Ruskin vs. Whistler: The Case against Capitalist Art Author(s): David Craven Source: Art Journal, Vol. 37, No. 2 (Winter, 1977-1978), pp. 139-143 Published by: College Art Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/776183 . Accessed: 27/12/2013 11:25 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Art Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 129.171.178.62 on Fri, 27 Dec 2013 11:25:36 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ruskin
Against
vs.
Whistler: The Capitalist Art
Case
DAVID CRAVEN Labeled by Kenneth Clark "a sad irony,"' the position of John Ruskin in the trial with James McNeill Whistler is considered to be more notorious than noteworthy. Robin Ironside's view which appeared in the March, 1975 issue of Apollo is indicative of this interpretation: ... in the light of his [Ruskin's] response to Turner's final manner, the obscurity of which his own keen eye found to be 'darkwith excess of light,' his fury over Whistler must be seen again as characteristicallyinconsistent rather than as furnishing any ground for reproaches against the general quality of his perception.2 Though his appreciation of Ruskin's art criticism is admirable, Ironside's essay is incorrect on this matter. It perpetuates the generally accepted idea that in this suit Ruskin was guilty of infidelity to those of his principles which had earlier fostered an understanding of Turner. In fact, as the following article will show, John Ruskin's position was not ill-considered, but quite consistent with his reflections on art and economics. As has been noted by George Landow, a failure to perceive the context of this Victorian writer's ideas has led critics to charge Ruskin with unmerited inconsistency.3 The proper setting for Ruskin's comments will be reconstructed in this essay. From Ruskin's criticism in the July, 1877 issue of Fors Clavigera to the last witness on behalf of the defense in the ensuing trial, Whistler's paintings were berated for their lack of "finish." The article which prompted Whistler's suit initiated the charge: "I have seen and heard much of cockney impudence before now, but never expected to hear a coxcomb ask 200 guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public's face."4 In light of Ruskin's views on art as presented in his other books, this assessment at first appears somewhat capricious. It is ironic that the very point which caused Ruskin to champion Turner seemingly led to his censure of Whistler.
Turner's paintings were, according to the Literary Gazette in May, 1842, produced "as if by throwing handfuls of white, blue, and red at the canvas, and letting that would stick, stick."5 Similarly, Whistler's works were described by Tom Taylor, a witness for the defense, as being only one step nearer paintings than "delicately tinted wall paper."6 This statement corresponds to the comparison of Turner's works with tinted steam by William Hazlitt who wrote, "The utter want of a capacity to draw a distinct outline with the force, the depth, the fulness, and precision of this artist's eye for colour, is truly astonishing."7 Even as late as 1877, Henry James was to interject in a review which mentioned Turner's Rain, Steam, and Speed "if that is just the title,"8 thus implying that the painter was describing his technique, rather than the subject depicted. Edward Burne-Jones, an artist lauded by Ruskin as a future classic and designated by James as the head of the English painters, served as a witness for the defense. While praising Whistler's use of color and his ability to render atmosphere, he concluded that his paintings were hardly more than beginnings, hence, markedly deficient in finish. Titian's portrait of Doge Andrea Gritti (Fig. 1) was then shown to Jones who termed it a perfect example of the highest finish of ancient art. Having asserted this, he added that while Whistler was exceedingly talented, he had avoided "the difficulties of ancient art."9 The choice of this particular painting by Titian, done before his late style was developed, apparently represents a paradox all too evident when Giorgio Vasari, Titian's younger contemporary, is quoted. It is true that his [Titian's]way of working in his last pictures is very different from that of his youth. For his first works were finished with great diligence, and may be viewed from near or far, but the last are worked with great patches of color, so that they cannot be seen near, while at a great distance they look perfect. This is the reason that many think they are done without any trouble, but this is not true.10
WINTER 1977/78
139
This content downloaded from 129.171.178.62 on Fri, 27 Dec 2013 11:25:36 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fig. 1. Titian, Doge Andrea Gritti,c. 1540.
During the trial the defense expressed reservations concerning the time Whistler needed to paint a picture-two days in the case of the Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket (Fig. 2). Ruskin, however, had earlier written, "if a great thing can be done at all, it can be done easily ... if a man can compose at all, he can compose at once."1 To emphasize his point he noted a masterful drawing by Turner which had been finished in three hours.12 Throughout Ruskin's entire "oeuvre," his position on the matter of finish is far from equivocal. Commencing with volume one of Modern Painters, he consistently maintained that unfinished works were frequently superior to finished paintings. He wrote in this, his first major book, that three strokes by Raphael were preferable to a finished picture by Dolci. A completed work was deemed superior to a sketch only when the color and other means of realization were employed to amplify the impressiveness of the thought. If, however, the thoughts were diluted by details, the price of this finish would have been too high.13 Ruskin favored an underfinished work to an overfinished one. As a result, Leonardo's landscapes were considered excessively detailed, with their effects verging on the ornamental. Canaletto's works received a far harsher reception, being derisively characterized as colored Daguerreotypeism. Yet the Yorkshire drawings which he thought of as one of the culminating points in Turner's career, were, according
Fig. 2. James McNeill Whistler, Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket, oil on wood panel, c. 1874. (DetroitInstitute of Arts.)
