Chapter 2

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!

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.

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.

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!!

This ended the case for the defendant.

Verdict for plaintiff. Damages one farthing.

_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,

_Whistler v. Ruskin_

_ART & ART CRITICS_

_Chelsea, Dec. 1878._

_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.