of his sheep dog in
wood."--J. RUSKIN: _Modern Painters_.]
[Note 6: "I have just said that every class of rock,
earth and cloud must be known by the painter with
geologic and meteorologic accuracy."--Slade Prof.
RUSKIN: _Modern Painters_.]
[Sidenote: _REFLECTION:_
"Be not righteous overmuch, neither make thyself
overwise; why shouldest thou destroy thyself!"
[Illustration]]
Mr. Ruskin entertaining those views, it was not wonderful that his
attention should be attracted to Mr. Whistler's pictures. He subjected
the pictures, if they chose,[7] to ridicule and contempt. Then Mr.
Ruskin spoke of "the ill-educated[8] conceit of the artist, so nearly
approaching the action of imposture." If his pictures were mere
extravagances, how could it redound to the credit of Mr. Whistler to
send them to the Grosvenor Gallery to be exhibited? Some artistic
gentleman from Manchester, Leeds, or Sheffield might perhaps be
induced to buy one of the pictures because it was a Whistler, and what
Mr. Ruskin meant was that he might better have remained in Manchester,
Sheffield, or Leeds, with his money in his pocket. It was said that
the term "ill-educated conceit" ought never to have been applied to
Mr. Whistler, who had devoted the whole of his life to educating
himself in Art;[9] but Mr. Ruskin's views[10] as to his success did
not accord with those of Mr. Whistler. The libel complained of said
also, "I never expected to hear a coxcomb ask two hundred guineas for
flinging a pot of paint in the public's face." What was a coxcomb?
He had looked the word up, and found that it came from the old idea of
the licensed jester who wore a cap and bells with a cock's comb in it,
who went about making jests for the amusement of his master and
family. If that were the true definition, then Mr. Whistler should not
complain, because his pictures had afforded a most amusing jest! _He
did not know when so much amusement had been afforded to the[11]
British Public as by Mr. Whistler's pictures._ He had now finished.
Mr. Ruskin had lived a long life without being attacked, and no one
had attempted to control his pen through the medium of a jury. Mr.
Ruskin said, through him, as his counsel, that he did not retract one
syllable of his criticism, believing it was right. Of course, if they
found a verdict against Mr. Ruskin, he would have to cease
writing,[12] but it would be an evil day for Art, in this country,
when Mr. Ruskin would be prevented from indulging in legitimate and
proper criticism, by pointing out what was beautiful and what was
not.[13]
[Note 7: "Vulgarity, dulness, or impiety will indeed
always express themselves through art, in brown and
gray, as in Rembrandt."--Prof. JOHN RUSKIN: _Modern
Painters_.]
[Note 8: "It is physically impossible, for instance,
rightly to draw certain forms of the upper clouds with a
brush; nothing will do it but the palette knife with
loaded white after the blue ground is prepared."--JOHN
RUSKIN, Prof. of Painting.]
[Note 9: "And thus we are guided, almost forced, by
the laws of nature, to do right in art. Had granite been
white and marble speckled (and why should this not have
been, but by the definite Divine appointment for the
good of man?), the huge figures of the Egyptian would
have been as oppressive to the sight as cliffs of snow,
and the Venus de Medicis would have looked like some
exquisitely graceful species of frog."--Slade Professor
JOHN RUSKIN.]
[Note 10: "The principal object in the foreground of
Turner's 'Building of Carthage' is a group of children
sailing toy boats. The exquisite choice of this incident
... is quite as appreciable when it is told, as when it
is seen--it has nothing to do with the technicalities of
painting; ... such a thought as this is something far
above all art."--JOHN RUSKIN, Art Professor: _Modern
Painters_.]
[Note 11: "It is especially to be remembered that
drawings of this simple character [Prout's and W.
Hunt's] were made for these same middle classes,
exclusively; and even for the second order of middle
classes, more accurately expressed by the term
'bourgeoisie.' They gave an unquestionable tone of
liberal-mindedness to a suburban villa, and were the
cheerfullest possible decorations for a moderate sized
breakfast parlour, opening on a nicely mown lawn."--JOHN
RUSKIN, Art Professor: _Notes on S. Prout and W. Hunt_.]