to Ruskin, "little more than exquisite studies in light and shade."14 Bernard Berenson drew an analogy a few years later involving Whistler which could have passed for a eulogy of Turner. Labeling the Milanese painter Borgognone a Renaissance Whistler, he noted that the Italian artist had the same passion for tonalities and harmonies as the "exquisite American."'5 Of concern to the defense in the trial was the lack of distinctness in Whistler's nocturnes, especially the one of Battersea Bridge. In volume four of Modern Painters, though, Ruskin had made an appeal to nature to defend Turner's paintings from being labeled as indistinct: "WE NEVERSEE ANYTHING CLEARLY... What we call seeing a thing clearly, is only seeing enough of it to make out what it is . . ."16 These statements concerning the nature of finish so consistent with Turner's work and so seemingly antithetical to Pre-Raphaelite paintings necessitate a question concerning Burne-Jones' testimony. While Ruskin favored the Brotherhood from the start, he did not do so without reservationsone of which concerned finish. On this point Ruskin considered the movement deficient. The habit of constantly carryingeverything up to the utmost point of completion deadens the Pre-Raphaelitesin general to the merits of men who, with an equal love of truth up to a certain point, yet express themselves habituallywith speed ... rather than finish ... this is the most to be regretted ART JOURNAL, XXXVII/2
140
This content downloaded from 129.171.178.62 on Fri, 27 Dec 2013 11:25:36 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fig. 3. J. M. W. Turner, The Slave Ship-Slavers ThrowingOverboard the Dead and DyingTyphon[sic] Coming on, R.A. 1840. (Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.)
because the Pre-Raphaelites... do not yet themselves know of how much they would be capable, if they sometimes worked on a largerscale, and with a less laboriousfinish.17 The movement from which Burne-Jones derived the basic aspects of his style was, according to Ruskin, least skillful in the matter of finish-the very trait about which this painter testified against Whistler. This fact coupled with the aforementioned passages from Ruskin's works would seem to substantiate the generally accepted opinion, recently restated in Ironside's essay, that he was arbitrary in his position toward Whistler. In fact, however, the reverse is true. Ruskin can be exonerated from the charge of inconsistency by the recognition that he regularly employed in his writings two completely divergent definitions for the word "finish." In one sense he used it to refer to the technical finish, that is, the degree of linearity in a painting. Here he found the PreRaphaelites at fault, because they were unduly careful with detail. In the other sense he used it to refer to the conceptual finish, that is, the number of external intellectual associations entailed in a painting. Here he found Whistler deficient. An incident concerning Henry James illustrates Ruskin's attitude. In viewing the paintings of Winslow Homer, examples of what he called perfect realism, James found them incomplete. Homer had chosen what the urbane expatriate considered the least pictorial and literary elements of civilization. Regardless of how precisely rendered these pictures were, the result was what James termed a paucity of "intellectual detail."'8 In order for a painting to have had proper finish conceptually both for James and Ruskin, in contradistinction to Whistler who publicly disavowed such aims for his own works, it had to evoke associations with nature and literature. Now the connections envisioned by Ruskin between the
works of Turner and those of Burne-Jones are clear. However different they were in seeking technical finish, Turner and Burne-Jones were, in their desire for evocative overtones and literary allusions, as similar to each other as they were dissimilar from Whistler. In volume three of Modern Painters, Ruskin labeled as unintelligible and absurd the assertion that symbolism should not be employed in paintings.'9 Significantly, one of his most extensive analyses of the mythological content in a painting is of Turner's The Goddess of Discord Choosing the Apple of Contention in the Garden of the Hesperides. References to the Illiad and the Aeneid, as well as to Spenser's Faerie Queene, are cited by Ruskin.20 Similarly, Ruskin found Turner's seascapes and landscapes as fecund in associative values as his mythological works. Stating that the painter hardly ever painted even a piece of quiet water without some type of story in it, the English writer praised what he considered the noblest sea picture ever painted, Turner's Slave Ship (Fig. 3). Quite aside from its infinitely delicate modulations of color tonalities, the painting was admired for what it said about the forces of nature and the commerce in slaves. The picture's greatness stemmed from the sublimity of the ideas it expressed.21 In what sounds extremely prophetic of the fundamental confrontation between the views of Ruskin and those of Whistler, Ruskin wrote about Copley Fielding: But there is one point in all his seas deserving especial praise-a marked aim at "character."He desires, especially in his latter works, not so much to produce an agreeable picture, a scientific piece of arrangement,or delightful melody of color, as to make us feel the utter desolation, the cold, withering, frozen hopelessness of the continuous storm and merciless sea.22
WINTER 1977/78
141
This content downloaded from 129.171.178.62 on Fri, 27 Dec 2013 11:25:36 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fig. 4. James McNeill Whistler, Nocturne in Blue and Silver: Battersea Bridge, ca. 1872-1875.
Written almost three decades prior to the trial, this paragraph expresses the real reasons for the litigation. Ruskin both expressed his disapproval of the art for art's sake movement and reaffirmed his belief in the necessity of associative values. During the trial Whistler voiced a view that directly conflicted with Ruskin's. When asked if his Nocturne in Blue and Silver: Battersea Bridge (Fig. 4) was a correct representation of the bridge, a barge, etc., the American artist rejoined, "My whole scheme was only to bring about a certain harmony of colour."23 In a letter to The World on May 22, 1878, Whistler further advanced his thesis which strikingly anticipated Clive Bell's concept of "significant form." He lamented the fact that the vast majority of people could not appreciate a picture except for its dramatic or local interest. With characteristic felicity, he concluded, "As music is the poetry of sound, so is painting the poetry of sight, and the subject-matter has nothing to do with harmony of sound or of colour."24 Leader of the mythic school of painting among Whistler's contemporaries, according to Ruskin, was Edward BurneJones. Like Turner before him, Burne-Jones realized for his contemporaries the visions described by sages of the past,
thus unveiling "the hidden splendour of old imagination."25 In Ruskin's estimation his immense scholarship allowed him to present the loftiest associations conveyable. The affinity between Burne-Jones and Turner in this respect has been noted by George Landow in The Aesthetic and Critical Theories of John Ruskin when he stated the critic considered the category of modern mythological painter aptly descriptive of artists as different in style and thought as Turner, Hunt, Rossetti, and Burne-Jones.26 The similarity between Turner and Burne-Jones is as pronounced as their dissimilarity from Whistler, if Ruskin's socioeconomic interpretation of their relative merits is accepted. Though he never published it, Ruskin did compose "My Own Article on Whistler." Written shortly after the trial, it restated the definition he had given in volume one of Modern Painters that the relative value of a picture is contingent on the greatness of its ideas. He underscored this fact, since he thought the aim of many modern artists was ornamentation rather than edification. It was left for the critic to demand that the painter work with his head as well as with his hands, and to explain the distinction between Attic air and London fog.27 Implicit in his remarks is the association of Whistler's paintings with the vulgar commercialization fostered by laissez-faire capitalism. (Interestingly enough, Whistler in his lecture, "Ten O'Clock," attributed his lack of financial success to this same commercialization of society.) Since the artist's paintings were thus devoid of rich literary allusions, Ruskin interpreted them as reflections of the intellectual vacuity of an increasingly materialistic society. He considered Whistler's willful deletion of associative values to be yet another example of the effort to acquire wealth dishonestly-that is, without contributing to the betterment of society. Both Turner and Burne-Jones transmitted maxims derived from nature and mythology, so that, in Ruskin's opinion, they actually did seek to mitigate social ills. By condemning Whistler's paintings, Ruskin felt he was defending the art world against the debilitating effect of capitalism: It gives me no little pain to be compelled to point out, as the essential grounds of the present action, the confusion between art and manufacture,which, lately encouraged in the public mind by vulgar economists, has at last, in no small manner, degraded the productions even of distinguished genius into marketablecommodities, with the sale of which it is thought as unwarrantableto interfere as with the convenient dishonesties of populartrade.... The nineteenth century may perhaps economically pride itself on the adulterationof its products and the slackness of its industries. But it ought at least to instruct the pupils of its schools of Art ... that his [the artist's]fame should be founded on what he had given, not on what he had received.28 The implications here are clear. To Ruskin, Whistler's art represented manifestations of Adam Smith's economic system, while the art of Turner and Burne-Jones reflected a condemnation of this same system. In volume five of Modern Painters, Turner's Garden of the Hesperides is interpreted as a great document since it symbolizes the lamentable state of Victorian society in which the triumph of Mammon, the love of money, displaced all else. According to Ruskin, Turner's painting proclaimed the predominance of gross materialism,
142
ART JOURNAL, XXXVII/2
This content downloaded from 129.171.178.62 on Fri, 27 Dec 2013 11:25:36 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
"Here, in England, is our great spiritual fact for ever interpreted to us-the Assumption of the Dragon."29 One of the first to claim that the state of art delineates the cultural conditions from which it arises was Ruskin. As Arnold Hauser has written, he was also one of the first people in England to emphasize the cultivation of art as one of the most important tasks of the state.30 In the 1850s, Ruskin had graduated from the class of sheltered aesthete to that of quixotic social reformer. His politics became more idealistic, his art criticism more visionary. The concluding volume of Modern Painters reflects this transition, since in designating the audience to whom art should be addressed Ruskin anticipated Tolstoy's What is Art? In the working class publication Fors Clavigera, Ruskin wrote of Burne-Jones' paintings that they possessed "social beauty" and mirrored "social distress."31 As has been proved in this article, he interpreted these paintings as works of social commentary owing to an unlikely syllogism: A. Art should disseminate great ideas for the betterment of the average man. B. The mediaeval conceits of Burne-Jones depicted a wistful utopia comparable to the communist society Ruskin sought to establish through St. George's Guild. Ergo, C. The works of Burne-Jones disseminated great ideas for the betterment of the average man.