[Note 12: "It seems to me, and seemed always
probable, that I might have done much more good in some
other way."--Prof. JOHN RUSKIN, Art Teacher: _Modern
Painters_, Vol. V.]
[Note 13: "Give thorough examination to the
wonderful painting, _as such_, in the great Veronese ...
and then, for contrast with its reckless power, and for
final image to be remembered of sweet Italian art in its
earnestness ... the Beata Catherine Vigri's St. Ursula,
... I will only say in closing, as I said of the Vicar's
picture in beginning, that it would be well if any of us
could do such things nowadays--and more especially if
our vicars and young ladies could."--JOHN RUSKIN, Prof.
of Fine Art: _Guide to Principal Pictures_, _Academy of
Fine Arts_, _Venice_.]
Evidence was then called on behalf of the defendant. Witnesses for the
defendant, Messrs. Edward Burne-Jones, Frith, and Tom Taylor.
Mr. EDWARD BURNE-JONES called.
Mr. BOWEN, by way of presenting him properly to the consideration
of the Court, proceeded to read extracts of eulogistic appreciation of
this artist from the defendant's own writings.
[Sidenote: "Of the estimate which shall be formed of Mr.
Jones's own work....
"His work, first, is simply the only art-work at present
produced in England which will be received by the future
as 'classic' in its kind--the best that has been or
could be."--Prof. RUSKIN: _Fors Clavigera_, July 2,
1877.]
The examination of witness then commenced; and in answer to Mr. BOWEN,
Mr. JONES said: "I am a painter, and have devoted about twenty years
to the study. I have painted various works, including the 'Days of
Creation' and 'Venus's Mirror,' both of which were exhibited at the
Grosvenor Gallery in 1877. I have also exhibited 'Deferentia,'
'Fides,' 'St. George,' and 'Sybil.' I have one work, 'Merlin and
Vivian,' now being exhibited in Paris. In my opinion complete finish
ought to be the object of all artists. A picture ought not to fall
short of what has been for ages considered complete finish."
Mr. BOWEN: "Do you see any art quality in that nocturne, Mr. Jones?"
Mr. JONES: "Yes ... I must speak the truth, you know".... (_Emotion._)
Mr. BOWEN: ... "Yes. Well, Mr. Jones, what quality do you see in it?"
Mr. JONES: "Colour. It has fine colour, and atmosphere."
Mr. BOWEN: "Ah. Well, do you consider detail and composition essential
to a work of Art?"
Mr. JONES: "Most certainly I do."
Mr. BOWEN: "Then what detail and composition do you find in this
nocturne?"
Mr. JONES: "Absolutely none."[14]
[Note 14: _REFLECTION:_
There is a cunning condition of mind that _requires to
know_. On the Stock Exchange this insures safe
investment. In the painting trade this would induce
certain picture-makers to cross the river at noon, in a
boat, before negotiating a Nocturne, in order to make
sure of detail on the bank, that honestly the purchaser
might exact, and out of which he might have been tricked
by the Night!
[Illustration]]
Mr. BOWEN: "Do you think two hundred guineas a large price for that
picture?"
Mr. JONES: "Yes. When you think of the amount of earnest work done for
a smaller sum."
Examination continued: "Does it show the finish of a complete work of
art?"
[Sidenote: "The action of imagination of the highest
power in Burne Jones, under the conditions of
scholarship, of social beauty, and of social distress,
which necessarily aid, thwart, and colour it in the
nineteenth century, are alone in art,--unrivalled in
their kind; and I _know_ that these will be immortal, as
the best things the mid-nineteenth century in England
could do, in such true relations as it had, through all
confusion, retained with the paternal and everlasting
Art of the world."--JOHN RUSKIN, LL.D.: _Fors
Clavigera_, July 2, 1877.]
"Not in any sense whatever. The picture representing a night scene on
Battersea Bridge, is good in colour, but bewildering in form; and it
has no composition and detail. A day or a day and a half seems a
reasonable time within which to paint it. It shows no finish--it is
simply a sketch. The nocturne in black and gold has not the merit of
the other two pictures, and it would be impossible to call it a
serious work of art. Mr. Whistler's picture is only one of the
thousand failures to paint night. The picture is not worth two hundred
guineas."
Mr. BOWEN here proposed to ask the witness to look at a picture of
Titian,[15] in order to show what finish was.[16]
[Note 15: "I believe the world may see another
Titian, and another Raffaelle, before it sees another
Rubens."--Mr. RUSKIN.]
[Note 16: ... "The Butcher's Dog, in the corner of
Mr. Mulready's 'Butt,' displays, perhaps, the most
wonderful, because the most dignified, finish ... and
assuredly the most perfect unity of drawing and colour
which the entire range of ancient and modern art can
exhibit. Albert Durer is, indeed, the only rival who
might be suggested."--JOHN RUSKIN Slade Professor of
Art: _Modern Painters_.]
Mr. SERJEANT PARRY objected.
Mr. BARON HUDDLESTON: "You will have to prove that it is a Titian."
Mr. BOWEN: "I shall be able to do that."
Mr. BARON HUDDLESTON: "That can only be by repute. I do not want
to raise a laugh, but there is a well-known case of 'an undoubted'
Titian being purchased with a view to enabling students and others to
find out how to produce his wonderful colours. With that object the
picture was rubbed down, and they found a red surface, beneath which
they thought was the secret, but on continuing the rubbing they
discovered a full length portrait of George III. in uniform!"
The witness was then asked to look at the picture, and he said: "It is
a portrait of Doge Andrea Gritti, and I believe it is a real Titian.
It shows finish. It is a very perfect sample of the highest finish of
ancient art.[17] The flesh is perfect, the modelling of the face is
round and good. That is an 'arrangement in flesh and blood!'"
[Note 17: ... "I feel entitled to point out that the
picture by Titian, produced in the case of Whistler _v._
Ruskin, is an early specimen of that master, and does
not represent adequately the style and qualities which
have obtained for him his great reputation--one obvious
point of difference between this and his more mature
work being the far greater amount of finish--I do not
say completeness--exhibited in it ... and as the picture
was brought forward with a view to inform the jury as to
the nature of the work of the greatest painter, and more
especially as to the high finish introduced in it, it is
evident that it was calculated to produce an erroneous
impression on their minds, if indeed any one present at
the inquiry can hold that those gentlemen were in any
way fitted to understand the issues raised therein.--I
am, Sir, your obedient servant,
A. MOORE.
"Nov. 28."
Extract of a letter to the Editor of the _Echo_.]
The witness having pointed out the excellences of that portrait, said:
"I think Mr. Whistler had great powers at first, which he has not
since justified. He has evaded the difficulties of his art, because
the difficulty of an artist increases every day of his professional
life."
Cross-examined: "What is the value of this picture of Titian?"--"That
is a mere accident of the saleroom."
"Is it worth one thousand guineas?"--"It would be worth many
thousands to me."
[Sidenote: "It was just a toss up whether I became an
Artist or an Auctioneer."--W. P. FRITH, R.A.
_REFLECTION:_
He must have tossed up.
[Illustration]]
Mr. FRITH was then examined: "I am an R.A.; and have devoted my life
to painting. I am a member of the Academies of various countries. I am
the author of the 'Railway Station,' 'Derby Day,' and 'Rake's
Progress.' I have seen Mr. Whistler's pictures, and in my opinion they
are not serious works of art. The nocturne in black and gold is not a
serious work to me. I cannot see anything of the true representation
of water and atmosphere in the painting of 'Battersea Bridge.' There
is a pretty colour which pleases the eye, but there is nothing more.
To my thinking, the description of moonlight is not true. The picture
is not worth two hundred guineas. Composition and detail are most
important matters in a picture. In our profession men of equal merit
differ as to the character of a picture. One may blame, while another
praises, a work. I have not exhibited at the Grosvenor Gallery. I have
read Mr. Ruskin's works."
[Sidenote: _REFLECTION:_
A decidedly honest man--I have not heard of him since.
[Illustration]]
Mr. Frith here got down.
Mr. TOM TAYLOR--Poor Law Commissioner, Editor of _Punch_, and so
forth--and so forth:--"I am an art critic of long standing. I have
been engaged in this capacity by the _Times_, and other journals, for
the last twenty years. I edited the 'Life of Reynolds,' and 'Haydon.'
I have _always_ studied art. I have seen these pictures of Mr.
Whistler's when they were exhibited at the Dudley and the Grosvenor
Galleries. The 'Nocturne' in black and gold I do not think a serious
work of art." The witness here took from the pockets of his overcoat
copies of the _Times_, and with the permission of the Court, read
again with unction his own criticism, to every word of which he said
he still adhered. "All Mr. Whistler's work is unfinished. It is
sketchy. He, no doubt, possesses artistic qualities, and he has got
appreciation of qualities of tone, but he is not complete, and all his
works are in the nature of sketching. I have expressed, and still
adhere to the opinion, that these pictures only come 'one step nearer
pictures than a delicately tinted wall-paper.'"
[Sidenote: _REFLECTION:_
To perceive in Ruskin's army Tom Taylor, his
champion--whose opinion he prizes--Mr. Frith, his
ideal--was gratifying. But to sit and look at Mr. Burne
Jones, in common cause with Tom Taylor--whom he esteems,
and Mr. Frith--whom he respects--conscientiously
appraising the work of a _confrère_--was a privilege!!
[Illustration]]
This ended the case for the defendant.
Verdict for plaintiff. Damages one farthing.
[Illustration]
_Professor Ruskin's Group_
My dear Sambourne--I know I shall be only charmed, as I always am, by
your work, and if I am myself its subject, I shall only be flattered
in addition.
[Sidenote: _The World_, Dec. 11, 1878.]
[Sidenote: A pleasant _résumé_ of the situation--in
reply to Mr. Sambourne's expressed hope that his
historical cartoon in _Punch_ might not offend.]
_Punch_ in person sat upon me in the box; why should not the most
subtle of his staff have a shot? Moreover, whatever delicacy and
refinement Tom Taylor may still have left in his pocket (from which,
in Court, he drew his ammunition) I doubt not he will urge you to use,
that it may not be wasted. Meanwhile you must not throw away sentiment
upon what you call "this trying time."
To have brought about an "Arrangement in Frith, Jones, _Punch_ and
Ruskin, with a touch of Titian," is a joy! and in itself sufficient to
satisfy even my craving for curious "combinations."--Ever yours,
[Illustration]
_Whistler v. Ruskin_
_ART & ART CRITICS_
[Illustration]
_Chelsea, Dec. 1878._
[Illustration]
_Dedicated to_
_ALBERT MOORE_
_Whistler v. Ruskin: Art and Art Critics_
The _fin mot_ and spirit of this matter seems to have been utterly
missed, or perhaps willingly winked at, by the journals in their
comments. Their correspondents have persistently, and not unnaturally
as writers, seen nothing beyond the immediate case in law--viz., the
difference between Mr. Ruskin and myself, culminating in the libel
with a verdict for the plaintiff.
Now the war, of which the opening skirmish was fought the other day in
Westminster, is really one between the brush and the pen; and involves
literally, as the Attorney-General himself hinted, the absolute
"raison d'être" of the critic. The cry, on their part, of "Il faut
vivre," I most certainly meet, in this case, with the appropriate
answer, "Je n'en vois pas la nécessité."
Far from me, at that stage of things, to go further into this
discussion than I did, when, cross-examined by Sir John Holker,
I contented myself with the general answer, "that one might admit
criticism when emanating from a man who had passed his whole life in
the science which he attacks." The position of Mr. Ruskin as an art
authority we left quite unassailed during the trial. To have said that
Mr. Ruskin's pose among intelligent men, as other than a _littérateur_
is false and ridiculous, would have been an invitation to the stake;
and to be burnt alive, or stoned before the verdict, was not what I
came into court for.
Over and over again did the Attorney-General cry out aloud, in the
agony of his cause, "What is to become of painting if the critics
withhold their lash?"
As well might he ask what is to become of mathematics under similar
circumstances, were they possible. I maintain that two and two the
mathematician would continue to make four, in spite of the whine of
the amateur for three, or the cry of the critic for five. We are told
that Mr. Ruskin has devoted his long life to art, and as a result--is
"Slade Professor" at Oxford. In the same sentence, we have thus his
position and its worth. It suffices not, Messieurs! a life passed
among pictures makes not a painter--else the policeman in the National
Gallery might assert himself. As well allege that he who lives in a
library must needs die a poet. Let not Mr. Ruskin flatter himself
that more education makes the difference between himself and the
policeman when both stand gazing in the Gallery.
There they might remain till the end of time; the one decently silent,
the other saying, in good English, many high-sounding empty things,
like the cracking of thorns under a pot--undismayed by the presence of
the Masters with whose names he is sacrilegiously familiar; whose
intentions he interprets, whose vices he discovers with the facility
of the incapable, and whose virtues he descants upon with a verbosity
and flow of language that would, could he hear it, give Titian the
same shock of surprise that was Balaam's, when the first great critic
proffered his opinion.
This one instance apart, where collapse was immediate, the creature
Critic is of comparatively modern growth--and certainly, in perfect
condition, of recent date. To his completeness go qualities evolved
from the latest lightnesses of to-day--indeed, the _fine fleur_ of his
type is brought forth in Paris, and beside him the Englishman is but
rough-hewn and blundering after all; though not unkindly should one
say it, as reproaching him with inferiority resulting from chances
neglected.
The truth is, as compared with his brother of the Boulevards, the
Briton was badly begun by nature.
To take himself seriously is the fate of the humbug at home, and
destruction to the jaunty career of the art critic, whose essence of
success lies in his strong sense of his ephemeral existence, and his
consequent horror of _ennuyer_ing his world--in short, to perceive the
joke of life is rarely given to our people, whilst it forms the
mainspring of the Parisian's _savoir plaire_. The finesse of the
Frenchman, acquired in long loafing and clever _café_ cackle--the glib
go and easy assurance of the _petit crevé_, combined with the _chic_
of great habit--the brilliant _blague_ of the ateliers--the aptitude
of their _argot_--the fling of the _Figaro_, and the knack of short
paragraphs, which allows him to print of a picture "C'est bien écrit!"
and of a subject, "C'est bien dit!"--these are elements of an
_ensemble_ impossible in this island.
Still, we are "various" in our specimens, and a sense of progress is
noticeable when we look about among them.
Indications of their period are perceptible, and curiously enough a
similarity is suggested, by their work, between themselves and the
vehicles we might fancy carrying them about to their livelihood.
Tough old Tom, the busy City 'Bus, with its heavy jolting and many
halts; its steady, sturdy, stodgy continuance on the same old much
worn way, every turning known, and freshness unhoped for; its patient
dreary dulness of daily duty to its cheap company--struggling on to
its end, nevertheless, and pulling up at the Bank! with a flourish
from the driver, and a joke from the cad at the door.
Then the contributors to the daily papers: so many hansoms bowling
along that the moment may not be lost, and the _à propos_ gone for
ever. The one or two broughams solemnly rolling for reviews, while the
lighter bicycle zigzags irresponsibly in among them for the happy
Halfpennies.
What a commerce it all is, to be sure!
No sham in it either!--no "bigod nonsense!" they are all "doing
good"--yes, they all do good to Art. Poor Art! what a sad state the
slut is in, an these gentlemen shall help her. The artist alone, by
the way, is to no purpose, and remains unconsulted; his work is
explained and rectified without him, by the one who was never in
it--but upon whom God, always good, though sometimes careless, has
thrown away the knowledge refused to the author--poor devil!
The Attorney-General said, "There are some people who would do away
with critics altogether."
I agree with him, and am of the irrationals he points at--but let
me be clearly understood--the _art_ critic alone would I extinguish.
That writers should destroy writings to the benefit of writing is
reasonable. Who but they shall insist upon beauties of literature, and
discard the demerits of their brother _littérateurs_? In their turn
they will be destroyed by other writers, and the merry game goes on
till truth prevail. Shall the painter then--I foresee the
question--decide upon painting? Shall _he_ be the critic and sole
authority? Aggressive as is this supposition, I fear that, in the
length of time, his assertion alone has established what even the
gentlemen of the quill accept as the canons of art, and recognise as
the masterpieces of work.
Let work, then, be received in silence, as it was in the days to which
the penmen still point as an era when art was at its apogee. And here
we come upon the oft-repeated apology of the critic for existing at
all, and find how complete is his stultification. He brands himself as
the necessary blister for the health of the painter, and writes that
he may do good to his art. In the same ink he bemoans the decadence
about him, and declares that the best work was done when he was not
there to help it. No! let there be no critics! they are not a
"necessary evil," but an evil quite unnecessary, though an evil
certainly.
Harm they do, and not good.
Furnished as they are with the means of furthering their foolishness,
they spread prejudice abroad; and through the papers, at their
service, thousands are warned against the work they have yet to look
upon.
And here one is tempted to go further, and show the crass idiocy and
impertinence of those whose dicta are printed as law.
How he of the _Times_[18] has found Velasquez "slovenly in execution,
poor in colour--being little but a combination of neutral greys and
ugly in its forms"--how he grovelled in happiness over a Turner--that
was no Turner at all, as Mr. Ruskin wrote to show--Ruskin! whom he has
since defended. Ah! Messieurs, what our neighbours call "la malice des
choses" was unthought of, and the sarcasm of fate was against you. How
Gerard Dow's broom was an example for the young; and Canaletti and
Paul Veronese are to be swept aside--doubtless with it. How Rembrandt
is coarse, and Carlo Dolci noble--with more of this kind. But what
does it matter?
[Note 18: June 6, 1874]
"What does anything matter!" The farce will go on, and its solemnity
adds to the fun.
Mediocrity flattered at acknowledging mediocrity, and mistaking
mystification for mastery, enters the fog of dilettantism, and,
graduating connoisseur, ends its days in a bewilderment of bric-à-brac
and Brummagem!
"Taste" has long been confounded with capacity, and accepted as
sufficient qualification for the utterance of judgment in music,
poetry, and painting. Art is joyously received as a matter of opinion;
and that it should be based upon laws as rigid and defined as those of
the known sciences, is a supposition no longer to be tolerated by
modern cultivation. For whereas no polished member of society is at
all affected at admitting himself neither engineer, mathematician, nor
astronomer, and therefore remains willingly discreet and taciturn upon
these subjects, still would he be highly offended were he supposed to
have no voice in what is clearly to him a matter of "Taste"; and so he
becomes of necessity the backer of the critic--the cause and result of
his own ignorance and vanity! The fascination of this pose is too much
for him, and he hails with delight its justification. Modesty and good
sense are revolted at nothing, and the millennium of "Taste" sets in.
The whole scheme is simple: the galleries are to be thrown open on
Sundays, and the public, dragged from their beer to the British
Museum, are to delight in the Elgin Marbles, and appreciate what
the early Italians have done to elevate their thirsty souls! An inroad
into the laboratory would be looked upon as an intrusion; but before
the triumphs of Art, the expounder is at his ease, and points out the
doctrine that Raphael's results are within the reach of any beholder,
provided he enrol himself with Ruskin or hearken to Colvin in the
provinces. The people are to be educated upon the broad basis of
"Taste," forsooth, and it matters but little what "gentleman and
scholar" undertake the task.
Eloquence alone shall guide them--and the readiest writer or wordiest
talker is perforce their professor.
The Observatory at Greenwich under the direction of an Apothecary! The
College of Physicians with Tennyson as President! and we know that
madness is about. But a school of art with an accomplished
_littérateur_ at its head disturbs no one! and is actually what the
world receives as rational, while Ruskin writes for pupils, and Colvin
holds forth at Cambridge.