At the same time that Ruskin was proposing for St. George's Guild a directed readings program consisting of such authors as Chaucer and Dante, he was praising BurneJones' paintings for their value as social commentary and denigrating those of Whistler for their lack of it. Thus, only incorrectly could one conclude, as have Robin Ironside and others, that Ruskin's position with regard to Whistler was inconsistent with his own ideas. The real issue between Ruskin and Whistler was whether art should be committed to rectifying social ills or whether it should be created issue of increasing significance to conautonomously-an e temporary society.
1 Kenneth Clark, ed., Ruskin Today, New York, 1964, p. 206. 2 Robin Ironside, "The Art Criticism of Ruskin," Apollo, Cl, March, 1975, p. 164. 3 George Landow, The Aesthetic and Critical Theories of John Ruskin, Princeton, New Jersey, 1971, p. 24. 4 John Ruskin, Fors Clavigera, Vol. XXIX: The Works of John Ruskin, ed. by E. T. Cook and Alexander Wedderburn, London, 1907, p. 160. 5 Kenneth Clark, Ruskin Today, p. 206. 6 James McNeill Whistler, The Gentle Art of Making Enemies, introduction by Alfred Werner, New York, 1971, p. 12. 7 William Hazlitt, "Art and Drama Criticism," Vol. XVIII:The Complete Works of William Hazlitt, ed. by P. P. Howe, London, 1933, p. 14. 8 Henry James, The Painter's Eye, ed. by John L. Sweeney, Cambridge, 1956, p. 123. 9 Whistler, The Gentle Art, p. 16. 10 Giorgio Vasari, Lives of the Artists, trans. by E. L. Seely, New York, 1971, p. 276. 1 John Ruskin, Pre-Raphaelitism, London, 1906, p. 42. 12 Ibid. 13 John Ruskin, Modern Painters, Vol. I, New York, 1865, p. 11. 14 Ibid., p. 124. 15 Bernard Berenson, Painters of the Italian Renaissance, Vol. I, New York, 1971, pp. 84-85. 16 John Ruskin, Modern Painters, Vol. IV, New York, 1865, p. 55. 17 John Ruskin, Lectures on Architecture and Painting, Delivered at Edinburgh, in November, 1853, New York, 1889, p. 182. 18 James, The Painter's Eye, p. 97. 19John Ruskin, Modern Painters, Vol. III:The Works of John Ruskin, ed. by E. T. Cook and Alexander Wedderburn, London, 1904, p. 134. 20 John Ruskin, Modern Painters, Vol. VII:The Works of John Ruskin, ed. by E. T. Cook and Alexander Wedderburn, London, 1904, p. 404. 21 Ruskin, Modern Painters, Vol. I, p. 376-377. 22 Ibid., p. 346. 23 Whistler, The Gentle Art, p. 8. 24 Ibid., p. 127. 25 John Ruskin, The Art of England, Vol. XXXIII:The Works of John Ruskin, ed. by E. T. Cook and Alexander Wedderburn, London, 1908, p. 305. 26 Landow, The Aesthetic of John Ruskin, p. 449. 27 Ruskin, Fors Clavigera, Vol. 29, p. 587. 28 Ibid. 29 Ruskin, Modern Painters, Vol. VII, p. 408. 30 Arnold Hauser, The Social History of Art, Vol. II, trans. by Stanley Godman, New York, 1950, p. 820. 31 Ruskin, Fors Clavigera, p. 159. David Craven is a graduate student at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. This article grew out of a paper he wrote entitled As is Music so is Painting: the Aesthetics of Whistler.
143
WINTER 1977/78
This content downloaded from 129.171.178.62 on Fri, 27 Dec 2013 11:25:36 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions