Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The Victorian art world and the beginnings of the aesthetic movement Boilesen, Elizabeth Louise 1975

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1975_A8 B63.pdf [ 51.23MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093415.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093415-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093415-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093415-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093415-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093415-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093415-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093415-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093415.ris

Full Text

H E V I C T O R I A N A R T VJORLJ A N D T U P B E G I N N I N G S CP" T H R A E S T H E T I C H C V K K C H T uy ELIZABETH LOUISE BCTLESEN B . A . J University of NeorasK.a> 1971 . THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of History We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September* 1975 In presenting th i s thes is in par t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make it f ree ly ava i lab le for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of th i s thesis for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives . It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t i on of th is thes is fo r f i nanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my writ ten pe rm i ss i on . Department of / - / / j TP £ ¥ The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1WS Date QcT. ft i i A B S T R A C T I n t h e l a t e 1870's E n g l i s h s o c i e t y w i t n e s s e d t h e r i s e o f t h e a e s t h e t i c m o v e m e n t * a p h e n o m e n o n w h i c h a f f e c t e d t h e a r t a n d l i t e r a r y w o r l d s a n d w h i c h w a s c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h e n a n d l a t e r a s t h e p u r s u i t o f a r t f o r a r t ' s s a k e . T h e n o t o r i e t y o f t h e m o v e m e n t a t t h e t i m e o b s c u r e d i t s e x a c t l i m i t s a n d t h e o r i g i n s o f i t s i d e a s a n d v a l u e s . T h e i n -t e l l e c t u a l a n d l i t e r a r y s i d e o f t h e m o v e m e n t , e s p e c i a l l y t h e i d e o l o g y o f a r t f o r a r t ' s s a k e * a t t r a c t e d m o s t n o t i c e a n d c o m m e n t * y e t t h e p l a s t i c a r t s o f p a i n t i n g a n d i n d u s t r i a l d e s i g n w e r e c r u c i a l t o t h e t h e o r i e s o f a e s t h e t i c i s m a n d i t s i m p a c t o n V i c t o r i a n c u l t u r e . T h i s t h e s i s e x a m i n e s t h o s e p l a s t i c a r t s * a n d t h e s o c i a l a n d e c o n o m i c c o n t e x t s i n w h i c h t h e y h a d a p l a c e * a n d t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e a e s t h e t i c m o v e m e n t . T h e a i m o f t h i s t h e s i s i s t o d e s c r i b e t h e c u l t u r a l c o n t e x t i n w h i c h t h e a e s t h e -t i c m o v e m e n t i n t h e a r t s d e v e l o p e d . T h e a e s t h e t i c m o v e m e n t c a m e a t a t i m e w h e n m o s t c r i t i c s w o u l d a g r e e t h a t V i c t o r i a n d e s i g n i n t h e f i n e a n d i n d u s t r i a l a r t s w a s a t a l o w p o i n t * a n d d i d m u c h t o s t i m u l a t e h i g h e r s t a n d a r d s i n b o t h f i e l d s . T h e r e a s o n s f o r t h i s f a i l u r e a n d s u b s e q u e n t r e c o v e r y h a v e b e e n i n c o m -p l e t e l y r e s e a r c h e d a n d , I t h i n k a s a r e s u l t , i n c o m p l e t e l y u n d e r s t o o d . T h e s o c i a l a n d e c o n o m i c c h a n g e s i n t h e f i n e a n d i n d u s t r i a l a r t w o r l d s f o r m a l a r g e p a r t o f t h i s s t u d y o u t o f n e c e s s i t y a n d i n d e a l i n g w i t h t h e m e c h a n i s m o f t h e a r t m a r k e t s , t h e c h a n g i n g s t a t u s o f t h e p a i n t e r , t h e r i s e o f t h e i n d u s t r i a l d e s i g n e r a n d t h e g r o w i n g a c t i v i t y o f t h e m i d d l e - c l a s s e s i n t h e a r t w o r l d , I h a v e a t t e m p t e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e a e s t h e t i c m o v e m e n t w a s m e r e l y a n o f f s h o o t o f a l a r g e r c u l t u r a l p r o b l e m * a p r o b l e m w h i c h t h e V i c t o r i a n s c o u l d n o t s o l v e . i l l B e h i n d t h e a e s t h e t i c m o v e m e n t w a s t h e p r o b l e m o f r e c o n c i l i n g t h e m e c h a n i s m a n d m e c h a n i s t i c r h y t h m s o f m o d e r n s o c i e t y w i t h a r t a n d t h e v a l u e s w h i c h a r t r e p r e s e n t e d , e s p e c i a l l y i n d i v i d u a l i s m , h u m a n i s m a n d t h e k n o w l e d g e o f l i f e s p r u n g o f f a i t h r a t h e r t h a n s c i e n c e . T h e s o l u t i o n s a n d c o m p r o m i s e s w h i c h e a r l i e r V i c t o r i a n s h a d a c c e p t e d w e r e n o l o n g e r p o s s i b l e t o m a n y p e o p l e i n t h e 1 8 7 0 ' s . iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction: 1 I: The Royal Academy and the Role of Styles in the Mid-Victorian Art World 15 II: The Crisis of the 1870's 94 III: Design Traditions in the Manufactured Arts 142 Conclusion 206 Bibliography 221 V I L L U S T R A T I O N S - F i g u r e 1. - T h e E x h i b i t i o n o f t h e R o y a l A c a d e m y a t S o m e r s e t H o u s e , TfEl (1787) 23 F i g u r e 2. C h a r l e s W e s t C o p e , T h e C o u n c i l o f t h e R o y a l A c a d e m y S e l e c t i n g P i c t u r e s f o r t h e E x h i b i t i o n , 1876 (1877) 24 F i g u r e 3. W . P . F r i t h , T h e P r i v a t e V i e w a t t h e R o y a l A c a d e m y , 1881 (1881) 26 F i g u r e 4. J o h n E . M i l l a i s , O p h e l i a (1852) 37 F i g u r e 5. W i l l i a m H o l m a n H u n t , S t r a y e d S h e e p (1852) 38 F i g u r e 6. W . P . F r i t h , T h e P r o p o s a l [ d e t a i l ] (1853) 41 F i g u r e 7. H . N . O ' N e i l , H o m e A g a i n , 1857 [ s e q u e l t o E a s t w a r d H o ! 18561 (18571 42 F i g u r e s - 8 , 9, 10. A u g u s t u s E g g , P a s t a n d P r e s e n t (1856) 44* 45* 46 F i g u r e 11. J o h n E . M i l l a i s , T h e R e s c u e (1855) 51 F i g u r e 12. W . P . F r i t h , T h e D e r b y D a y (1858) 52 F i g u r e 13. H e n r y B o w l e r , T h e D o u b t ; C a n T h e s e D r y B o n e s Y e t L i v e ? (1856) 53 F i g u r e 14. F r e d e r i c L e i g h t o n , C i m a b u e ' s M a d o n n a (1855) 55 F i g u r e 15. E d w a r d P o y n t e r , I s r a e l i n E g y p t (1867) 65 F i g u r e 16. A l b e r t M o o r e , A S u m m e r N i g h t (1890) 66 F i g u r e 17. L a u r e n c e A l m a - T a d e m a , T h e F a v o u r i t e P o e t (1888) 67 F i g u r e 18. E d w a r d P o y n t e r , T h e F o r t u n e - T e l l e r (1877) 73 F i g u r e 19. F r e d e r i c L e i g h t o n , F l a m i n g J u n e (1895) 74 F i g u r e 20. G . E . S t r e e t , P r o p o s e d L a w C o u r t s (1866) 77 F i g u r e 21. G . E . S t r e e t , L a w C o u r t s a s e x e c u t e d (1867) 78 F i g u r e 22. J a m e s W h i s t l e r , S y m p h o n y i n W h i t e , N o . I : T h e W h i t e G i r l (1862) 84 v i F i g u r e 2 3 . G e o r g e D u M a u r i e r , " I n t e l l e c t u a l E p i c u r e s , " P u n c h ( F e b r u a r y , 1876) 103 F i g u r e 24. G e o r g e D u M a u r i e r , " D i l e t t a n t i s m , " P u n c h ( J u n e , 1876) 104 F i g u r e 25. J a m e s W h i s t l e r , N o c t u r n e i n B l a c k a n d G o l d ; T h e F a l l i n g R o c k e t (1874) 115 F i g u r e 26. G e o r g e D u M a u r i e r , " M o d e r n A e s t h e t i c s , " P u n c h ( F e b r u a r y , 1877) 132 F i g u r e 27« G e o r g e D u M a u r i e r , " A e s t h e t i c P r i d e , " P u n c h ( S e p t e m b e r , 1879) 133 F i g u r e 28. W o r k i n g - c l a s s h o u s i n g , L o n d o n E a s t E n d (1860's-1880's) 158 F i g u r e 29. L o w e r - c l a s s h o u s i n g , f r o m t h e A r t J o u r n a l , V I (1855) 159 F i g u r e 30. H e n r y C o l e , T e a s e t (1848) 160 F i g u r e 31. F o r d M a d o x B r o w n , B e d r o o m f u r n i t u r e ( e a r l y 1860's) 161 F i g u r e 32. J a c o b y a n d C o . , N o t t i n g h a m , L a c e c u r t a i n (1853) 163 F i g u r e 33. M e s s r s . H u n t e r , L o n d o n , S i d e b o a r d (1851) 164 F i g u r e 34- J o h n B e l l , H a l l t a b l e (1855) 168 F i g u r e 35* H . D u e s b u r y , F i r e - p l a c e (1851) 169 F i g u r e 36. C h r i s t o p h e r D r e s s e r , " G r o w t h " (1865) 171 F i g u r e 37. G e o r g e A i t c h i s o n , A r a b H a l l , L e i g h t o n H o u s e (1867) 177 F i g u r e 38. E . G o d w i n , W h i t e H o u s e , C h e l s e a (1878) 178 F i g u r e 39« W i l l i a m M o r r i s , B e d r o o m a t K e l m s c o t t H o u s e (1888) 185 F i g u r e 4O..0 L e w i s F . D a y a n d B . J . T a l b e r t , D e s i g n s (1878) 186 F i g u r e 41• G e o r g e D u M a u r i e r , " A c u t e C h i n a m a n i a , " P u n c h ( J u l y , 1873) 191 F i g u r e 42. G e o r g e D u M a u r i e r , " A r t i n E x c e l s i s , " P u n c h ( D e c e m b e r , 1874) 192 v i i F i g u r e 43. W i l l i a m H o l m a n H u n t , T h e A w a k e n e d C o n s c i e n c e (1854) 196 F i g u r e 44. S o l o m o n J . S o l o m o n , C o n v e r s a t i o n P i e c e (1884) 197 1 The greatest d i f f i c u l t y which confronts a student of the aesthe-t i c movement i n Victorian England i s coming to grips with i t as a movement and understanding the essential coherence which that term implies. The histories of the movement with their various approaches do not describe the same ideals, people or events, so that there i s no precise and recognizable phenomenon to begin researching. The earliest historians of the movement, Oscar Wilde ("The English Renais-sance of Art," Works, Vol. 1, 1908, pp. 243-277.) and Walter Hamilton (The Aesthetic Movement i n England, 1882,) were f i r s t published i n 1882 when aestheticism was the object of ridicule and the fashion of the 1 day. Both were eager to emphasize the positive and reasonable side of aestheticism and they concentrated on the English traditions which seemed to support their view of art for art's sake. Wilde invoked Shelley and Keats as well as Ruskin, .andr Hamilton looked to the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, Ruskin, and the fleshly poets, D. G. Rossetti, William Morris and A. C. Swinburne. Yet their interpretations of art for art's sake, for a l l i t s ambiguity, did include an attack on Philistinism, the narrow utilitarianism and materialism of the middle-classes. They both included Ruskin i n their histories and praised him for his passionate crusade for art. Their histories show an aesthetic creed of art as a conquering force which, at that time, was beginning to transfigure the dull artifacts of modern l i f e with a hopeful and happy beauty. The foundation of their new art world was essentially democratic, i n that art was a popular concern, and, indeed, how could i t be otherwise with Wilde who related his history to the p towns of the American West? After 1882 the character of this a r t i s t i c .2. revival-changed_and i n 1892, Theodore..Child, i n an American book on art declared, "What does democracy care about art?""^ In the twentieth century, histories of the aesthetic movement have emphasized three closely related aspects of i t : the ideology of art for art's sake, the strong French influence, and the literary aestheticism of English poets and c r i t i c s . Of these works perhaps the best i s Albert J. Farmer's Le_ mouvement esthetique et decadent en  Angleterre, 1873-1900 (1931) which covers the f i e l d carefully, a l -though concentrating on the intellectual and literary sides of the movement. The idea of art for art's sake'and i t s development i n philosophy and literature i s the subject of two studies, Rose Francis Egan's The Genesis of the Theory of 'Art for Art's Sake' i n Germany  and i n England (1921) and Louise Rosenblatt's. L'Idee de l'art pour  1'art dans la litterature anglaise pendant la periode victorienne (1931). These studies focus of the development of the idea i n philo-sophy and literature that art i s separate from and superior to l i f e . The direct influence of French thought on English aestheticism was explored b r i e f l y by James K. Robinson i n "A Neglected Phase of the Aesthetic Movement: English Parnassianism," PMLA LXVIII (1853)* 733-54* The contact between English authors and c r i t i c s and the French decadent poets i n the 1860's and 1870's was crucial according to Robinson. The most entertaining history of the movement i s Wil-liam Gaunt's The Aesthetic Adventure (1945) which suffers from the obvious faults of a history that strives to entertain. It i s episodic and emphasizes personality to the point of obscuring less colorful -events-and-relationships. The latest study of aestheticism, Robert 3 Vincent Johnson's Aestheticism (1969) i s a summary of a r t f o r a r t ' s sake as a p r i n c i p l e of l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m . A l l of these studies contribute to an understanding of aesthe-t i c i s m as an i d e o l o g i c a l r e a c t i o n against the r e s t r i c t i v e , m a t e r i a l i s t i c society of the commercially motivated bourgeoisie. This r e a c t i o n occured i n England, Prance and Germany, although the most extreme examples of aestheticism were generally French, and the one acknow-ledged movement was i n England. A l l these works emphasize the i n -t e l l e c t u a l and l i t e r a r y l i f e of the s o c i e t i e s they analyze and t h e i r preoccupation with l i t e r a t u r e tends to overshadow developments i n the a r t world. The v i s i o n of a r t triumphant, reconstructing the outward countenance of modern l i f e as well as i t s reading matter, so evident i n Wilde and Hamilton, i s almost buried. The a t t e n t i o n paid to the ideology of the movement explains t h i s seeming neglect as the development of V i c t o r i a n a r t was not a r e f l e c t i o n of the broader i n t e l l e c t u a l l i f e of the nation, nor do works of a r t generally ade-quately express i n t e l l e c t u a l concerns. The l a t e s t h i s t o r i e s of the movement have approached the problem d i f f e r e n t l y . E l i z a b e t h A s l i n ' s The Aesthetic Movement: Prelude to  Art Nouveau (19^9) was an attempt to demonstrate that the designers of the 1890's were b u i l d i n g on a t r a d i t i o n which stretched back to the 1870's. In doing so she emphasized the p l a s t i c a r t s , e s p e c i a l l y i n d u s t r i a l design. Robin Spencer's The Aesthetic Movement (1972) owes much to A s l i n ' s d e f i n i t i o n of the era's s t y l e ; The r e v i v a l of in t e r e s t i n V i c t o r i a n a r t has l e d to countless e x h i b i t i o n s of paintings 4 a n d d e c o r e a t i v e a r t s , o n e o f w h i c h g a t h e r e d s o m e o f t h e m a j o r a r t i f a c t s o f t h e m o v e m e n t a t t h e C a m d e n A r t s C e n t r e . T h e c a t a l o g u e o f t h e e x h i -b i t i o n , T h e A e s t h e t i c M o v e m e n t (1973)* c o n t a i n s a n i n t e r e s t i n g b u t t o o b r i e f i n t r o d u c t i o n b y C h a r l e s S p e n c e r . T h e s e s t u d i e s c o n s i d e r a b l y e x t e n d o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f a e s t h e t i c i s m b y i n c l u d i n g m o r e a r t i s t s a n d d e s i g n e r s i n t h e m o v e m e n t a n d b y e x t e n s i v e l y a n a l y s i n g w o r k s i n t h e f i n e a n d m a n u f a c t u r e d a r t s . T h e y t e m p e r t h e i r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f i d e o l o g y w i t h a n e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e p r a c t i c a l i t i e s o f a r t i s t i c p r o -d u c t i o n . T h e i r h i s t o r i e s a r e m o r e c o m p r e h e n s i v e t h a n e a r l i e r o n e s b e c a u s e t h e y a t t e m p t t o g o d e e p e r i n t o t h e s o c i a l a n d e c o n o m i c r e l a -t i o n s h i p s w h i c h p r o d u c e d a e s t h e t i c i s m . Y e t t h e i r s t u d i e s d o c o n f u s e t h e i s s u e c o n s i d e r a b l y , f o r b y e x t e n d i n g t h e r a n g e o f a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e m o v e m e n t , t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e m o v e m e n t i s e v e n m o r e v a g u e . A f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g t h e s e h i s t o r i e s o f t h e m o v e m e n t , t h e s t u d e n t a t t a c k s t h e p r o b l e m o f d e f i n i n g t h e a e s t h e t i c m o v e m e n t a n d o r g a n i z i n g a n a t t a c k o n t h e h i s t o r i c a l p r o b l e m s i t p o s e s . A f e w g e n e r a l o u t l i n e s o f t h e m o v e m e n t s e e m c l e a r e n o u g h . I t b e g a n i n t h e 1870's a n d g r e w o u t o f s u c h e v e n t s a s W h i s t l e r ' s a r t i s t i c e x p e r i m e n t s i n t h e l a t e r 1860's, C h a r l e s E a s t l a k e ' s p u b l i c a t i o n o f H i n t s o n H o u s e h o l d T a s t e i n 1867* P a t e r ' s e s s a y o n W i l l i a m M o r r i s i n t h e W e s t m i n s t e r R e v i e w i n 1868 a n d h i s p u b l i c a t i o n o f S t u d i e s i n t h e H i s t o r y o f t h e R e n a i s - s a n c e i n 1873* a n d e v e n t h e P r e - R a p h a e l i t e e x p e r i m e n t o f t h e e a r l y 1850's. E v e n a t f i r s t g l a n c e i t i s a n o d d a s s e m b l y o f e v e n t s b u t o n c l o s e r s c r u t i n y , t h e p r o b l e m o f d a t i n g a m o v e m e n t a r e g r e a t e r s t i l l . O n e c a n n o t s i m p l y s a y t h a t t h e d e c a d e o r m o r e b e t w e e n t h e a p p e a r a n c e 5 o f t h e s e ~ p r e l i m i n a r y e v e n t s a n d t h e m o v e m e n t i t s e l f w a s t o a l l o w " d e v e l o p m e n t " ; w h y t h e n t h e d e l a y i n t h e c o a l i t i o n o f i d e a s , a c t i v i -t i e s a n d b e h a v i o r i n t o a m o v e m e n t ? T h e m o v e m e n t ' s a m b i g u o u s c h a r a c -t e r a n d i t s l a c k o f a n y s u r e l e a d e r s h i p o r c r e e d , s u c h a s h a d m a r k e d t h e P r e - R a p h a e l i t e , c o n t r i b u t e s t o t h i s c o n f u s i o n . I t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e m o v e m e n t w a s b o t h l i t e r a r y a n d a r t i s t i c ; a r t i s t s , p o e t s a n d c r i t i c s a l l c o n t r i b u t e d t o i t s p e c u l i a r v i e w o f r e a l i t y a n d t h e m o v e m e n t r e -f l e c t e d t h a t v i e w b a c k i n t o t h e a r t a n d l i t e r a t u r e o f t h e p e r i o d . Y e t t h e a c t u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n a r t a n d l i t e r a t u r e r e m a i n s i n d i s -t i n c t f o r a l t h o u g h t h e " o n e n e s s " o f a l l t h e a r t s w a s a t e n e t o f a e s -t h e t i c i s m , m o s t c o n t r i b u t o r s t o t h e m o v e m e n t c o n c e n t r a t e d o n o n e a r t . O f t h e t w o m e n w h o w e r e c a p a b l e a r t i s t s a n d p o e t s ( f o r p o e t r y w a s t h e a c k n o w l e d g e d l i t e r a r y a r t ) , D . G . R o s s e t t i p r o d u c e d f e w w o r k s d u r i n g t h e l a t e r 1870 's a n d W i l l i a m M o r r i s w a s d e c i d e d l y h o s t i l e t o t h e m o v e m e n t . A c l e a r e r r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t e d b e t w e e n t h e f i n e a r t s o f p a i n t i n g a n d a r c h i t e c t u r e , a n d t h e m a n u f a c t u r e d a r t s o r t e x t i l e a n d f u r n i t u r e d e s i g n . M a n y a r t i s t s w o r k e d i n b o t h f i e l d s a n d a s t r o n g s t y l i s t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p g r e w u p b e t w e e n t h e f i e l d s . A n o t h e r r e c o g n i z e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e a e s t h e t i c m o v e m e n t i s i t s c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e P r e - R a p h a e l i t e B r o t h e r h o o d o f t h e l a t e 1840 's a n d e a r l y 1850 ' s . T h e k e y f i g u r e i n t h i s c o n n e c t i o n i s D . G . R o s s e t t i , a f o u n d i n g m e m b e r o f t h e B r o t h e r h o o d , w h o s e , f r i e n d -s h i p s w i t h E d w a r d B u r n e - J o n e s , W i l l i a m M o r r i s a n d J a m e s W h i s t l e r i n v o l v e d h i m i n a c i r c l e o f a e s t h e t i c a r t i s t s . B u t R o s s e t t i w a s o n l y o n e l i n e o f P r e - R a p h a e l i t e i n f l u e n c e . J o h n M i l l a i s a n d F o r d M a d o x 6 B r o w n e a c h i n f l u e n c e d , b y r e p u t a t i o n a n d e x a m p l e , t h e l a t e r g e n e r a t i o n o f a r t i s t s , t h o u g h i n v e r y d i f f e r e n t w a y s . T h e v i t a l i t y o f P r e -R a p h a e l i t e i d e a l s w a s s o g e n e r a l l y r e c o g n i z e d a n d s o p a t e n t l y m i s u n -d e r s t o o d i n t h e 1870 's t h a t W . H . M a i l o c k , i n h i s N e w R e p u b l i c , r e -f e r r e d t o t h e c a r i c a t u r e o f W a l t e r P a t e r a s M r . R o s e , t h e P r e -4 R a p h a e l i t e . O n e o f t h e r e a s o n s f o r t h i s c o n f u s i o n w a s t h e c o m m o n e n e m y s h a r e d b y P r e - R a p h a e l i t e s a n d a e s t h e t e s — b o u r g e o i s P h i l i s t i n i s m w h i c h c h a m p i o n e d t h e m a t e r i a l i s t i c a n d u t i l i t a r i a n o u t l o o k . T h e b a t t l e w h i c h R u s k i n b e g a n i n T h e S t o n e s o f V e n i c e a g a i n s t a r t i s t i c P h i l i s t i n i s m a n d i n s e n s i t i v e m a t e r i a l i s m w a s c a r r i e d o n i n t w o w a y s : f i r s t , b y W i l l i a m M o r r i s w h o a t t a c k e d t h e e c o n o m i c a n d s o c i a l f o u n d a -t i o n s o f c a p i t a l i s t s o c i e t y , a n d s e c o n d , b y E d w a r d B u r n e - J o n e s w h o c r i t i c i z e d t h e u g l y a n d f a l s e i n m o d e r n p r o d u c t i o n s b u t w h o s o u g h t a s o l u t i o n i n l i m i t e d p e r f e c t i o n t h r o u g h h i s a r t w o r k , a n d i n t h e p r e -s e r v a t i o n o f a r t f r o m t h e c o n t a m i n a t i o n o f b o u r g e o i s v a l u e s . M o s t a r t i s t s t o o k s i d e s w i t h B u r n e - J o n e s , i n c l u d i n g J a m e s W h i s t l e r , i n t h a t t h e y r e j e c t e d t h e v a l i d i t y o f b o u r g e o i s p r i n c i p l e s a n d v a l u e s i n a r t , b u t t h e y c o u l d n o t , l i k e M o r r i s , r e j e c t t h e i r u t i l i t y i n e v e r y d a y l i f e . M o r r i s t u r n e d R u s k i n ' s a t t a c k i n t o a c r u s a d e t o r e -c o n s t r u c t s o c i e t y , w h i l e o t h e r a r t i s t s a i m e d t o r e f o r m t a s t e a n d t o f i x a r t i n a s p h e r e s u p e r i o r t o a n d f r e e f r o m m a t e r i a l i s m a n d u t i l i -t a r i a n i s m . T h e s e t w o a p p r o a c h e s t o t h e r e f o r m o f a r t w e r e n o t m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e a s t h e l a t t e r n e c e s s a r i l y f o l l o w e d f r o m t h e f o r m e r . B u t t h e y o f t e n w o r k e d f r o m d i s t i n c t a n d c o n t r a d i c t o r y a s s u m p t i o n s a b o u t a r t a n d s o c i e t y . T h e l e g a l c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n R u s k i n a n d W h i s t l e r i n 7 1878 dramatically illuminated this conflict within the art world. Indeed the conflicts between the two camps of art partisans were sharper and more explicit than the deep but impotent hatred of Philistinism. Yet a l l these characteristics f a i l to give an adequate definition of aestheticism and bring us no closer to an understanding of the aesthetic movement and its place in the development of Victorian culture. The histories of the movement have accepted too readily the significance of the colorful and the eccentric and have failed to work out systematically the relationships between men and groups and ideas. Therefore important questions have been left unanswered despite the scholarly work done on the problem. Chief among these questions is what in fact was the aesthetic movement and how could i t become so notorious in the late 1870's and early 1880's without leadership, in the face of much hostility and seemingly containing numerous contradictions? If i t was in fact a "movement", what was its part in Victorian culture and what meaning did i t have for those who knew it? None of these issues have been explained in a way that contributes to our more complete understanding of the Victorian past. The student is only slightly less confused about the ideals of the movement after consulting the histories than he was before, and cursory research into the Victorian art world poses serious problems indeed. Relationships especially are truly bewildering. That James Whistler and W. P. Frith should be on opposite sides is not surprising but the rest of the witnesses in the Whistler vs. Ruskin tr i a l are 8 -more perplexing. Why were W. Mi Rossetti and Edward Burne-Jones on 5 opposite sides and why were they both such reluctant';,witnesses? What was the position of Frederic Leighton, then newly elected Presi-dent of the Royal Academy who was to be called i n as a witness for Whistler, but excused himself, pleading an appointment with the Queen to be knighted?^ Surely the t r i a l was much more than a battle for art for art's sake, but what other issues concerned the witnesses has never been closely examined. And i n the more complex world of the manufactured arts, problems of relationship are equally d i f f i c u l t . William Morris, Lazenby Liberty and Christopher Dresser a l l catered to the new aesthetic market i n manufactured art i c l e s and yet their commercial and a r t i s t i c styles had almost nothing i n common. Dresser's 7 shop, where attendants wore "aesthetic" costumes, was not a success. Morris and Liberty were succesful commercially but Morris was a painstaking craftsman and Liberty was a knowledgeable and s k i l l f u l dealer i n manufactured arts. How could observers i n the 1870's, and historians of aestheticism, accept them a l l equally as dealers i n art manufactures, as i f their great differences meant less than this superficial similarity of occupation. It would appear that for the sake of an idealogical or s t y l i s t i c unity, a reasonable aim i n these histories, cultural issues of more general significance have been neglected. If these histories of the aesthetic movement do not dispel the confusion surrounding certain events and people i n Victorian culture, i t must be acknowledged that such was not their intent. Their approaches 9 l i m i t e d t h e m t o a n e x a m i n a t i o n o f a e s t h e t i c i s m w h i c h t h e y g e n e r a l l y d e f i n e d ' ! a p r i o r i " a s t h e a v o w a l o f a r t f o r a r t ' s s a k e , a n d t h e c o n -f u s i o n a r i s e s n o t s o m u c h f r o m t h e m o v e m e n t i t s e l f b u t f r o m i t s r e -l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e c u l t u r a l l i f e o f t h e p e r i o d . T h e k e y t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p l i e s i n t h e m a t e r i a l w h i c h t h e h i s t o r i e s l a r g e l y i g n o r e . I t i s i n o r d e r t o u n d e r s t a n d t h i s a s p e c t o f t h e a e s t h e t i c m o v e m e n t t h a t I h a v e u n d e r t a k e n t h i s s t u d y . I h a v e r e s t r i c t e d m y s e l f t o a n e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e a e s t h e t i c a r t m o v e m e n t a n d i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e V i c t o r i a n a r t w o r l d i n g e n e r a l . T h e m o s t e f f e c t i v e m e t h o d o f i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p w a s t o e x a m i n e t h e V i c t o r i a n a r t w o r l d f i r s t a n d t o u n d e r s t a n d i t s w o r k i n g s . O n l y w i t h t h i s f o u n d a t i o n l a i d d i d t h e r i s i n g a e s t h e t i c i s m i n a r t m a k e s e n s e . I n o r d e r t o m a n a g e t h i s s t u d y , I i g n o r e d t h e p r o b l e m o f F r e n c h i n f l u e n c e e x c e p t i n o n e s p e c i f i c c a s e . T h e F r e n c h i n f l u e n c e s h a v e a l r e a d y b e e n a d e q u a t e l y c a t a l o g u e d i n e a r l i e r h i s t o r i e s a n d I a m n o t h e r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e p h i l o s o p h y o f a r t f o r a r t ' s s a k e a n d i t s E u r o p e a n c h a r a c t e r , b u t r a t h e r w i t h t h e t r a d i t i o n s i n t h e E n g l i s h a r t c o n s c i o u s n e s s w h i c h c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e m o v e m e n t . I n f l u e n c e , a f t e r a l l , i s t w o - f a c e d ; i t h a s t o b e a c c e p t e d a s w e l l a s g i v e n . I h a v e i g n o r e d t h e l i t e r a r y s i d e o f t h e m o v e m e n t , c o m p l e t e l y f o r t h e s a k e o f m a n a g e a b i l i t y a n d b e c a u s e l i t e r a t u r e i n s o c i e t y p o s e s d i f f e r e n t p r o b l e m s g a n d r e q u i r e s a d i f f e r e n t a p p r o a c h t h a n d o e s a r t i n s o c i e t y . A r c h i -t e c t u r e , t o o , h a s i t s o w n p e c u l i a r p r o b l e m s a n d h a s t h e r e f o r e , r e g r e t -f u l l y , b e e n e x c l u d e d . T h e r o l e o f a r c h i t e c t u r e i n t h e a r t t h e o r y o f t h e p e r i o d a n d t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f a r c h i t e c t u r a l s o c i e t i e s i n t h e o r g a n i -10 z a t i o n o f t h e a r t w o r l d w e r e c r u c i a l t o t h e a r t c o n s c i o u s n e s s o f t h e e r a a n d t o t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f p r o f e s s i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n a r t i s t a n d c l i e n t . I h a v e a v o i d e d t h e f i e l d c h i e f l y f o r t h e s a k e o f s i m p l i c i t y a n d c o h e r e n c e , a n d b e c a u s e i t w o u l d n o t s u b s t a n t i a l l y a l t e r t h e d i r e c t i o n o r c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h i s w o r k . M y s t u d y i s n o t , t h e r e f o r e , a h i s t o r y o f t h e a e s t h e t i c m o v e m e n t o r a c o m p l e t e v i e w o f t h e V i c t o r i a n a r t w o r l d i n t h e 1870's. P o r t h e p u r p o s e o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d a n a l y s i s , I h a v e d e a l t w i t h t h e t w o m a j o r p a r t s o f t h e a r t w o r l d s e p a r a t e l y — t h e f i n e a r t s a n d t h e m a n u f a c t u r e d a r t s . I b e g i n b y e x a m i n i n g t h e f i n e a r t s a n d t h e d e v e l o p -m e n t u b f i n s t i t u t i o n s a n d r e l a t i o n s h i p s a m o n g a r t i s t s a n d t h e i r p a t r o n s . C e n t r a l t o t h i s d i s c u s s i o n i s t h e R o y a l A c a d e m y , t h e m o s t p o w e r f u l i n s t i t u t i o n c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e f i n e a r t s , a n d i t s s u c c e s s e s a n d f a i l u r e s i n p r o t e c t i n g a r t f r o m p r a c t i c e s , p e o p l e a n d i d e a s w h i c h w e r e p e r c e i v e d a s t h r e a t e n i n g . T h e p r o b l e m s w h i c h e x i s t e d i n t h e f i n e a r t s h a d b e -c o m e s o c r i t i c a l b y t h e 1870 's a s t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h a c c e p t e d r e l a t i o n -s h i p s a n d b e h a v i o r . T h i s c r i s i s i s e x a m i n e d i n t h e s e c o n d c h a p t e r . T h e l a s t c h a p t e r e x a m i n e s t h e m a n u f a c t u r e d a r t s a n d t h e p r o b l e m s p e c u -l i a r t o t h e m a s c o m m e r c i a l e n t e r p r i s e s a s w e l l a s t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e c r i s i s i n t h e V i c t o r i a n a r t c o n s c i o u s n e s s o n t h e m . T h e m a j o r f o r c e a f f e c t i n g t h e V i c t o r i a n a r t w o r l d w a s t h e p r e s -s u r e e x e r t e d b y t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f c o m m e r c i a l a n d i n d u s t r i a l p r a c t i c e , n o t a b l y t h e o p e r a t i o n s o f t h e a r t m a r k e t . T h e a n t a g o n i s m b e t w e e n t h e c o m m e r c i a l a n d a r t w o r l d s s t e m m e d f r o m t h e c l a s h o f v a l u e s o p e r a t i v e i n t h e s e w o r l d s . S u c h w a s t h e c o n f l i c t w h i c h R u s k i n r e c o g n i z e d b e -11 t w e e n t h e i n h u m a n a n d i m p e r s o n a l e c o n o m i c m o t i v a t i o n s w h i c h p o l i t i c a l e c o n o m i s t s a s c r i b e d t o h u m a n s a n d t h e q u a l i t i e s o f c o m p a s s i o n a n d s a c r i f i c e w h i c h a r t h a d e v e r c h a m p i o n e d ; t h e s e v i e w s o f t h e e s s e n t i a l c h a r a c t e r . o f h u m a n n a t u r e w e r e i r r e c o n c i l a b l e . T h i s c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n m e c h a n i s m a n d h u m a n i s m o c c u p i e d m a n y b a t t l e f i e l d s i n t h e V i c t o r i a n w o r l d , b u t i n t h e w o r l d o f a r t t h e i s s u e w a s f o u g h t w i t h a p e c u l i a r l y i m p o t e n t f i e r c e n e s s . T h e h a t r e d o f m e c h a n i s m w a s t e m p e r e d b y a r e c o g -n i t i o n t h a t t h e n e w o r g a n i z a t i o n o f s o c i e t y a n d i t s n e w g o a l s w e r e n o t c o m p l e t e l y i n i m i c a l t o t h e q u a l i t y o f l i f e , o r t o t h e a r t i s t a n d h i s l i v e l i h o o d . B y t h e 1870 's a r t i s t s c o u l d n o l o n g e r h o p e t o r e -c o n s t r u c t t h e w o r l d i n t o t h e i r i m a g e o f a n a r t - l o v i n g a g e a n d w e r e i n s t e a d f i g h t i n g f o r t h e v i t a l i t y a n d p r e s e r v a t i o n o f a r t . A l t h o u g h t h e g r e a t e n e m y w a s P h i l i s t i n i s m , m u c h o f t h e c o n t r o v e r s y i n t h e a r t w o r l d o f t h e 1870 's a r o s e f r o m c o n f l i c t s b e t w e e n a r t i s t s o v e r t h e t r u e r o l e o f a r t i n m o d e r n l i f e , a n d a r t ' s e s s e n t i a l n a t u r e . T h e l o v e o f a r t p r o m o t e d a n i m p u l s e t o r e f o r m a n d r e c o n s t r u c t t h e o u t w a r d f o r m o f t h i n g s , o f b e h a v i o r a n d r e l a t i o n s h i p s a s w e l l a s a r c h i t e c t u r a l f a c a d e s a n d i n t e r i o r d e c o r a t i o n . T h i s b r o u g h t a b o u t a c u r i o u s m i x t u r e o f p r a c t i c a l a n d p e r v e r s e l y i m p r a c t i c a l p r o p o s a l s f o r r e f o r m . A s w e l l a s r e s i s t i n g u t i l i t a r i a n i s m a n d t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c d u l n e s s o f m o d e r n e x i s t e n c e , a r t - l o v e r s g r a p p l e d w i t h s p e c i f i c a e s -t h e t i c t r a v e s t i e s w h i c h c a l l e d f o r p r a c t i c a l m e a s u r e s s u c h a s t h e t r a i n i n g o f i n d u s t r i a l d e s i g n e r s . T h e s e m e a s u r e s h a d t h e b e n e f i t o f u t i l i t a r i a n a s w e l l a s a r t i s t i c j u d g m e n t s . A r t , a t t e m p t i n g t o b e i n t h e w o r l d b u t n o t o f i t , p r o v e d t o b e a p e r v e r s e g o d d e s s a n d h e r 12 . . . d e v o t e e s w e r e t o r n b y a c r e e d w h i c h c o n t r a d i c t e d i t s e l f . T h e s e p a r a d o x e s w e r e a c c e n t u a t e d b y t h e n e w f o r c e s o f d e m o c r a c y , o f t h e m a s s e s a n d t h e i r a s p i r a t i o n s t o w a r d s e q u a l i t y . B y t h e m i d d l e o f t h e 1870 's d e m o c r a c y w a s n o l o n g e r m e r e l y a t h e o r e t i c a l p r o b l e m b u t a r i s i n g p r e s e n c e m a k i n g n e w a n d f o r c e f u l d e m a n d s . T h e o r i e n t a t i o n s o f t h e m a s s e s t o a r t a n d o f a r t i s t s t o t h e m a s s e s w e r e o n e s - o f c a u -t i o u s s u s p i c i o n . T h e a r t i s t i c t r a d i t i o n h a d h a d , a f t e r a l l , a c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e a r i s t o c r a c y , a n d i n t h e r u l e o f w e a l t h i n t h e a r t w o r l d o f t h e 1860 's a n d 1870 's, t h e l o w e r - c l a s s e s h a d f e w o p e n i n g s a n d n o p o w e r . A r t i s t s a l s o f e a r e d t h e m a s s e s f o r t h e i r i g n o r a n c e , t h e i r c h a o t i c t a s t e s a n d t h e i r d e p e n d e n c e u p o n t h e m a t e r i a l i s m o f t h e p e r i o d . Y e t t h e i r v e r y f a c e l e s s n e s s , t h e i r b e i n g a n u n k n o w n q u a n t i t y , g a v e h o p e t h a t t h e y m i g h t y e t r e v i v e t h e n a t u r a l a n d f r e e h u m a n i s m i n w h i c h a r t i s t s b e l i e v e d . A l l t h e s e d e v e l o p m e n t s c o m b i n e d i n t h e l a t e 1860 's a n d e a r l y 1870's t o p r e c i p i t a t e a c r i s i s i n t h e V i c t o r i a n a r t c o n s c i o u s n e s s , t h a t a w a r e n e s s o f a r t w h i c h e x i s t s o n l y c o l l e c t i v e l y l i k e t h e d i s c i p l i n e o f h i s t o r y . ; I n t h e y e a r s f o l l o w i n g t h e P r e - R a p h a e l i t e r e b e l l i o n a n d t h e G r e a t E x h i b i t i o n o f 1851, t h e V i c t o r i a n a r t w o r l d m a n a g e d t o b a l a n c e t h e s e f o r c e s . B u t t h e b r e a k d o w n o f t h e m i d - V i c t o r i a n s o l u t i o n s i n t h e f a c e o f m o u n t i n g c r i t i c i s m a n d d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n c a u s e d a r e - e v a l u a t i o n a n d r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s a n d a r t ' s m e a n i n g a n d r o l e i n s o c i e t y . I n i t s f i r s t b l o o m t h i s n e w a r t c o n s c i o u s n e s s w a s h o p e f u l a n d e n e r g e t i c . B u t a f t e r s e v e r a l y e a r s , w h e n a r t ' s p o s i t i o n i n s o c i e t y w a s n o t f u n d a m e n t a l l y c h a n g e d , a n x i e t y b e c a m e m o r e m a r k e d a n d a n o t h e r 13 c r i s i s a n d r e s o l u t i o n w e r e i m m i n e n t . I n t h e 1890's, t h r e a t e n e d b y t h e g r o w i n g d e m a n d s o f d e m o c r a c y w h i c h w a s o n o n e h a n d u r g i n g r a d i c a l s o c i a l r e f o r m a n d y e t o n t h e o t h e r w a s b u r i e d i n c o n c e r n s o f m a t e r i a l i s m , m a n y V i c t o r i a n a r t i s t s a n d a r t - l o v e r s r e j e c t e d t h e d e m o c r a t i c a l l i a n c e . T h i s s e c o n d r e s o l u t i o n , d e e p e r a n d m o r e f i n a l i n i t s c o n s e q u e n c e s , b r o u g h t a b o u t t h e l a t e r p h a s e o f t h e a e s t h e t i c m o v e m e n t , t h e " d e c a d e n t n i n e t i e s , " a n d i t m a r k e d t h e e n d o f t h e s t r o n g t r a d i t i o n a l i d e n t i f i -c a t i o n o f a r t a n d h u m a n i s m i n E n g l i s h c u l t u r e . 14 F O O T N O T E S ' O s c a r W i l d e , W o r k s ( L o n d o n , 1908), I, 242. t i l d e ' s A m e r i c a n t o u r o f 1882 i s t h e s u b j e c t o f L l o y d L e w i s ' O s c a r W i l d e D i s c o v e r s A m e r i c a ( N e w Y o r k , 1936). 3 A r t a n d C r i t i c i s m ( N e w Y o r k , 1892), 340. 4 T h e N e w R e p u b l i c , o r C u l t u r e , F a i t h , a n d P h i l o s o p h y i n a n  E n g l i s h C o u n t r y H o u s e ( L o n d o n , 1878), 15. F o r B u r n e - J o n e s ' f e e l i n g s a b o u t h i s r o l e i n t h e t r i a l s e e G e o r g i a n a , L a d y B u r n e - J o n e s , M e m o r i a l s o f E d w a r d B u r n e - J o n e s ( N e w Y o r k a n d L o n d o n , 1904)J I L 87. W . M . R o s s e t t i d e s c r i b e d h i s p o s i t i o n i n h i s S o m e R e m i n i s c e n c e s o f W i l l i a m M i c h a e l R o s s e t t i ( L o n d o n , 1906), I, 182-3. 6 ' T h i s i s t h e v e r s i o n g i v e n i n S t a n l e y W e i n t r a u b , W h i s t l e r : A B i o g r a p h y ( N e w Y o r k , 1974)> 199- T h e P e n n e l l s , h o w e v e r , m e n t i o n l e t t e r s b y E d w a r d P o y n t e r , t h e n D i r e c t o r o f t h e S o u t h K e n s i n g t o n M u s e u m , a n d B u r t o n , t h e D i r e c t o r o f t h e N a t i o n a l G a l l e r y , a s w e l l a s b y L e i g h t o n , w h i c h c o n t a i n e d p r a i s e f o r W h i s t l e r ' s w o r k , s e e E . R . a n d J . P e n n e l l , T h e L i f e o f J a m e s M c N e i l l W h i s t l e r ( L o n d o n , 1925), 178-9. M r s . R u s s e l l B a r r i n g t o n , T h e L i f e , L e t t e r s a n d W o r k o f F r e d e r i c L e i g h t o n ( N e w Y o r k , 1906), 2 v o l s , m e n t i o n s n e i t h e r , b u t h e r b i o g r a p h y h a s m a n y g a p s a n d i s n o t e n t i r e l y t r u s t w o r t h y . T h e i n P e n n e l l s ' v e r s i o n i s t h e m o r e l i k e l y o f t h e t w o , f o r L e i g h t o n c e r t a i n l y a d m i r e d a s p e c t s o f W h i s t l e r ' s w o r k , b u t i t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t t h a t p a i n f u l l y t a c t f u l m a n w o u l d h a v e r i s k e d a n t a g o n i z i n g h i s n e w c o n s t i t u e n t s i n t h e A c a d e m y b y p u b l i c l y i p r a i s i n g W h i s t l e r ' s w o r k . ^ a n o n . , " T h e W o r k o f C h r i s t o p h e r D r e s s e r , " T h e S t u d i o , X V (1899), 112. g T h e i d e o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m s o f a r t i s t s a n d w r i t e r s w e r e s i m i l a r b u t t h e s o c i a l a n d i n s t i t u t i o n a l f r a m e w o r k i n w h i c h t h e y m o v e d w a s n o t . C o m p a r e G e r a l d i n e P e l l e s , A r t , A r t i s t s a n d S o c i e t y : O r i g i n s o f a M o d e r n  D i l e m n a ( E n g l e w o o d C l i f f s , N . J . , 1963) a n d C e s a r G r a n a , M o d e r n i t y a n d  i t s D i s c o n t e n t s : ; ' F r e n c h , ; S o c i e t y a n d t h e F r e n c h M a n o f L e t t e r s i n t h e  N i n e t e e n t h C e n t u r y ( N e w Y o r k , 19677. 15 The traditional view of the artist in modern society has tended to stress the problem of alienation; by his very nature, the artist is not at home in society. It has become such a common-place that even historians, who are bound to be discriminating as well as disinterested, 1 too often neglect the social role and responsibilities of artists. Part of the reason for this view is that the French artists of the nine-teenth century have become the exempla of modern artists because their art has won the highest critical acclaim. But the Victorian artist was not like his French colleague, nor were the artistic institutions and traditions of the two countries comparable. The Royal Academy especially contributed to the stability of the Victorian art world and its respec-table social position vis-a-vis the political and industrial worlds. As changes in the economic and social world created problems for artists, the Royal Academy managed to maintain stable relationships, artistic tra-ditions and professional ideals which the rest of society respected. Although the Academy did provide artists with an entry into society and social position, i t could not solve problems which brought art and society into opposition, especially those posed by changing market condi-tions. Nor did the cautious policies of the Academy inspire many young and idealistic artists who were well aware of the contradictions between an artist's declared ideals and his social and economic position. Yet these young artists were important in changing artistic styles and in upholding the ideals, both professional and aesthetic, which the Academy endorsed. The Academy was successful in controlling the social aspect of the art world even after i t had lost its educational monopoly in the 1870's through its control of the only major annual exhibition of con-16 t e m p o r a r y a r t i n E n g l a n d . T h e P r e - R a p h a e l i t e " r e b e l l i o n " w a s o n l y t h e m o s t n o t o r i o u s i n s t a n c e o f t h e s e v e r a l t i m e s w h e n y o u n g a r t i s t s c r e a t e d s e n s a t i o n s b y t h e i r n e w s t y l e s . T h e P r e - R a p h a e l i t e p a i n t e r s e n t e r e d t h e a r t w o r l d a s p r o f e s s i o n a l s b y p a t h s n o t e s s e n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h o s e w h i c h e a r l i e r a r t i s t s h a d f o l l o w e d . J o h n M i l l a i s w a s q u i c k l y e l e c t e d a n A s s o c i a t e o f t h e R o y a l A c a d e m y w h i l e D . G . R o s s e t t i m a d e a l i v i n g s e l l i n g h i s w o r k s t o a s m a l l c i r c l e o f i n t e r e s t e d p a t r o n s ; d o z e n s o f a r t i s t s a l -2 r e a d y e n j o y e d s i m i l a r c a r e e r s i n s o c i e t y . T h e A c a d e m y v i e w e d t h e c h a l l e n g e s o f t h e c h a n g i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s w h i c h c a m e f r o m t h e p o l i t i c a l a s w e l l a s t h e s o c i a l a n d e c o n o m i c s p h e r e s a s a s s a u l t s o n t h e i n d e p e n d e n c e o f t h e A c a d e m y . T h e i r r e s p o n s e w a s t o s a f e g u a r d t h e i r u n i q u e p o s i t i o n a s a s e l f - s u p p o r t i n g p r i v a t e c o r p o r a t i o n u n d e r t h e C r o w n ' s p a t r o n a g e . T h e i r a n n u a l e x h i b i t i o n p r o d u c e d a s u r p l u s o f f u n d s , t h e i r m e t h o d o f e l e c t i o n a s s u r e d t h e m o f f r e e d o m f r o m o u t s i d e p r e s s u r e s a n d t h e i r p a t r o n h e l p e d t h e m r e s i s t t h e a t t e m p t s o f P a r l i a m e n t t o c o n t r o l t h e A c a d e m y . Y e t t h i s s t r u g g l e w a s o n l y o n e a s p e c t o f t h e e f f e c t s o f n e w c o n d i t i o n s o n t h e V i c t o r i a n a r t w o r l d . T h e A c a d e m y m a i n -t a i n e d i t s i n d e p e n d e n c e b u t a l s o a d a p t e d t o t h e n e w c o n d i t i o n s a n d c o m -p r o m i s e d w i t h c e r t a i n i r r e s i s t i b l e p r e s s u r e s . T h e b u y i n g a n d s e l l i n g o f c o n t e m p o r a r y a r t w o r k s c r e a t e d a n a r t m a r k e t w h i c h o p e r a t e d o n p r i n c i p l e s e n t i r e l y a l i e n t o t h o s e w h i c h a r t i s t s b e l i e v e d d e t e r m i n e d t h e m e r i t o f a r t i s t i c w o r k s . A n d t h e w i d e s p r e a d i n t e r e s t o f t h e r i s i n g i n d u s t r i a l i s t s i n c o n t e m p o r a r y a r t h e l p e d t o c r e a t e a n e w t a s t e i n a r t a s t h e y p r e f e r r e d d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s f r o m t h o s e w h i c h t h e a r i s t o c r a t i c p a t r o n u s u a l l y c o m -m i s s i o n e d . S o s t y l e s a n d a t t i t u d e s c h a n g e d a n d t h e A c a d e m y s o u g h t t o c o n -t a i n t h e m w i t h i n a n i n s t i t u t i o n a l f r a m e w o r k w h i c h w a s s o c i a l l y r e s p e c t a b l e . 17 T h e R o y a l A c a d e m y w a s a n e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y i n s t i t u t i o n a n d w a s t h e r e s u l t o f t h e n e e d f e l t b y a r t i s t s a n d a r t l o v e r s f o r a n i n s t i t u t i o n d e d i c a t e d t o t h e p r o t e c t i o n a n d p r o m o t i o n o f t h e a r t s i n G r e a t B r i t a i n . I n 1755 a s c h e m e f o r a n a t i o n a l a c a d e m y h a d b e e n p r o p o s e d w h i c h i n c l u d e d p l a n s f o r ! ! a " y e a r l y e x h i b i t i o n o f p i c t u r e s , s t a t u e s a n d m o d e l s , a n d d e -s i g n s i n a r c h i t e c t u r e " a s w e l l a s a n a t i o n a l a r t s c h o o l . " ^ T h i s s c h e m e c a m e t o n o t h i n g b e c a u s e a r t i s t s a n d t h e i r a r i s t o c r a t i c p a t r o n s w h o w e r e t o f o r m t h e a c a d e m y c o u l d n o t a g r e e o n t h e r e l a t i v e p o w e r s o f a r t i s t s a n d l a y m e n w i t h i n t h e p r o p o s e d i n s t i t u t i o n . A s a r e s u l t o f t h i s f a i l u r e , a r t i s t s l o o k e d e l s e w h e r e f o r p a t r o n a g e a n d e n d e a v o r e d t o c o n s t r u c t a n A c a d e m y w h i c h t h e y a l o n e c o n t r o l l e d . T h e a n n u a l e x h i b i t i o n a n d t h e n a -t i o n a l s c h o o l , h o w e v e r , w e r e t h e a c k n o w l e d g e d f u n c t i o n s o f a n a t i o n a l a c a d e m y . T h e e x h i b i t i o n s w e r e t o h a v e t w o m a j o r f u n c t i o n s . T h e y w e r e t h e o n l y d i r e c t m e a n s t h e a c a d e m y h a d o f r a i s i n g m o n e y , a n i m p o r t a n t c o n s i d e r a -t i o n i n m a i n t a i n i n g t h e i n d e p e n d e n c e o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a n d i t s s c h o o l . A n d e x h i b i t i o n s p r o v i d e d a s u i t a b l e m e a n s o f " p u b l i s h i n g " w o r k s o f a r t . A r t i s t s w e r e s t i l l i n v o l v e d i n a s y s t e m o f p a t r o n a g e w h i c h o b l i g e d t h e m t o s o l i c i t c o m m i s s i o n s f r o m t h e w e a l t h y a n d g r a c i o u s l y t o a c c e p t t h e g r a -t u i t o u s g e n e r o s i t y o f p a t r o n s . A n a n n u a l e x h i b i t i o n s p o n s o r e d b y a p r e s -t i g i o u s a c a d e m y h a d t h e d r a m a t i c e f f e c t o f r e q u i r i n g t h e w e a l t h y t o s e e k o u t t h e a r t i s t s ' w o r k s a n d t o p a y a f e e t o s e e t h e m . I t h a r d l y d e s t r o y e d t h e s y s t e m o f p a t r o n a g e y e t i t d i d d e m o n s t r a t e t h e r i s i n g p o s i t i o n o f t h e a r t i s t i n r e l a t i o n t o h i s a r i s t o c r a t i c p a t r o n s . W h e n a g r o u p o f a r t i s t s g a t h e r e d i n N o v e m b e r 1768 t o f o u n d a n a c a -d e m y t h e y h a d r e s o l v e d t o e x c l u d e l a y m e n f r o m t h e i n s t i t u t i o n . T h e y l o o k e d 18 to the King-to provide the prestige which they required and a suitably unquestioning patronage. On 28 November 1768 these artists sent a Mem-orial to King George III stating their main objectives We only beg leave to inform your Majesty, that the two principle obects we have in view are, the establishirsg of a well-regulated School or Academy of Design, for use of students in the Arts, and an annual exhibition, open to a l l artists of distinguished merit, where they may offer their performances to public inspection, and acquire that degree of reputation and encouragement which they shall be deemed to deserve. The King signed the Instrument of Foundation of the Royal Academy of Arts on 10 December 1768 and promised his f u l l support to the institution, even to the extent of making the Privy Purse responsible for financial deficits. For the first eleven years the Academy required this financial support but the exhibitions soon drew in a l l the funds necessary. The Instrument of Foundation provided for forty members who would be Royal Academicians and who would elect the President and other officers together in an assembly. The assembly also decided questions of policy and chose new members to f i l l vacancies from the ranks of Associates of the Royal Academy. The Associates were elected by the Academicians from the multitude of artists who had exhibited in the annual exhibition. These Associates had no voting privileges and were not assured of eventual election to f u l l membership but they did enjoy the preference of the hanging committee of the exhibitions and only from among their number were f u l l members chosen. The Academy began with less than forty members but vacancies were soon f i l l e d and the number of Associates grew to around twenty. The first President was Joshua Reynolds, who was knighted by the King, and he was re-elected President every year until his death in 1792. Reynolds handled much of the administrative duties pertaining to 19 the Academy's activities and obligations but the Instrument provided |for a Council of eight members who were appointed by rotation from the fu l l l i s t of members. The hanging committee responsible for the selec-tion and hanging of the annual exhibition was usually chosen out of the Council and perhaps for this reason, the rotating membership on the Coun-c i l appears to have been a jealously guarded privilege. Besides the President and Council, other members acted in the offices of Librarian, Secretary and Keeper of the Academy schools. To f u l f i l l their objective of maintaining a tuition-free school, the Academy set aside rooms, began to acquire plaster casts from the , antique and appointed an Academician to act as Keeper and to oversee the administration of the schools. The schools were organized so that Academicians visited for one month each, instructing the students as they wished that students might benefit from the various excellences of a l l Academicians. There were also permanent Professors of Painting, Perspective, Architecture, Sculpture, Anatomy and other aspects of art studies. But these Professorships were not always f i l l e d and wheraathey were, the Professor did not always f u l f i l l his duties. Some Academicians, such as J. M. W. Turner, the great landscape artist who was Professor of Perspective from 1807 to 1837 were assiduous in their Professorships. But one Professor of Painting in the late eighteenth century, James Barry, actually used the office to attack the Academy and Academicians and be-came for his efforts the only member to be expelled from the Academy.^ The students received their education free but no scholarships were awarded for study in London and studying art was time-consuming. It was not a pursuit for the poor nor was i t popular with the wealthy who studied 20 art only to be an amateur. A probationer at the Academy schools was required to be more than an amateur. Academicians selected students by judging drawings made by aspirants. Once this preliminary drawing was approved, the prospective student made a drawing from a cast under the supervision of the Keeper and i f this was approved, the applicant entered the schools as a probationer. Art students today would be sur-prised and probably horrified by the rigorous curriculum of the Academy's schools. There were few changes in procedure until the beginning of the twentieth century and the entire course of study was based on the ac-quisition of skillful and painstaking draughtsmanship. The student began drawing from antique casts, often spending weeks on a single drawing, months i f the cast was intricate. When students had attained a degree of s k i l l in the antique, they were allowed to enter the life school and to draw from the live model. There did exist at various times schools for architecture and sculpture though o i l painting was the art which was consistently taught. Students generally took six to seven years to com-plete their studies, learning new skills slowly but thoroughly, and when they left the schools, many of them had already attempted exhibition 7 pieces. The school was very successful in training artists i f we judge by the number of famous Victorian artists who spent time in the schools. But there were difficulties within the organization of the schools. The Keeper and visiting professors often clashed over whose authority was greater, the conflict arising out of the question of who was to set the model. A related problem was in getting the visiting professors to work with the Keeper in maintaining consistently high standards of .2.1. w o r k o r e v e n a c o n s i s t e n t p r o g r a m o f s t u d y . T h i s w a s a c o n t i n u a l l y r e -c u r r i n g p r o b l e m a n d b y t h e e a r l y V i c t o r i a n p e r i o d t h e s c h o o l s h a d f a l l e n Q i n t o a l a m e n t a b l e s t a t e . T h e r e w e r e f e w a l t e r n a t i v e s t o t h e A c a d e m y ' s s c h o o l s h o w e v e r , a n d w h e n t h e F r e n c h a t e l i e r s a n d t h e N a t i o n a l A r t T r a i n i n g S c h o o l a t S o u t h K e n s i n g t o n c o m p e t e d f o r s t u d e n t s i n t h e 1850's, t h e A c a -d e m y h a d b e g u n t o r e f o r m . T h e f a m o u s V i c t o r i a n a r t i s t w h o h a d n e v e r 9 s t u d i e d a t t h e A c a d e m y w a s a n e x c e p t i o n a l f i g u r e . T h e A c a d e m y ' s s e c o n d o b j e c t i v e w a s t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a n a n n u a l e x h i b i t i o n o f p a i n t i n g s , s c u l p t u r e a n d a r c h i t e c t u r a l m o d e l s a n d p l a n s . T h e o n e s h i l l i n g a d m i s s i o n t o t h i s e x h i b i t i o n p r o v i d e d t h e f u n d s f o r t h e s c h o o l s a n d f o r t h e c h a r i t i e s d e v o t e d t o a r t i s t s a n d t h e i r f a m i l i e s . K i n g G e o r g e I I I p r o v i d e d h i s A c a d e m y w i t h r o o m s a t S o m e r s e t H o u s e a n d t h e A c a d e m y t o o k u p t h e c h a l l e n g e o f o r g a n i z i n g y e a r l y e x h i b i t i o n s w h i c h w o u l d r e a p s u b s t a n t i a l p r o f i t s . T h e y a d v e r t i s e d f o r s u b m i s s i o n s a n d m a d e s e v e r a l r u l e s g o v e r n i n g t h e e x h i b i t i o n t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t b e i n g t h a t s u b -m i t t e d w o r k s h a d t o b e f r a m e d , o r i g i n a l w o r k s ( e x c e p t i n g , o f c o u r s e , s c u l p t u r e a n d a r c h i t e c t u r a l m o d e l s ) r e c e i v e d b y a c e r t a i n d a t e a n d t h e A c a d e m y C o u n c i l h a d t h e o n l y s a y i n t h e s e l e c t i o n a n d a r r a n g e m e n t o f t h e e x h i b i t i o n . F r o m i t s e a r l i e s t y e a r s t h e A c a d e m y h a d p r o b l e m s w i t h i t s e x h i b i t i o n p o l i c i e s . A l t h o u g h A c a d e m i c i a n s w e r e g i v e n p r e f e r e n c e o v e r o t h e r a r t i s t s b y t h e h a n g i n g c o m m i t t e e , t h e l i m i t e d w a l l s p a c e m a d e i t i m p o s s i b l e t o h a n g e v e r y p i c t u r e i n t h e m o s t f a v o r a b l e l i g h t a n d o u t s i d e r s w e r e n o t t h e o n l y d i s g r u n t l e d e x h i b i t o r s . T h e p a i n t i n g s o f t h e l a t e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y w e r e l a r g e e n o u g h t o s u r v i v e t h e w o r s t c o n s e q u e n c e s o f t h e l i m i t e d s p a c e i f we c a n j u d g e f r o m a c o n t e m p o r a r y e n g r a v i n g , a n d t h e h a n g i n g c o m m i t t e e g e n e r a l l y t r i e d t o a r r a n g e f o r e v e r y p i c t u r e t o b e 22 s e e n . [ F i g u r e B u t e v e n i f a p a i n t i n g w e r e h u n g o n t h e l i n e , t h e c o v e t e d w a l l s p a c e a t s i x t o e i g h t f e e t a b o v e t h e f l o o r r o u g h l y a t e y e -l e v e l , s u b j e c t a n d c o l o r c o u l d b e r u i n e d b y t o o c l o s e a n a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h a n u n c o m p l e m e n t a r y c a n v a s . A r t i s t s w e r e n a t u r a l l y a n x i o u s t h a t t h e i r w o r k s s h o u l d b e s e e n t o t h e i r b e s t a d v a n t a g e a n d e n v i o u s r i v a l r i e s , m a r k e d m o s t e x h i b i t i o n s . A l t h o u g h t h e C o u n c i l w a s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e h a n g i n g o f t h e e x h i b i t i o n , a c o m m i t t e e o f t h r e e A c a d e m i c i a n s a c t u a l l y c h o s e a n d h u n g t h e e n t i r e e x h i b i t . T h e m e m b e r s h i p o f t h i s h a n g i n g c o m -m i t t e e w a s p e r i o d i c a l l y e x p a n d e d d u r i n g t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y a s m e m b e r s a n d o u t s i d e r s e x p r e s s e d c o n c e r n a s t o t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f i n j u s t i c e s a r i s i n g f r o m t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s a n d i m m e n s i t y o f t h e t a s k . I n 1876 C h a r l e s W e s t C o p e p o r t r a y e d t h e e n t i r e C o u n c i l c h o o s i n g t h e w o r k s b u t s u c h a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n w a s p u r e l y a f o r m . [ F i g u r e 2] T h e l a r g e s t h a n g i n g c o m -m i t t e e s i n t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y h a d s e v e n m e m b e r s o f f i c i a l l y a l t h o u g h 10 f o u r o r f i v e m i g h t d o m o s t o f t h e w o r k . T h e A c a d e m y m a d e i t s b i t t e r e s t e n e m i e s o v e r t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e r e p i c t u r e s w e r e h u n g . J a m e s B a r r y , t h e o n l y A c a d e m i c i a n t o b e e x p e l l e d f r o m t h e A c a d e m y , h a d t r i e d u n -s u c c e s s f u l l y t o r e f o r m h a n g i n g p o l i c i e s a n d B e n j a m i n R o b e r t H a y d o n , t h e m o s t n o t o r i o u s e n e m y o f t h e R o y a l A c a d e m y , n e v e r f o r g a v e t h e c o m m i t t e e o f 1811 f o r h a n g i n g h i s D e n t a t u s i n t h e a n t e - r o o m r a t h e r t h a n i n t h e m a i n g a l l e r y . B e c a u s e o f t h e c r a m p e d q u a r t e r s a n d t h e g r e a t n u m b e r o f w o r k s s u b m i t t e d e a c h y e a r , t h e A c a d e m y c o n t i n u e d t o c r o w d p a i n t i n g s o v e r e v e r y a v a i l a b l e i n c h o f s p a c e . T h e A c a d e m y ' s m o v e s t o T r a f a l g a r S q u a r e a n d B u r l i n g t o n H o u s e p r o v i d e d m o r e r o o m f o r t h e e x h i b i t i o n s b u t t h e n u m b e r o f w o r k s s u b m i t t e d i n c r e a s e d f a r m o r e r a p i d l y t h a n d i d t h e 23 25 available space. The worst hanging practices, especially that of "skying works or placing them right up against the ceiling, were discontinued in the 1870's and W. P. Frith's Private View at the  Royal Academy, 1882 portrayed the reformed exhibition. [Figure 3] These exhibition practices were of great importance to artists because they concerned the publication of their works and reputations. As early as the first Royal Academy exhibition, one of the purposes of the show was to sell paintings and the catalogue duly marked with an 1 2 asterisk those pictures which the artists wished to sel l . The Academy exhibitions were a marketplace for contemporary art but not an efficient one. Only artists could submit works, which had to be new to the public eye, and the auction block at Christie's was so obviously more suitable for disposing of pictures that the Academy never became markedly commercial. Their exhibitions strove above a l l to present the best examples of English contemporary art, to provide an arena for establishing a young artist's reputation and to provide examples of the different phases of English artistic l i f e . It would have been most unusual i f the Academy had not met with opposition and criticism in pursuing these ends. The only serious challenge to the Academy's position came in the 1830's when the Academy moved from its crowded rooms in Somerset House to quarters in the new National Gallery in Trafalgar Square. The Aca-demy was a private corporation, although i t enjoyed the patronage of the Crown, but i t occupied or at least was going to occupy what was undoubtedly a public building being built at public expense. And the Academy enjoyed an artistic monopoly of a kind and its tremendous in-27 fluence over the Eng l i s h a r t world through i t s school and e x h i b i t i o n s aroused suspicious h o s t i l i t y i n government. The problems were brought out by testimony given to a Parliamentary commission which sat from 13 1835 to 1836. The evidence c l e a r l y showed that two d i f f e r e n t p a r t i e s joined forces to attack the Academy before t h i s committee. The f i r s t was the group of outsider a r t i s t s l e d by Benjamin Haydon who f e l t that the Academy used i t s power to f u r t h e r the careers of i t s members at the expense of true a r t . The second group was the r a d i c a l p o l i t i c i a n s who wished to see the Academy submit to public authority. These groups a l l i e d over the c r i t i c i s m of the administration of the Royal Academy which they both f e l t , f o r d i f f e r e n t reasons, ought to be regulated by government authority. The Academy f i n a l l y p r e v a i l e d i n t h i s prolonged c r i s i s with i t s organization and independence i n t a c t and moved to the new quarters i n T r a f a l g a r Square. Although the p o l i t i c i a n s and outsider a r t i s t s never repeated t h e i r strong a l l i a n c e i n the nineteenth century, the scathing c r i t i c i s m had exposed the weaknesses of the Academy and attacks from both quarters continued u n t i l the move to Burlington House i n 1868 brought about a r e s o l u t i o n of thos ambiguous relations-between Parliament and the Academy. These a c t i v i t i e s and controversies suggest the v i t a l i t y and impor-tance of Academic influence and some of the conditions with which a r t i s t s and a r t - l o v e r s had to cope. The Academy regulated the V i c t o r i a n a r t world by imposing a steady, almost inexorable rhythm on the a r t i s t i c l i f e of the period through i t s e x h i b i t i o n s and by i t s cr e a t i o n and maintenance of an a r t i s t i c cursus honorum through i t s schools and be-stowal of membership. To be a successful V i c t o r i a n a r t i s t , a man had 28 f i r s t to obtain an education and second to obtain admission into the Academy, or at le a s t into the e x h i b i t i o n rooms each year. Art, e s p e c i a l l y painting, was a career that required years of t r a i n i n g under accomplished masters. The Academy provided such t r a i n i n g but a student had to be p r o f i c i e n t i n c e r t a i n s k i l l s i n order to gain admission to the school. The a s p i r i n g student had to begin elsewhere. Por those who could a f f o r d them, private drawing masters were the be-14 ginning. He could teach fundamentals but usually very l i t t l e more as he was one of the recognized f a i l u r e s of the a r t world. There were a few drawing schools and they d i d prepare students f o r Academic studies but they were few and the number of students e n r o l l e d i n them must have been quite small. W. P. F r i t h and John M i l l a i s studied at Mr. Sass' 1 "5 drawing school i n London, a reputable private school. There were a l s o p r o v i n c i a l and municipal schools such as the Norwich Academy, founded i n 1805, and a f t e r the establishment of the Schools of Design under the aegis of the Board of Trade, these schools u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y t r a i n e d s t u -16 dents i n the f i n e a r t s . E s t a b l i s h e d a r t i s t s d i d occasionally take on i n d i v i d u a l students as w e l l . George F. Watts learned from William Behnes; Charles Eastlake studied with Benjamin Haydon; and D. G. Rossetti studied f o r awhile with Ford Madox Brown. These r e l a t i o n s h i p s were not formally arranged and were thus hardly comparable with the a t e l i e r sys-tem i n France. Por various reasons schools d i d not form around a r t i s t s i n V i c t o r i a n England, even a f t e r the French a t e l i e r system was recog-nized as a f e a s i b l e model. A r t teachers were t r a d i t i o n a l l y at the lowest rank, s o c i a l l y and a r t i s t i c a l l y , i n the a r t world; they taught because they could not support themselves by the sale of t h e i r works. An established 29 a r t i s t might i n s t r u c t a d i s c i p l e f o r the sake of a r t but accepting remuneration f o r such work had disagreeable s o c i a l and economic im-p l i c a t i o n s , above a l l the f a i l u r e to receive money f o r one's own a r t works. Even i f an a r t i s t ignored these p a r t i c u l a r consequences of founding a school, there were reasons that were as discouraging. There was the immense time and e f f o r t required to teach students and to see to the administration of an educational establishment and therejj)was the f a c t that a school which competed with the Academy at i t s own l e v e l was bound to excite h o s t i l i t y i n that quarter. Every V i c t o r i a n a r t i s t was aware, however, that England had de-f i c i e n c i e s which made i t desirable f o r an a r t student to study on the continent, or at least to make an a r t i s t i c pilgrimage there. The Aca-demy occasionally awarded t r a v e l l i n g scholarships to i t s exceptional students f o r study i n I t a l y although there was no formal E n g l i s h school i n I t a l y . I t was the a r t i s t i c heritage and t r a d i t i o n s of that country which a t t r a c t e d students and the sunny climate with i t s e f f e c t s of l i g h t so a l i e n to the E n g l i s h climate. J . M. W. Turner and David Wilkie had been charmed by I t a l y and so too were Charles Eastlake, G. P. Watts and Frederic Leighton. But I t a l y was not the only magnet on the continent. Leighton a l s o studied i n Germany and John P h i l l i p , a contemporary of W. P. F r i t h , l i v e d f o r awhile i n Spain. But as the century progressed i t was France that drew a r t students from England to the continent. Frederic Leighton who had ample opportunity to make comparisons per-ceived that France offered what no other continental country d i d — 17 emulation of l i v i n g a r t i s t s . By the late 1850's France had become a convenient and an a l l u r i n g place to continue a r t studies and Edward 30 Poynter, Thomas Armstrong, James Whistler and George Du Maurier studied 18 together i n Gleyre's a t e l i e r at that time. The E n g l i s h a r t student thus had several opportunities open to him but i n pursuing these, he was guided by a d e f i n i t e idea of what was required f o r success. And perhaps more than anything else, he r e -quired an i n d i v i d u a l i t y of s t y l e . This was necessary to d i s t i n g u i s h h i s works at exhibitions and to e s t a b l i s h h i s reputation. Works of a r t were unique and t h e r e i n lay t h e i r tremendous value and appeal. They could never be mass-produced. Along with the conventions of ac-curate draughtsmanship and perspective, correct l i g h t i n g , and appealing subject matter, i n d i v i d u a l i t y was a necessary q u a l i t y of a r t f o r the mid-Victorians. I t pressed so on Frederic Leighton that when he doubted h i s o r i g i n a l i t y as a student, he succumbed to a p a r a l y s i s of h i s crea-t i v e powers. For some time I have scarcely composed at a l l ; p a r t l y , i t i s true, because I have no time, but p a r t l y also because I do not f e e l myself i n a p o s i t i o n to embody an idea properly. I know that such a s i t u a t i o n i s morbid, and I hope to e x t r i c a t e myself from i t i n time. I t a r i s e s a l s o p a r t l y from the f a c t that my i n d i v i d u a l i t y i s not yet s u f f i c i e n t l y developed...^ The emphasis on i n d i v i d u a l i t y i n a r t probably contributed to the appeal of various educational opportunities and the almost r e s t l e s s search f o r a r t i s t i c i n s p i r a t i o n which characterized many V i c t o r i a n - a r t i s t s . However, despite differences i n t r a i n i n g and i n a r t i s t i c s t y l e , when the a r t student was ready to become the a r t i s t and to make of h i s genius a l i v e l i h o o d , then he looked to the Royal Academy's annual ex-h i b i t i o n to e s t a b l i s h h i s reputation. John M i l l a i s and Holman Hunt, W. P. F r i t h and John P h i l l i p , Frederic Leighton and Edward Poynter, and 31 James Whistler not the l e s s a l l submitted works to the Academy f o r t h e i r summer e x h i b i t i o n . Even D. G. Rossetti painted an e x h i b i t i o n piece e n t i t l e d The Girlhood of the V i r g i n Mary which, although i t d i d not hang i n the Academy's e x h i b i t i o n hung i n the "Free E x h i b i t i o n " which 20 was sponsored by a small London g a l l e r y . M i l l a i s , F r i t h , P h i l l i p and Leighton soon obtained that e l e c t i o n to Academic ranks which was the mark of p r o f e s s i o n a l success*. Holman Hunt and others, i n c l u d i n g G. F. Watts and' D. G. Rossetti, found buyers f o r t h e i r works and were able to l i v e more or le s s comfortably. But the sale of paintings depended upon t h e i r proper p u b l i c a t i o n and p u b l i c e x h i b i t i o n was a f a c t of almost 21 every a r t i s t ' s l i f e . Besides the Royal Academy e x h i b i t i o n there were other places to publish paintings. The B r i t i s h I n s t i t u t i o n , founded i n 1805, provided a place to e x h i b i t and s e l l works although p o r t r a i t s were excluded. A group of private subscribers provided the necessary c a p i t a l to found the I n s t i t u t i o n and they decided what works would be hung and how they would 22 be arranged. There were various organizations i n London which spon-sored e x h i b i t i o n s such as the Society of Painters i n Water-Colour and the Hogarth Club, but t h e i r memberships were small and none could draw public i n t e r e s t as d i d the Academy. Besides these e x h i b i t i o n s there were small g a l l e r i e s which held shows such as the one i n which the "Free 23 E x h i b i t i o n " was held i n 1849 and 1850. The few p r o v i n c i a l e x h i b i t i o n s included the important annual show of the Liverpool Academy. These e x h i -b i t i o n s however only supplemented the Academy's annual show i n that they provided a wider sphere for. the p u b l i c a t i o n of contemporary a r t , but none r i v a l e d the Academy and only the Academy could bestow the honor and p r i -32 vileges of Academic membership. Membership did not ensure an a r t i s t of profitable sales but i t did at least guarantee that the hanging committee 24 would always be friendly. If an a r t i s t was unsuccessful i n gaining admission to the Academy, he could s t i l l make a comfortable l i v i n g through the sale of his works. There were many places to exhibit and even with limited publication of their work, many artists found sufficient buyers to support them. G. P. Watts, D. G. Rossetti, Ford Madox Brown and Edward Burne-Jones were a l l able to live from the sale of their works although they seldom 25 or never exhibited at the Academy. y But these men were able to establish a reputation based on their works and the c r i t i c a l approval of such men as John Ruskin and W. M. Rossetti. Artists whom fame and fortune eluded could turn to portraiture which, despite the rise of photographic studios, was profitable work and relatively easy to obtain. Men who otherwise never bought paintings would commission portraits of -fchemselves or of members of their families. For the able draughtsman i t was re-latively easy work and the earliest commissions given to Leighton, 26 Millais and Watts were for portraits. While they were s t i l l students these commissions brought them between,-£10 and £25 out established artist s could earn several hundred pounds i n the 1860's. Artists could also earn money copying other works. Picture owners often wished works to be copied for various reasons and Leighton usually recommended a young 27 a r t i s t friend to his patrons for copying jobs. Pay for this was small but i t was a way into the world of important buyers and collectors as they generally commissioned copies. Early i n his career G. F. Watts copied a painting for Constantine Ionides for -£10 and Ionides startled 33 28 an acquaintance by p r e f e r r i n g Watts' copy to the o r i g i n a l . Besides p o r t r a i t u r e and copying, an a r t i s t could teach the f i n e a r t s , p r i v a t e l y or i n an a r t school. The private drawing master was a member of many wealthy households although h i s subservient p o s i t i o n was hardly an enviable one. The a r t teacher i n h i s own school was more happily placed but i t never gave fortune or fame. Mr. Sass, the e a r l y teacher of both M i l l a i s and F r i t h , d i d e x h i b i t each year though not at 29 the Academy and was y e a r l y rebuked by the c r i t i c s . A f t e r the Schools of Design were established i n England, they required q u a l i f i e d i n s t r u c -tors and as the cause was no le s s than the fate of a r t i n B r i t a i n , some Academicians i n c l u d i n g Richard Redgrave and William Dyce joined the Schools' administration. The teachers i n these schools were respectable but except f o r the Academicians they were not successful a r t i s t s . Under Henry Cole's management i n the 1850's, the Schools were transferred to the new Department of Education and began to t r a i n students as a r t teachers f o r general schools as well as a r t schools. But the r i s i n g prestige of a r t i s t and educator during the l a s t h a l f of the nineteenth century d i d tend to r a i s e the status of a r t teachers. The Slade School of A r t at the U n i v e r s i t y of London enjoyed two h i g h l y respected pro-fessors i n i t s e a r l y years, Edward Poynter, l a t e r a President of the Royal Academy,--and Alphonse Legros. They were admired f o r t h e i r teaching methods as well as f o r t h e i r own a r t i s t i c s k i l l . ^ A r t i s t s could a l s o enter the f i e l d of i l l u s t r a t i o n and engraving. This f i e l d , too, had i t s luminaries and drudges but engravers engaged i n such d i f f i c u l t techniques as s t e e l - l i n e engraving or mezzotint had to be c a r e f u l l y t r a i n e d . I l l u s t r a t o r s u s u a l l y drew work on blocks which 34-were then engraved by other hands. The t r a i n i n g of engravers was a long and rigorous undertaking. Engravers were craftsmen and learned t h e i r trade through apprenticeships with established engravers. I l l u s t r a -tors were draughtsmen, us u a l l y t r a i n e d as painters were tr a i n e d and the a c t u a l c u t t i n g of blocks was done by an engraver. George Du Maurier, Charles Keene and John Tenniel as Punch i l l u s t r a t o r s and Samuel Cousins and the D a z i e l brothers as engravers were among the luminaries i n the f i e l d and they enjoyed considerable f i n a n c i a l success and s o c i a l pres-t i g e . Cousins was the f i r s t engraver to be elec t e d Royal Academician i n 1854. But below.these heights were numberless drudges t o i l i n g at the i l l u s t r a t i o n s which appeared i n p e r i o d i c a l s , advertisements, pamph-l e t s , and a l l the printed i l l u s t r a t i o n s of the period. I t was considered one of the few respectable occupations f o r an unmarried woman who r e -quired to support h e r s e l f and the government School of Design t r i e d to 31 provide t r a i n i n g f o r these l a d i e s . The economics of a r t were diverse, complicated and recognized great d i s t i n c t i o n s between kinds and q u a l i t y of work. Tremendous sums were r e g u l a r l y paid by wealthy c o l l e c t o r s f o r o i l paintings by Academi-cians and just as regularly, businesses paid small amounts to i l l u s t r a -t ors and engravers f o r advertisement a r t . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between a r t i s t and buyer, however, cannot be c l e a r l y understood merely by de-f i n i n g the "cash nexus", but that connection was undoubtedly an impor-tant one e s p e c i a l l y among the a r t netherworld. Patronage no longer formed an i d e a l r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r the emulation of a r t i s t s and buyers; the Royal Academy had done much to free a r t i s t s from that kind of r e -l a t i o n s h i p i n which they were subservient to wealth. But because works 3 5 of a r t represented "certain ideas concretely, i n c l u d i n g culture i t s e l f , these ideas constantly intruded i n t o market transactions and i n t e r f e r e d with the motivations and prudence of buyers. By the 1860's the a r t market r e f l e c t e d a changed conception of a r t i s t i c worth i n an exaggerated 32 i n f l a t i o n of p r i c e s paid f o r contemporary works. Superior workman-ship and p r o f e s s i o n a l s k i l l no longer adequately defined the merits of these works; genius was being bought and sold and the man who could a f f o r d i t possessed more than a b e a u t i f u l painting when he owned a M i l l a i s , Rossetti or Whistler. Paintings, more than music or l i t e r a -ture, were the concrete a c t u a l i t y not merely the symbol of c u l t u r e . They were f o r many the only contact which remained to them i n modern society with a l l the aest h e t i c experience and s p i r i t u a l humanism which seemed so abundant i n h i s t o r i c a l l i f e . Only music and l i t e r a t u r e pro-vided a s i m i l a r experience—-a dreamlike v i s i o n of a c t u a l l i f e conforming to some h e a r t f e l t sense of the world's order. Art was a dream but a dream which sprang up from a longing to r e a l i z e what ought to be."^ The more p e r f e c t l y the painted image cor-responded to the sentimental image i n the viewer's mind, the more pre-cious the a r t . The V i c t o r i a n s looked at the world with t h e i r heads and hearts as well as with t h e i r eyes and thus the conventions of v e r i s i m i l i -tude i n perspective, l i g h t i n g and representation were necessary to them. O i l and water-colors were the most valuable a r t works because the most capable of embodying the images of r e a l i t y and these a r t i s t s were the " a r i s t o c r a t s " of the a r t world. Engravings, t h e i r value d i l u t e d by the f a c t that they were images of images, were yet p r i z e d f o r t h e i r meticulous workmanship i n reproducing popular paintings and engravers 36 formed a s o l i d "middle c l a s s " i n the a r t hierarchy. They were excluded from the Royal Academy u n t i l 1854 and then were admitted r e l u c t a n t l y . Yet they catered to a huge market and reaped large p r o f i t s from i t . The netherworld of a r t teemed with the industry of drones whose work was worth very l i t t l e , a e s t h e t i c a l l y or f i n a n c i a l l y , but who g r a t i f i e d the V i c t o r i a n love of images. This hierarchy was based on the s k i l l of the a r t i s t , h i s a b i l i t y to embody the dream of r e a l i t y i n h i s work, not on any s o c i a l or economic circumstances. D i s t i n c t i o n s between a r t i s t s and works r e l a t e d d i r e c t l y to the idea of a r t and the things which a r t stood f o r and t h i s a f f e c t e d the a r t market as much as d i d speculation and investment i n a r t works. So the a r t market fed on the ideas of culture which works of a r t embodied and on the commodity i t s e l f . A l l the d i v e r s i t y and i n d i v i d u a l i t y which so marked the a r t world of the 1840's through the 1860's was more r e a l than apparent. The amazing complexity of the a r t w o r l d — i t s s p i r i t u a l and economic tensions, i t s unresolved c o n f l i c t s and jealous hatreds, i t s tenuous r e l a t i o n s h i p to r e a l i t y — a l l t h i s was submerged i n a coherent s t y l e of expression. Commenting on the B r i t i s h pictures at the Paris E x h i b i t i o n i n 1855, Anton Springer remarked: The circumstances of Eng l i s h A r t o f f e r a p e c u l i a r spectacle. Much o r i g i n a l i t y , and yet a p a i n f u l monotony; an agreement i n many points, i n the p r e v a i l i n g manner, but no school; a l o c a l character everywhere strongly marked, but no a r t i s t i c unity. 34 This e x h i b i t i o n contained many of the Pre-Raphaelite works i n c l u d i n g such examples of the "hard-edge" technique as M i l l a i s 1 Ophelia and Holman Hunt's Our E n g l i s h Coasts. [Figures 4 and 5] To the outsider, these Pre-Raphaelite works were very l i k e the paintings which the Pre-Raphaelites so d i s l i k e d which were exhibited with them i n 1855* This 37 F i g u r e 4 38 Figure 5 39 coherence of expression would perhaps not properly be c a l l e d a s t y l e and yet i t made the a r t world work and kept a l l the opposing and d i s -i n t e g r a t i n g forces i n check. The coherence of the mid-Victorian s t y l e was singular considering the contradictions which i t contained and from which i t sprang. The i n s t i t u t i o n s and i d e a l s of the a r t world r e s i s t e d the consequences of the s o c i a l and economic changes which were engulfing i t s markets, a t t i t u d e s , r e l a t i o n s h i p s and prejudices yet the a r t which was produced out of t h i s m i l i e u profoundly touched the deepest sympa-thi e s of the new society, rather than the o l d . And i t appeared to have produced t h i s s t y l e unintentionally* almost unconsciously, and often i n c o n t r a d i c t i o n to i t s own expressed i d e a l s . This s t y l e was evident i n the works of F r i t h and M i l l a i s , perhaps the most representative mid-Victorian a r t i s t s , and al s o i n the work of hack i l l u s t r a t o r s and manufacturing designers. The e f f e c t s of t h i s s t y l e on the a r t world were dramatic though not s t a r t l i n g l y v i s i b l e . During the 1850's the mid-Victorian s t y l e allowed ithe a r t world to develop as a whole, and s i m i l a r a t t i t u d e s among c r i t i c s , a r t i s t s and c o l l e c t o r s towards the new s t y l e gave a sense of community to c u l t u r a l l i f e . The s t y l e i t s e l f contributed to the growing popularity of a r t , which meant the entry i n t o the a r t world of new people and new cl a s s e s . By the lat e 1860's when d i f f e r e n t and even h o s t i l e s t y l e s were acknowledged i n En g l i s h a r t , the mid-Victorian s t y l e began to lose i t s coherence, i t s v i t a l i t y and meaning. By the l a t e 1870's the mid-Victorian s t y l e , or a caricature of i t , was i d e n t i f i e d with p e c u l i a r a e s t h e t i c prejudices and with cer-t a i n economic and s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The development of the mid-Victorian s t y l e twined around three 40 c u l t u r a l events-r-the formation of the "Clique", the ambitious statement of Pre-Raphaelite a r t i s t i c aims on canvas and i n p r i n t , and the a r t c r i -t i c i s m of John Ruskin, e s p e c i a l l y h i s Academy Notes f o r the 1850's. To-gether, these three events meant more to the development of the V i c t o r i a n a r t consciousness than merely the sum of each, and t h e i r e n t i r e e f f e c t was d i s t i n c t from the e f f e c t s of any one or two taken together. The e f f e c t of the "Clique" on the a r t world was n e g l i g i b l e and t h i s a s s o c i a t i o n of Academy students broke up without ever achieving public recognition and long before i t s members won r e p u t a t i o n s . ^ But i t l a s t e d long enough to make conscious i n i t s members a concern f o r representing human beings i n a c e r t a i n way. Each member of the "Clique" sought to excel i n one type of subject painting—W. P. F r i t h i n scenes from con-temporary l i f e , Richard Dadd i n imaginative works, H. N. O'Neil i n works of " s t r i k i n g character, .appealing to the f e e l i n g s , " Augustus Egg i n the i l l u s t r a t i o n of famous l i t e r a r y works, and John P h i l l i p i n works i l -l u s t r a t i n g incidents i n the l i v e s of famous people. This apportionment of a r t i s t i c labors reveals very l i t t l e about the group's aims and i d e a l s but t h e i r work c l e a r l y shows that they were preoccupied with representing incidentsjand emotions which were t y p i c a l of a l l human l i f e . Because they portrayed great personages and great events i n common terms, without the solemn pomp and ceremony which c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y clothed them, they pleased the democratic sentiment which b e l i e v e d i n e q u a l i t y of a l l men. F r i t h ' s s e r i e s of works on marriage proposals and H. N. O'Neil's famous Eastward Ho! demonstrate two sides of t h i s treatment. [Figures 6 and 7] In The Proposal F r i t h presented an important but a usual event i n the l i v e s of most people and i n doing so suggested t y p i c a l but sincere 41 Figure 6 Figure 7 43 and d e e p l y - f e l t emotions. O'Neil presented a s t r i k i n g contemporary event i n the p a r t i c u l a r incident of men embarking on a dangerous under-taking, saying goodby to t h e i r loved ones. In h i s work, O'Neil por-trayed the euphoria, the parting g r i e f , the consciousness of ri g h t , almost a l l the emotional drama of the event which could be p e r s o n i f i e d . These a r t i s t s c o n t r o l l e d face and gesture i n t h e i r works i n order to portray precise and recognizable emotions and to impress on the viewer the meaning of t h e i r work. The i'huraanism" of the "Clique" amounted to the promotion of emotional subjects i n En g l i s h a r t and the consequent importance of sentimentalism f o r both a r t i s t and a r t - l o v e r . The a r t i s t s l e f t l i t t l e mystery i n t h e i r works as they c a r e f u l l y manipulated the emotional and i n t e l l e c t u a l responses of the viewer, often through the heavy-handed symbolism'.of Egg's Past and Present. [Figures 8, 9 and 10] Yet t h i s manipulation was possible only because the preju -dices of V i c t o r i a n l i f e were so concrete and pervasive. These prejudices informed l i t e r a t u r e as well as a r t and amounted to a conviction that c e r t a i n values were of paramount importance. More importantly, perhaps, these prejudices were f i r m l y grounded i n a s o c i a l conception of men i n the world and thus tended to explain a l l human a c t i o n i n t y p i c a l , s o c i a l l y recognized terms. Mid-Victorian a r t r e v e l l e d i n i t s i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y ; anyone who understood the way of the world could e a s i l y understand i t . The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood made the second great contribu-t i o n to the mid-Victorian s t y l e . Their c o n t r i b u t i o n came through John M i l l a i s and William Holman Hunt, however, rather than through D. G. Rossetti who worked i n r e l a t i v e obscurity during the 1850's. The "Clique" had not bothered much with technique, being preoccupied with the repre-Figure 8 Figure 9 46 Figure 1 0 47 sentation of subject. Pre-Raphaelitism, e s p e c i a l l y the works which M i l l a i s and Holman Hunt exhibited at the Academy i n the 1850's, was a technique which emphasized b r i l l i a n t c o l o r and meticulous d e t a i l . Rossetti's withdrawal from p u b l i c e x h i b i t i o n s ensured that h i s medie-v a l idealism was not associated with the development of Pre-Raphaelite p a i n t i n g i n the popular p r e s s . ^ The prosaic medievalism of M i l l a i s ' and Hunt's work was not e n t i r e l y a l i e n to the public which was fond of F r i t h ' s work and t h e i r i nsistence on "t r u t h to nature" (coupled with the extraordinary b r i l l i a n c e of t h e i r canvases on the Academy's walls) was a s a t i s f y i n g statement of a r t i s t i c purpose. The garish paintings of "hard-edge" Pre-Raphaelitism were not b e a u t i f u l to the mid-Victorian public, but as M i l l a i s * s t y l e changed, he symbolized the synthesis of Pre-Raphaelite actualism and brightness with conventional Academic beauty. A commentator on the P a r i s E x h i b i t i o n of 1867* remembering the Pre-Raphaelite display at the 1855 E x h i b i t i o n , described t h i s syn-t h e s i s . That Pre-Raphaelitism, i n the i n t e r v a l between [1855 and 1867]... has worked its^own euro* Mr. M i l l a i s himself proves, by pictures which are pledged to the opposite school of breadth and g e n e r a l i -z a t i o n . This p r a c t i c a l e x t i n c t i o n of Pre-Raphaelitism must be counted as one of the c h i e f f a c t s brought out i n P a r i s ; yet there i s reason to hope that what was good i n the system survives. Pr e c i s i o n , t r u t h and i n d i v i d u a l i t y have been gained. Color and d e t a i l were the main c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which mid-Victorian a r t gained from the Pre-Raphaelite example, and i t a l s o contributed an idea of a r t , a complex of i d e a l s and p r a c t i c e s which made a r t e s p e c i a l l y pre-cious. Ruskin's e f f e c t on mid-Victorian s t y l e was c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to the Pre-Raphaelite problem. He of course came to the defense of Pre-_4.8 Raphaelitism but through h i s w r i t i n g and h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Pre-Raphaelitism he expanded the meaning of the movement i n the p u b l i c mind. M i l l a i s and Holman Hunt were committed to a p a r t i c u l a r technique, "hard-edge" Pre-Raphaelitism, as well as the general p r i n c i p l e of 39 "tr u t h to nature." Ruskin fastened on the p r i n c i p l e and praised the honesty and d e t a i l e d accuracy of representation i n a r t i s t s whose s t y l e s resembled the Pre-Raphaelites' but who were sometimes completely ignorant of the movement, such as John Frederick L e w i s . ^ Even William Dyce, an Academician working securely within mid-Victorian Academic conventions, and W. P. F r i t h were praised f o r Pre-Raphaelite work. I f Rossetti's f a i l u r e to achieve p u b l i c recognition obscured the nature of Pre-Raphaelite p a i n t i n g i n the 1850's, Ruskin fur t h e r obscured i t by p r a i s i n g the "Pre-Raphaelitism" of many a r t i s t s of widely d i f f e r e n t aims. Both circumstances a f f e c t e d the eventual acceptance of Pre-Raphaelite a r t i n which the prosaic humanism of M i l l a i s ' compositions e a s i l y entered the mainstream of mid-Victorian a r t , once h i s "hard-edge" technique was softened. The Pre-Raphaelite c o n t r i b u t i o n to the mid-Victorian s t y l e was p a r t l y a method of representation. A r t i s t s were more c a r e f u l i n the p a i n t i n g of d e t a i l s and e f f e c t s , and the tendency towards v i s u a l d i s -i n t e g r a t i o n i n paintings became more pronounced. In "hard-edge" Pre-Raphaelite compositions such as Holman Hunt's Our E n g l i s h Coasts and M i l l a i s ' Ophelia, the vividness of c o l o r and d e t a i l made i t d i f f i c u l t f o r the eye to comprehend the whole as i t tended rather to wander r e s t -l e s s l y from d e t a i l to d e t a i l . The same tendency marked many V i c t o r i a n works. U n t i l the l a s t decades of the century when a new a r t consciousness 49 demanded a subordination of v i s u a l d e t a i l i n order f o r the e n t i r e work to have a single v i s u a l e f f e c t on the viewer, paintings were bound together to produce a single e f f e c t by the narrative or sentimental i n t e r e s t of the subject. Only the l a t e r generation denounced these narrative bonds as u n a r t i s t i c and therefore i l l e g i t i m a t e ; f o r the mid-V i c t o r i a n s , character and sentiment were as legitimate as perspective i n a r t . This visw of a r t a c t u a l l y encouraged the autonomy of the de-t a i l s i n a p a i n t i n g because the d e t a i l s of expression and material props g r e a t l y enhanced the narrative of a work. Pre-Raphaelitism tended to expand the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of sentimental a r t . Another con t r i b u t i o n of Pre-Raphaelitism-was the widespread accep-tance of t r u t h to nature as a tenet of c r i t i c i s m . Ruskin*B a r t c r i t i c i s m i n the 1850's was devoted to the t r u t h of representation and he attacked t r i v i a l matters as often as he c r i t i c i z e d mistaken conceptions. In a c r i t i c i s m of a p a i n t i n g of a scene from King Lear, Ruskin disapproved of the conception of Cordelia but he a l s o objected that the l i g h t r e -f l e c t i n g from a jewel could not appear the way i t was painted, given the represented conditions of l i g h t . Anyone could v e r i f y t h i s by a 41 simple experiment. This meant that people attending e x h i b i t i o n s could perceive t e c h n i c a l greatness by applying to t h e i r own powers of 42 observation; c r i t i c s often d i d l i t t l e more. Throughout the 1850's and 1860's, a r t - l o v e r s were delighted by trompe d ' o e i l e f f e c t s . There were p i t f a l l s f o r a r t i s t s i n t h i s kind of c r i t i c i s m , even f o r the most t e c h n i c a l l y b r i l l i a n t . A correspondent to the Art Journal complained i n 1855 that the f i r e i n M i l l a i s ' The Rescue ( i n which a fireman i s b r i n g i n g two c h i l d r e n out of t h e i r burning home to the f r a n t i c mother) 50 c l e a r l y had to be from a chemical factory rather than from a private dwelling because only c e r t a i n chemicals produced the l i v i d red hue of 43 r -i the flames as M i l l a i s painted them. |_Pigure 11 J These changes i n the V i c t o r i a n a r t consciousness were subtle but important. The most important e f f e c t was to make i t easy f o r the newly enriched middle-classes to comprehend a r t and to f e e l at ease.in the a r t world. The humanism of mid-Victorian subjects and the actualism of representation were immediately i n t e l l i g i b l e to any viewer who was acquainted with.the s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l r i t u a l s of mid-century. This i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y accounted p a r t l y f o r the immense popularity of p a i n t i n g i n the 1850's and 1860's, but mid-Victorian a r t was not only comprehen-s i b l e , i t was p o s i t i v e l y endearing. The one aspect of contemporary l i f e which the a r t i s t s of the period captured f a i t h f u l l y on canvas was the emotional l i f e . A l l the meaning that f e e l i n g s gave to events was evident i n F r i t h ' s The Derby Day, Egg's Past and Present, Bowler's The Doubt and M i l l a i s 1 Cherry Blossoms. [Figures 12 and 13] This side of a c t u a l l i f e could only f i t meaningfully i n t o the domestic arena i n which the emotional l i f e of most mid-Victorians was enshrined. Mid-V i c t o r i a n paintings u s u a l l y hung i n private homes rather than i n p u b l i c b u i l d i n g s or commercial o f f i c e s . ^ Around the domestic hearth these compositions made sense and they served a c u l t u r a l and s o c i a l role s i m i l a r to that of the well-tuned and oft-played piano. P a r t l y i t was pride of possession and p a r t l y i t was as a focus f o r conversation that made paintings a worthwhile a d d i t i o n to the home. But paintings a l s o represented a l l the f i n e r things i n l i f e , not only c u l t u r a l , but moral, emotional and i n t e l l e c t u a l as w e l l . Because i n many ways the home was 51 Figure 11 52 Figure 13 5 4 a compensating i n s t i t u t i o n f o r the t o i l s of business or p u b l i c l i f e * p a i n t i n g was d e l i b e r a t e l y divorced from the harsher r e a l i t i e s of making a l i v i n g and took i t s place n a t u r a l l y at home along with children* music* garden part i e s * needlework and r u s t l i n g s k i r t s . Despite the great popularity of art* there were V i c t o r i a n s who yearned f o r what was not. Many c r i t i c s resented the f a c t that paintings adorned private drawing-rooms rather than p u b l i c e d i f i c e s . Although a r t i s t s created works that touched c r i t i c s deeply* there lin g e r e d through the 1 8 5 0 ' s an anxiety as to what t h i s a r t expressed of natio n a l l i f e 45 or greatness. This anxiety was a shadow cast by a fundamental problem i n the manufactured a r t s where the idea that a r t n e c e s s a r i l y expressed nation a l character had long been established. Ruskin recognized t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p and i n h i s c r i t i c i s m of the 1 8 5 0 ' s * he attempted to come to g rips with i t and with h i s own f e e l i n g s and hopes f o r a r t . The pro-ductions of past ages were much more a v a i l a b l e to public view i n the 1 8 5 0 ' s than they had been before* and h i s t o r i c a l s t y l e s were both b e a u t i -f u l and awesome. They had that q u a l i t y which the V i c t o r i a n s never quite achieved—the monumental. In competing with h i s t o r i c a l s t y l e s * V i c t o r i a n a r t i s t s attempted to mix great subjects with t h e i r sentimental humanism* a recipe destructive to monumentality. With Ruskin* whose c r i t i c i s m s were always personal and honest* the greatest pictures were often those which d i d not express any natio n a l sentiment and which had no touch of the monumental. In 1 8 5 5 " t w o pictures were exhibite'd at the Royal Academy demonstrating two d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t approaches to composition* M i l l a i s ' The Rescue and Frederic Leighton's Cimabue's Madonna. [Figures 1 1 and 1 4 ] The Rescue was the picture of the year and Ruskin praised 56 i t l a v i s h l y declaring i t the only great picture i n the e x h i b i t i o n . But, he wrote, i t was "very great. The immortal element i s i n i t to the f u l l . I t i s e a s i l y understood, and the public very generally under-46 stand i t . " * In h i s same c r i t i c i s m Ruskin discussed Leighton's picture and though he thought i t a good painting, he had serious reservations. I t s defect i s , that the equal care given to the whole of i t , i s not yet care enough. I am aware of no instance of a young painter, who was to he r e a l l y great, who d i d not i n h i s youth paint with intense e f f o r t and delicacy of f i n i s h . The handling here i s much too broad; and the faces are, i n many instances, out of drawing, and very opaque and feeble i n colour... The Dante e s p e c i a l l y i s i l l - c o n c e i v e d — f a r too haughty and i n no wise noble or thoughtful. Ruskin's reasons f o r p r e f e r r i n g The Rescue was that i t expressed a "higher order of emotion" than any expressed i n Leighton*s p a i n t i n g . Yet Leighton's p a i n t i n g was meant to express the enthusiasm and admira-t i o n of an e n t i r e community f o r a great work of a r t . Ruskin ought to have understood Leighton's composition and at le a s t sympathized with the i d e a l expressed. But Leighton*s s t y l e was monumental to the point of impersonality and with t h i s Ruskin could not sympathize, even though t h e i r i d e a l s were s i m i l a r . Ruskin, l i k e most mid-Victorians, cared more f o r f e e l i n g than form i n a r t and f e e l i n g could not sustain a monu-mental s t y l e . National a r t , a r t which expressed great and noble ideas, required some touch of the monumental, some impressive convention of expression which transcended s o c i a l r i t u a l . This was no longer pos-s i b l e i n the V i c t o r i a n world. Other aspects of the mid-Victorian search f o r great contemporary a r t demonstrated the ambiguities of the a t t i t u d e towards the p o s s i b i l i t y of a national school. Haydon's school of h i s t o r i c a l p a i n t i n g was a -57 dead-issue. The h i s t o r i c a l works decorating the Houses of Parliament brought praise and even some enthusiasm but they were i n d i v i d u a l e f f o r t s and could not match the popularity of the o i l paintings at the Royal Academy's e x h i b i t i o n s . The cartoons entered i n competition f o r the decoration of Parliament were honored with a p r o v i n c i a l tour by an a r t dealer, but when G. F. Watts' cartoon was s o l d to another dealer, he 47 had to cut i t i n t o small pieces i n order to s e l l i t . High a r t was not popular at the Academy e x h i b i t i o n s e i t h e r . W. P. F r i t h , .the most prosaic of the great V i c t o r i a n a r t i s t s , while admitting that h i s works were not great nor could be, had l i t t l e sympathy with High A r t . In h i s Autobiography F r i t h described an incident which occurred at an Academy e x h i b i t i o n . One Academician of what i s c a l l e d the "high-aim" school, by which i s meant a p e c u l i a r people who aim high and nearly always miss, and who very much object to those who aim much lower and happen to h i t — h e s a i d to me, looking at the crowd round my p i c t u r e : "That work of yours i s very popular; but I intend to e x h i b i t a work next year that w i l l have a greater crowd about i t than that." "Indeed," s a i d I . "And what i s your subject?" "Well, I have not quite f i x e d on the t i t l e yet; but I think I s h a l l c a l l i t 'Monday Morning at Newgatei';—the hanging morning, you know. I s h a l l have a man hanging and the crowd about him. Great v a r i e t y of character, you know. I wonder you never thought of i t . " 4 8 The problem with High A r t was of course that there was no fundamental agreement even among the middle-classes as to what images expressed nation a l sentiment and yet c e r t a i n q u a l i t i e s had "to be included. Under these circumstances, a r t i s t s could not compete with h i s t o r i c a l s t y l e s . However much some a r t - l o v e r s i n the 1850's missed "great" contem-porary a r t , there can be no doubt that the s t y l e was tremendously s a t i s f y i n g . I t encouraged the middle-classes to engage i n p i c t u r e -58 buying, as well as to attend exhibitions and subscribe to art periodicals. There was a common language of artistic imagery in the 1850's and as artists knew what was expected of them, so buyers could value a work with very l i t t l e experience. Sentimental humanism of subject, bright color and detail, careful accuracy of representation—these were the cornerstones of the mid-Victorian art world. To the style which they created was due the harmony and coherence which distinguished the 1850's. Despite complaints from some quarters about prices paid for various works of art, the art market worked because of the intelligibility of the commodity and because prices rose gradually. The f i r s t challenges to this world came as stylistic innovations and although they were closely connected with social, economic and intellectual challenges, the crisis which altered the mid-Victorian art consciousness was brought about by the problems which new styles created. And the f i r B t style which chal-lenged the art world after the Pre-Raphaelite rebellion was introduced in the 1860's by artists trained on the continent. Their style reflected their artistic education and their distinctly different aims in a r t — form arrived to challenge feeling. The two artists who most clearly and forcefully represented this new style were Frederic Leighton and Edward Poynter. Leighton had re-ceived a l l his training on the continent, first in Germany under Steinle, then in Italy and finally in France. Italy .was his great love, but he travelled to France out of an inner necessity. From an artistic point of view I am quite glad to leave Rome, which I, for a beginner, regard as the grave of art. A young man needs before a l l things the emulation of hisicosatsaiporaries; this I lack here in the highest degree; also here I cannot learn my trade... I am of—the-opinion that the spirit cannot work 59 effectively u n t i l the hand has obtained complete pliancy, and I cannot see what.-, right a painter has to evade the d i f f i c u l t i e s of painting... So he went to Paris i n 1856 and although he knew Poynter and had advised him to study i n Prance, he took almost no part i n the student l i f e led 50-1 by Poynter and his friends at Gleyre's studio. Poynter had decided to study im Paris after v i s i t i n g the International Exhibition i n Paris i n 1855* This was the f i r s t time that a large collection of both French and B r i t i s h paintings were exhibited together and the f i r s t opportunity for a r t i s t s and the public to compare the two national schools. Poynter for one was struck by the elegance and the free but controlled energy 5»l of French draughtsmanship. W. M. Rossetti recognized that the ex-cellence of the French school lay i n i t s competence which was "beyond r i v a l r y . " ^ The art student i n France was thoroughly trained i n the s k i l l s of the hand and i n the production of various p i c t o r i a l effects. The French were preoccupied with form rather than subject and as the English had expended great efforts on subject pieces, so had the French given their best to achieve - ati unsurpassed expertise. For Poynter and Leighton, indeed for any young English a r t i s t who was not entirely satisfied with Academic conventions, the brilliance and ease of French work was seductive. They hoped to learn French forms i n order to perfect the English style. They never entirely renounced the English subject nor did they ever abandon the lessons i n form which their Parisian training had i n s t i l l e d . In the early 1860's Leighton and Poynter returned to England to begin their a r t i s t i c careers. At the same time other a r t i s t s trained 6 0 i n France came to work i n England—James Whistler* George Du Maurier* Thomas Armstrong* Alphonse Legros and James J.*Ti©sot. Their d i s t i n c t l y -d i f f e r e n t s t y l e * so evident i n Leighton's pa i n t i n g i n 1855* was not so c l e a r i n the 1860's when individualism had created so many d i f f e r e n t a r t i s t i c v i s i o n s within the c l e a r s t y l i s t i c conventions of the period. Leighton had read Ruskin's books and sought to copy nature as Ruskin had 53 suggested* with a l l reverence* accepting everything* r e j e c t i n g nothing. Leighton and Poynter accepted the necessity of an i n t e r e s t i n g subject but drew upon the i d e a l forms of c l a s s i c i s m . T heir subjects were r e -moved from the kind of humanism current among most V i c t o r i a n works. Their fondness f o r c l a s s i c a l forms* e s p e c i a l l y drapery* grew out of t h e i r continental t r a i n i n g . At the same time another new influence was developing i n English a r t . Rossetti took Edward Burne-Jones as a p u p i l and Rossetti's mys-t i c a l and i d e a l i s t i c medievalism captivated an apt p u p i l . Like the a r t i s t s t r a i n e d i n France* Rossetti and Burne-Jones rejected the s e n t i -mental representation of contemporary l i f e i n favor the a representa-t i o n of the forms and v i s u a l rhythms of medieval l i f e . Although the c l a s s i c a l and medieval forms of the two groups were as d i f f e r e n t from each other as they were from the t y p i c a l mid-Victorian s t y l e * they presented a s i m i l a r challenge to that s t y l e because they were both e s s e n t i a l l y anti-modern. And t h e i r d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with modern l i f e was not simply an aesthe t i c preference. Like the mid-Victorians* t h e i r a e s t h e t i c preferences were grounded i n an ent i r e complex of feelings* prejudices and values* and both Burne-Jones and Leighton 61 expressed-a-deep -distrust of many of the values and i d e a l s which i n -formed middle-class l i f e . Burne-Jones learned t h i s d i s t r u s t e a r l y f i r s t from Newman through h i s Sermons. When I was f i f t e e n or sixteen he [Newman] taught me so much I do mind [ s i c ] — t h i n g s that w i l l never be out of me. In an age of sofas and cushions he taught me to he i n d i f f e r e n t to comfort* and i n an age of materialism he taught me to venture a l l on the unseen, and t h i s so e a r l y that i t was well i n me when l i f e began... So i f t h i s world cannot tempt me with money or l u x u r y — and i t c a n ' t — o r anything i t has i n i t s trumpery treasure-house* i t i s most of a l l because he sa i d i t i n a way that touched me... So he stands to me as a great image or symbol of a man whp never stooped* and who put a l l t h i s world's l i f e i n one splendid venture* which he knew as well as you or I might f a i l * but with a glo r i o u s scorn of everything that was not h i s dream.54 Leighton's r e j e c t i o n of the values of modern l i f e was f i r s t i n -dicated while he was s t i l l a student i n I t a l y . Although Leighton was l a t e r known as a man of remarkable s o c i a l g i f t s * i n I t a l y he displayed an intense aversion to a type of person which l a t e r he and many others i d e n t i f i e d as a threat to a r t . ...I have an ungovernable horror of being asked to tea; my aversion to tea-fights* muffin scrambles* and crumpet c o n f l i c t s * which has been gathering f o r a long time* has now become an open wound. The more I enjoy and appreciate the society and intercourse of the dozen people that I care to know* the more tiresome I f i n d the commerce of others* braves et exceilentes gens du reste; the Lord be merciful to the overwhelming i n s i p i d i t y of that i n d i v i d u a l whose,name i s Legion— t h e unexceptionable— the h i g h l y respectable.55 In l a t e r years* Leighton i d e n t i f i e d u t i l i t a r i a n i s m with these medio-c r i t i e s and on them and t h e i r narrow materialism* he placed the r e -s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the P h i l i s t i n i s m which oppressed a r t . But i t was the new s t y l e i t s e l f which most i n s i s t e n t l y attacked modern materialism and which l e d to the expression of these c r i t i c i s m s . " Almost a l l the elements of t h i s new formal s t y l e were anti-modern 62 or at le a s t expressed the inadequacy of modern a r t i f a c t s f o r a r t i s t i c representations. The most obvious difference between the new s t y l e and the mid-Victorian st y l e was that the new one r a r e l y portrayed modern subjects except i n p o r t r a i t u r e . Leighton and Poynter drew on c l a s s i c a l myth and h i s t o r y or s i m i l a r l y exotic subjects f o r t h e i r works while Rossetti and Burne-Jones drew on the legends and l i t e r a t u r e of the middle ages. One obvious reason f o r t h i s was that modern a r t i f a c t s of dress, f u r n i t u r e and archi t e c t u r e had none of the formal, i d e a l q u a l i t i e s of the beauty which these a r t i s t s preferred. Above everything else these a r t i s t s sought a beauty of harmonious proportions, of flowing l i n e s and balanced forms, such as drapery displayed i n c l a s s i c a l a r t . Modern dress f o r women was constraining and ungainly while f o r men i t was drab, even absurdly p l a i n . The modern room was generally decorated with a myriad of unrelated forms and often with materials devoid of any r e a l beauty, but painted or papered or carved to disguise the f a c t . At the time Burne-Jones, Leighton, Poynter and the others entered the a r t world there were many reformers vehemently c h a s t i z i n g the manufactured a r t s f o r a l l t h e i r defects, and these a r t i s t s ..were among the f i r s t to create a new and s a t i s f y i n g s t y l e i n i n t e r i o r decoration. The a r t of the n e o - c l a s s i c i s t s and neo-medievalists presented with a l l d e l i b e r a t i o n a new world to V i c t o r i a n s , a world d i s t i n c t from con-temporary l i f e , more perfect and more b e a u t i f u l . The new a r t i s t s , even Burne-Jones, were not a c t u a l i s t s as the mid-Victorian a r t i s t s were; they were i d e a l i s t s seeking to con t r o l the v i s u a l rhythm of t h e i r works as c a r e f u l l y as t h e i r predecessors c o n t r o l l e d the emotional rhythm. And i n 63 .their subjects, the new a r t i s t s reached f o r perfection, avoiding sub-j e c t s which were too common, too intensely dramatic or too sentimental. The second element of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n which the i d e a l i s t s d i s -played i n t h e i r works was a d i s t a s t e f o r the mid-Victorian s t y l e i t s e l f , e s p e c i a l l y the cleverness and commonness of i t . When Burne-Jones saw Rossetti's work f o r the f i r s t time, he thought i t so unlike the t y p i c a l work of the period as to be something e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t ; he had not 56 l i k e d a r t u n t i l he knew Rossetti's work. There was, the i d e a l i s t s believed, a fundamental difference between most mid-Victorian a r t and the great a r t of the past; great a r t was an expression of great f a i t h and was created out of a compelling inner necessity, but most V i c t o r i a n a r t was produced to make money. Leighton, comparing the o l d I t a l i a n masterpieces with those of h i s own period, s a i d : ...they...were a l l painted with an ardent b e l i e f i n the f a i t h to which they a l l owe t h e i r existence; from thence arose, amongst other excellencies, a c e r t a i n n a i f , ingenuously c h i l d l i k e t r e a t -ment of the miraculous, which, combined with the manly d i g n i t y of consummate a r t , gives them an indescribable charm, which nothing can replace. Now—with us, at l e a s t , of the c o l d b e l i e f — men throw r e a l l y eminent t a l e n t s — t o the dogs. Lacking the ardent f a i t h , as almost a l l did, the i d e a l i s t s attempted to match the s t r i v i n g f o r p e r f e c t i o n which they discerned i n older works. Leighton and Burne-Jones were a l i k e i n d e l i b e r a t e l y seeking out the 58 d i f f i c u l t i e s of p a i n t i n g i n order to avoid cleverness. Throughout h i s career Leighton was often c r i t i c i z e d f o r an overly r e f i n e d manner. His methods of composition and p a i n t i n g were so rigorous that they sys-t e m a t i c a l l y o b l i t e r a t e d a c c i d e n t a l or uncontrolled e f f e c t s . Yet Leighton recognizing the v a l i d i t y of t h i s objection, d e l i b e r a t e l y chose h i s super-l a t i v e l y f i n i s h e d r e s u l t s . — When a fellow a r t i s t praised a sketch and 64 and-asked-that Leighton not ruin i t by adding to i t , Leighton replied, No, I shall finish i t , and probably, as you suggest, spoil i t . To complete satisfactorily is what we painters strive for. I am not a great painter, but I am always striving to finish my work up to my first conception. ^ It was the idealists who made the connection between the low state of English art and the Philistinism of the middle-classes, who bought most of the contemporary paintings. Above a l l they despised the utilitarianism that pervaded so much of middle-class life and the preoccupation with material comforts and possessions. The triviality of middle-class life they attributed to the absence of serious beliefs and pursuits. In reality, the spiritual life of the mid-Victorians disappointed because there was no high place in i t for art and i t did not provide the spiritual inspiration which the artists sought. It was not the faithlessness of the age which created such discontent in the artists, rather i t was their own lack of faith which the age could not remedy. The whole current of human life [Leighton declared to Academy students] setting resolutely in a direction opposed to artistic production, no love of beauty, no sense of the outward dignity and comeliness of things, calling on the part of the public for expression at the artist's hands; and, as a corollary, no dignity, no comeliness for the most part, in their outward aspect... The emotional li f e represented in mid-Victorian works, even when i t was serious and sincere, was trivial and personal. The idealists rejected this view of human nature which was so grounded in the social prejudices of the middle-classes. They wished rather to express the abiding human values which a l l great art expressed and which transcended social and historical conditions. Hence their preoccupation with classical myth and literature. [Figures 15,-16 and 17] With the idealists, art 66 68 meant d i f f e r e n t things than i t d i d to the mid-Victorians and t h i s was v i s i b l e i n t h e i r s t y l e , t h e i r subject matter and t h e i r remarks i n l e t -t e r s and speeches. They were preoccupied with form and color, with subjects of enduring human i n t e r e s t which were worthy of t h e i r e f f o r t s , and with the serious dedication of the a r t i s t to h i s a r t i n a devoted but l i f e l e s s i m i t a t i o n of the f a i t h f u l . Of c r i t i c a l importance to them was the r e l a t i o n s h i p of a r t to society, and i n so f a r as they could, they preached the reformation of society f o r the r e b i r t h of a r t . And the f a c t o r i n the a r t world which c o n t i n u a l l y mocked the meaning of a r t and the i d e a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between a r t and s o c i e t y was the a r t market. In the 1860's when most of the i d e a l i s t s began to pursue careers i n London, the a r t market boomed. C o l l e c t o r s paid huge sums f o r o l d masters, but a l s o f o r the works of l i v i n g a r t i s t s which were recommended to buyers by being easy to authenticate. Prices had r i s e n during the 1850's and by the 1860's, a r t i s t s could l i v e l u x u r i o u s l y from the sale of t h e i r works. A r t i s t s were al s o r i s i n g i n s o c i a l esteem and Frederic Leighton was the f i r s t a r t i s t i n England to be r a i s e d to a peerage i n 62 1896. This was indeed a golden age f o r l i v i n g a r t i s t s , yet there were serious problems, problems which prospe r i t y aggravated rather than solved. As the a r t market a t t r a c t e d more money, i t a l s o a t t r a c t e d specu-l a t o r s . The tremendous increase i n p r i c e s and the two d i f f e r e n t s t y l e s made speculation more obvious. One p a i n t i n g was often s o l d several times i n as many years and the d i s p a r i t y between the p r i c e s paid on the d i f -ferent sales u s u a l l y rose as other a r t p r i c e s rose. The i d e a l i s t s never thought jth e ^ p r i c e s - p a i d - f o r t h e i r works were too high, yet there 69 were complaints that some a r t i s t s received more money than t h e i r works were w o r t h . T h e same economic phenomenon which had allowed the i d e a l i s t s to enter e a s i l y i n t o the a r t world, r i s i n g p r i c e s , a l s o aggravated that aspect of the a r t world which was most d i s t a s t e f u l to them, the impersonal exchange of money f o r work. The i d e a l i s t s were not alone i n t h e i r condemnation of the specu-l a t i v e p r i n c i p l e i n the a r t market. W. P. F r i t h i n h i s Autobiography lamented the changes i n the a r t market. A great change has taken place since the year 1844* when such men as Sheepshanks, Vernon, M i l l e r , Gibbons and others were c o l l e c t i n g works of modern a r t , influenced by the love of i t * and no£ by the notion of investment so common i n the l a s t few years. A r t c r i t i c s eager to explain the decadence of a r t and the c u l t u r a l developments i n V i c t o r i a n England a l s o analyzed the market and i t s unfortunate e f f e c t s on p a i n t i n g . Within the present generation the patronage of l i v i n g a r t has become t e n f o l d what i t was at the beginning of the century. Pr i c e s have r i s e n as patrons have increased. The nobleman, as a rule, i s no longer the p r i n c i p a l picture-buyer... The great manufacturing andttrading d i s t r i c t s now open the best picture markets. The overflowings of wealth r e a l i z e d i n Lancashire m i l l s , and Liverpool or London o f f i c e s , and Gloucestershire forges, are invested i n p i c t u r e s . Love of a r t , i n some cases; ostenta-t i o n , and the notion that a g a l l e r y of p i c t u r e s i s the becoming appendage of a f i n e house, i n mor®,- coupled with a keen eye to business, i n most instances are the motives f o r t h i s k i n d of investment...also the r i s e of the middle-man, the p i c t u r g r dealer, p r i n t publishing i s almost e n t i r e l y i n t h e i r hands. The same author complained of the "unexampled and triumphant i n t r u s i o n i n t o the domain of a r t of the t r a d i n g and speculative p r i n c i p l e . " But although c r i t i c s were concerned about these developments, i t was the a r t i s t who dealt with the problems they caused, and who b e n e f i t e d from the new r i c h e s . 70 Much of the s e l l i n g done i n the 1850's by a r t i s t s was to established buyers, both private p a r t i e s and dealers. M i l l a i s s old many of h i s e a r l y works to Mr. Combe of Oxford and to Mr. Parrar and Mr. White, both 66 picture dealers. Farxar and White had regular buyers as well and they made t h e i r p r o f i t s by r e s e l l i n g M i l l a i s 1 works at a higher price and reserving the copyright i n order to p r o f i t from the sale of engravings. This was apparently a general p r a c t i c e . The most g a l l i n g aspect of the a r t market was the way i t enriched speculators who p r o f i t e d from another's work. Every a r t i s t -who had achieved some success could look back on works of h i s which had made fortunes f o r publishers or which 68 had been sold cheaply by him and now fetched a high price at auction. Most of the i n j u s t i c e s of the a r t market had exist e d e a r l i e r f o r the bas i c mechanisms had been long established, but they had not been so v i s i b l e before. The mid-Victorians were often devoted a r t i s t s , yet they r a r e l y looked on t h e i r profession as more than a superior trade; they were proud of t h e i r s k i l l y , unashamed of t h e i r honors and income. The i d e a l i s t s , however, saw themselves as more than p r o f e s s i o n a l s . Por them a r t was a c a l l i n g and becoming an a r t i s t meant devoting oneself to a rigorous s t r i v i n g f o r p e r f e c t i o n . The i d e a l i s t s themselves perceived that the Church, e s p e c i a l l y the Catholic Church, provided a model form of l i f e , and the s p i r i t u a l v i t a l i t y , which they lacked. I t haunted the agnostic Leighton i n h i s e a r l y student years. What a r t i s t , however uncatholic i n h i s b e l i e f , can contemplate those o l d Gothic churches, with t h e i r g l o r i o u s tabernacles and other ornaments equally b e a u t i f u l and equally disused, without p a i n f u l l y f e e l i n g what an almost deadly blow the Reformation was 71 to High Art, what a powerful incentive i t removed, irrevocably? Who, i n h i s heart of hearts, can but dwell with melancholy r e - -gret on the times when a r t was coupled with b e l i e f , and so many divine works were v i r t u a l l y expressions of f a i t h ? What a p u r i -f y i n g and enobling influence was thus exercised over the jfcaste of the a r t i s t ! an influence which nothing can replace... In the market-place the d i s t i n c t i o n between the mid-Victorians and the i d e a l i s t s became p a i n f u l l y c l e a r — t h e o l d professionals painted to make money, the i d e a l i s t s painted because of a s p i r i t u a l need. In h i s book, Three Great Modern Painters, A. Lys Baldry emphasized that none of these painters, Leighton, Burne-Jones or Whistler, catered to the popular taste and c i t e d t h e i r i s o l a t i o n from various movements and, i n the case of Burne-Jones and Whistler, from the Academy as evidence 70 of t h e i r true inner i n s p i r a t i o n . The r e a l a r t i s t looked only to him-s e l f f o r h i s standards and because of t h i s , those a r t i s t s who ignored or attacked the Academy were e n t i r e l y acceptable. Academic a r t i s t s such as Leighton, Poynter and Laurence Alma-Tadema were acceptable as well, t h e i r membership not being held against them. The i d e a l i s t s shared a more coherent view of the a r t i s t ' s s o c i a l role than d i d the mid-Victorians, but that view stressed individualism, i n s p i r a t i o n and an inner consciousness of duty. Although they sympa-thized with each other, they never acted together as a group. Nor d i d they ever f u l l y r e a l i z e , even to themselves, the role of a r t i n the modern world. Their n o s t a l g i a f o r the o l d age of f a i t h was based on t h e i r con-v i c t i o n that i n such an age, a r t had held a worthy p o s i t i o n . The anxiety and despair which they f e l t was due p a r t l y to the f a c t that they could not e n t i r e l y replace r e l i g i o n with a r t , that the c u l t of a r t alone could not, i n t h e i r eyes, sustain a r t i n the s o c i a l role they wished 72 f o r i t . The major aesth e t i c difference between the mid-Victorians and the i d e a l i s t s was almost i d e n t i c a l to t h e i r s t y l i s t i c d i f f e r e n c e s . The mid-Victorians loved beauty but they found i t i n naturalism and i n popular types i n which l o v e l i n e s s and sentiment were mixed. There was a paradox i n the d i s t i n c t i o n between the aesthetic aims of the mid-Vi c t o r i a n s and the i d e a l i s t s . Although the i d e a l i s t s stressed those aspects of pain t i n g which were apprehended by s i g h t — f o r m * l i n e , c o l o r and harmonious p r o p o r t i o n s — m i d - V i c t o r i a n canvases depended more on the immediate sensual appeal of a work. A mid-Victorian p a i n t i n g required the viewer to enter i n t o the scene portrayed, to believe i n i t , and i t accomplished t h i s p a r t l y by c a r e f u l naturalism which made d e t a i l s sensibly r e a l . But t h i s sensuousness, because i t served a d e f i n i t e p i c t o r i a l purpose, was subordinated to an idea of character. When M i l l a i s considered women i n a r t , he described the sensual appeal of mid-Victorian a r t . I t i s only since Watteau and Gainsborough that woman has won her ri g h t place i n A r t . The Dutch had no love f o r women, and the I t a l i a n s were as bad. The women's pictures by T i t i a n , Raphael, Rembrandt, Van Dyck, and Velasquez are magnificent as works of Ar t ; but who would ears to k i s s such women? Watteau, Gains-borough, and Reynolds were needed to show us how to do j u s t i c e to woman and to r e f l e c t her sweetness. Sweetness was an a t t r i b u t e of character rather than form. While the mid-Victorians pursued the beatity of character, the i d e a l i s t s sought an enduring beauty of form p r e c i s e l y l i k e the "magnificent" a r t of T i t i a n and Velasquez. [Figures 18 and 19] The sensuousness of the i d e a l i s t s was almost cold-blooded compared with that of the mid-Victorians. And yet i d e a l i s t canvases aimed at d e l i g h t i n g the mind through de-Figure 18 74 Figure 19 Z5-l i g h t i n g the-eye; they appealed d i r e c t l y and p a r t i c u l a r l y to the senses as the true touchstones df a r t i s t i c a p p r e c i a t i o n . For the i d e a l i s t s the monumental form with i t s measured rhythms of l i n e and c o l o r was the great s t y l e and fresco the true medium. Fresco was assuredly not a middle-class s t y l e and most of the i d e a l i s t s e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y undertook at l e a s t one f r e s c o — R o s s e t t i and Burne-Jones i n the Oxford Union* Leighton at Lyndhurst Church and the South Ken-sington Museum and G. F. Watts at Lincoln's Inn and L i t t l e Holland 72 House. But t h i s r e v i v a l of fresco painting posed more problems than could be s u c c e s s f u l l y overcome. There were the purely t e c h n i c a l aspects of fresco; fresco was an a l i e n technique and a r t i s t s * conditioned to the f u l l - b o d i e d c o l o r of o i l s and the transparency of water-colors* were often d i s s a t i s f i e d with the f l a t colors of f r e s c o . Permanence of c o l o r was a l s o a problem* as Rossetti discovered* as was composing subject matter complementary to the f l a t colors and form of fresco, and the large spaces which the work must occupy. Overcoming these pro-blems required extensive experimentation above a l l else* but nowhere i n V i c t o r i a n England was there a f i e l d f o r such experimentation. The economics of the a r t world f r u s t r a t e d the hopes of the i d e a l i s t s . Fresco p a i n t i n g was f a r more expensive both i n time and materials than o i l or water -color* and i t required a great amount of wall-space and a correspondingly large g a l l e r y . Enough l i g h t had to f a l l on the fresco to l i g h t e n i t s f l a t c o l o r f o r the work to be a e s t h e t i c a l l y successful. In subject*, material and s t y l e * fresco was too c o l d and monumental to s a t i s f y the c u l t u r a l needs of the middle-classes who would not commission such works. And i t was too permanent; though not 76 impossible, i t was d i f f i c u l t and expensive to move, and there was no 73 market for contemporary fresco as there was for o i l paintings. There was an alternative to an art market controlled by the middle-classes and that was the establishment of government patronage. The aristocracy was no longer a significant force i n the art market although they appear to have supported the few sculptors of the midw V i c t o r i a n p eriod.^ But i t was conceivable to some ar t i s t s that their influence i n government might make government a wise and disinterested patron of the arts. The idea was old by the 1860's. Haydon had cam-paigned for government patronage and the scheme for decorating the 715 Houses of Parliament was hailed as a great triumph for the arts. Government patronage was attractive for many reasons—government had money and during the I8501s and i860 1s i t was doing a great deal of building. Public buildings were a natural place for fresco paintings expressing national greatness and government would certainly approve the patriotic and educative value of such art work. Yet for different reasons, i n the eyes of the new a r t i s t s , government proved to be as unsatisfactory a patron as the middle-classes i f not more so. The government had money but i t was unwilling to spend more than necessary; decoration was usually minimal. The cheapness of government frustrated architects as well as a r t i s t s and there was nothing so indicative of this frustration as a comparison of the proposed plans for a building and the finished building—what grandeur beat i n the heart of the small 76 shells of Victorian buildings. [Figures 20 and 21] By the 1860's the government's shortcomings were a l l too evident. Even the decora-tion of the Houses of Parliament embittered a r t i s t s and Maclise com-Figure 20 - 7 9 77 plained that he could not get paid f o r h i s work. There were a l t e r n a t i v e s to the free a r t market besides government patronage—the patronage of business and the Church. Both off e r e d opportunities f o r fresco but the expenditures required f o r fresco were too great. When Watts off e r e d to decorate Euston S t a t i o n with frescoes f o r the costs of the materials alone, the managers of the London and North-Western Railway r e l u c t a n t l y refused because the cost 78 of s c a f f o l d i n g alone was p r o h i b i t i v e . Leighton's fresco i n Lyndhurst Church was a donation. Unfortunately by the 1860's the work of good a r t i s t s was generally so valuable that only o i l and water-color p a i n t i n g were economically f e a s i b l e f o r a r t i s t and buyer. And what was true of fresco was generally true of monumental sculpture as w e l l . Unlike F r i t h or M i l l a i s who accepted and worked comfortably within the economic boundaries of the a r t world, the i d e a l i s t s had attempted, i n the name of a r t , to expand those boundaries and found they could not do i t . By the l a t e 1860's the r i s e of i d e a l i s t a r t i n V i c t o r i a n England had created a new consciousness of a r t . W. M. Rossetti i n 1867 spoke of decorative a r t as opposed to p i c t o r i a l or s t r i c t l y representational 79 a r t as the highest form of a r t . C r i t i c s as well as a r t i s t s recognized i n t h i s new s t y l e the claims of a purely a r t i s t i c manner of expression. There was an e x p l i c i t acceptance of the a r t i s t i c license of arrangement and s e l e c t i o n of nature. Separate from nature and more noble, a r t had 8o i t s own laws and truths. In the l a t e 1860's the word "aesthetic" began to appear more frequently i n c r i t i c a l writings to d i s t i n g u i s h the purely formal a t t r i b u t e s of a work from i t s e t h i c a l or narrative q u a l i t i e s , and to denote the rules of form, c o l o r and s t y l e which excluded moral and -80 ..intellectual considerations. Walter Pater* W. M. Rossetti and several anonymous c r i t i c s used the term, but not to denote a school, merely a 81 way of looking at a r t . The idea that these a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t i e s were more t r u l y a r t i s t i c l e d c r i t i c s i n the l a t e 1870's to state that a e s t h e t i c excessed were more forgivable, because more true to a r t , than the excesses of sentimental n a r r a t i v e . As the Saturday Review observed: We have no great love f o r the vagaries of what i s c a l l e d the a e s t h e t i c school, and f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t to understand or approve [ t h e i r ] enthusiasm... But the extravagances i n t o which the c u l t i v a t o r s of the a e s t h e t i c sometimes f a l l have t h e i r o r i g i n at l e a s t i n an a r t i s t i c f e e l i n g , i n a desire f o r something higher than the s p i r i t which i s prepared to turn out pi c t u r e s as a boot-maker turns out boots. And that there i s the l e a s t tinge of true f e e l i n g f o r a r t i n such productions as gljhe Road to Ruin" can hardly be urged with any show of reason. "Aesthetic" was an o l d word but i t served the 1870's b e t t e r than i t had the 1850's. There was a decided antipathy between i d e a l i s t s and mid-Victorian a r t i s t s but they never came to an open break i n the 1860's. They never r e a l l y r e a l i z e d where the boundary lay between them. I t was not so much what they had i n common, but rather the ambiguity of t h e i r own p o s i t i o n s i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to each other. No issue arose to ill u m i n a t e t h e i r differences and the r h e t o r i c of a r t with i t s l i m i t e d categories obscured t h e i r d i f f e r e n t aims and methods. M i l l a i s , whose a t t i t u d e s and s t y l e were pre-dominately mid-Victorian, was l i n k e d with the i d e a l i s t s through h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p with Rossetti and because of h i s s t y l e , which was often as decorative as T i s s o t ' s or Moore's. Leighton, one of the foremost of the i d e a l i s t s , by v i r t u e of h i s imjpeccable s t y l e and ambi-tions, entered the Academy and l o y a l l y defended the i n s t i t u t i o n which Watts and Burne-Jones di s l i k e d . - Watts himself was so thorough an i n d i v i -81 dua-l-i-s-t—i-n-his a r t that he had few s t y l i s t i c s i m i l a r i t i e s with e i t h e r the n e o - c l a s s i c i s t s or the neo-medievalists, and although he c r i t i c i z e d the Academy i n 1863 before a Parliamentary commission, he became an Academician i n 1867* Of c r i t i c a l importance was the a b i l i t y of the Academy to b r i n g many of the i d e a l i s t s i n t o i t s ranks, to divide the i d e a l i s t s before the i d e a l i s t s d ivided the a r t world. And there was common ground between i d e a l i s t and mid-Victorian. Their s t y l e s both showed a t t e n t i o n to natural d e t a i l , c a r e f u l f i n i s h and a concern f o r i n t e r e s t i n g subjects. They both Relieved i n the seriousness of the a r t i s t i c profession, the t r u t h of the a r t i s t i c heritage of the I t a l i a n and Dutch schools, the necessity of s t r i c t t r a i n i n g and high standards, and the duty of the a r t i s t to embody ae s t h e t i c and e t h i c a l values i n h i s work. The i d e a l i s t a r t consciousness arose beside that of the mid-Victorian and a r t i s t s and c r i t i c s who accepted idealism tended to see i t as a refinement, a development of the mid-V i c t o r i a n a r t consciousness. Idealism might have overtaken and gradually o b l i t e r a t e d mid-Victorian a t t i t u d e s , as i t appeared to be doing, but t h i s t r a n s i t i o n was interrupted and f u r t h e r confused by a t h i r d and r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t view of a r t — - t h a t of the American a r t i s t , James Whistler, who s e t t l e d i n England i n i860. Whistler's a r t i s t i c t r a i n i n g was not very d i f f e r e n t from that of other V i c t o r i a n a r t i s t s . He drew maps f o r the United States Coastal Survey before he f i n a l l y decided to study a r t . Then he went to P a r i s where he studied i n Gleyre's a t e l i e r with Poynter, Du Maurier and Armstrong. He met Gustave Courbet and was f o r awhile influenced by h i s r e a l i s t s t y l e , but-more s i g n i f i c a n t f o r Whistler's development 82' than h i s P a r i s i a n t r a i n i n g was h i s c u l t u r a l heritage as an American. Whistler was a thorough i n d i v i d u a l i s t . To him the attempts of the mid-Victorians to rel a t e a r t d i r e c t l y to the emotional and s o c i a l l i f e of the period was nonsense. And the i d e a l i s t s ' attempts to restore a r t to i t s exalted place i n the world was equally absurd. The s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l a s s o c i a t i o n s of V i c t o r i a n a r t meant nothing to Whistler and he saw a r t and the a r t i s t as i s o l a t e d phenomena. Whistler was a democrat but not one such as William Morris whose democracy reached out i n t o the whole community of humanity; Whistler's democracy was that which cared f o r i n d i v i d u a l i n t e g r i t y , f o r r i g h t s and freedoms, and was drawn out of the pervasive c u l t u r a l myth of the lone American. For Whistler a r t expressed i n d i v i d u a l genius rather than a s o c i a l s p i r i t or sentiment. When someone suggested to him lat e i n l i f e that the work of M i l l e t , the French a r t i s t , suffered from the s t r a i n of marital and f i n a n c i a l problems, Whistler disagreed: You're wrong—an a r t i s t ' s work i s never be t t e r , never worse, i t must be always good, i n the end as i n the beginning, i f he i s an a r t i s t , i f i t i s i n him to do anything at a l l . He would not be influenced by the chanceogf a wife or anything of that kind. He i s always the a r t i s t . Whistler was the f i r s t unabashed modern i n En g l i s h f i n e a r t , and h i s s t y l e and a t t i t u d e s eventually p r e c i p i t a t e d a c r i s i s which f i n a l l y i l l u m i n a t e d so many of the problems and contradictions of the a r t world. Whistler's f i r s t exhibited works i n England were At the Piano and Wapping. The f i r s t was a p o r t r a i t of h i s s t e p - s i s t e r and her daughter, and the second a view of the r i v e r s i d e . P o r t r a i t u r e and riverscapes were h i s most important E n g l i s h subjects and these f i r s t attempts were noticed and praised by c r i t i c s who recognized i n Whistler -8-3-an admirable c o l o r i s t with an eye f o r form. Some complained of h i s lack of f i n i s h but Whistler had learned that f i n i s h was subordinate to c o l o r and form along with Poynter and Armstrong. He was therefore 85 accepted as a decorative a r t i s t by W. M. Rossetti and Sidney C o l v i n . The f i r s t s i g n i f i c a n t attack by an E n g l i s h c r i t i c of Whistler's work came i n 1863 when Whistler's The White G i r l was e x h i b i t e d at the Salon des Refuses i n P a r i s . [Figure 22] The Academy had rejected i t the year before and when i t hung i n P a r i s , P. G. Hamerton wrote: I watched several p a r t i e s , to see the impression "The Woman i n White" made on them. They a l l stopped i n s t a n t l y , struck with amazement. This f o r two or three seconds, then they a l l looked at each other and laughed. Here,g£or once, I happen to be quite of the popular way of thinking. Whistler d i d not forgive i n j u r i e s , however, and soon struck out at the prejudice i n E n g l i s h a r t which he b e l i e v e d b l i n d e d c r i t i c s and other viewers to the very great t e c h n i c a l merits h i s works demonstrated— the preoccupation with subject. Well, you know, i t was t h i s way, when I came to London I was received graciously by the painters. Then there was t h i s coldness and I could not understand. A r t i s t s locked themselves up i n t h e i r studios—opened t h e i r doors only on the chain; i f they met each other i n the s t r e e t they barely spoke. Models went round s i l e n t , with an a i r of mystery—... Then I found out the mystery: i t was the moment of p a i n t i n g the Royal Academy p i c t u r e . Each man was a f r a i d h i s subject might be s t o l e n . I t was the great era of the subject. And, a t l a s t , on Varnishing Day, there was the subject i n a l l i t s glory—wonderful! The B r i t i s h subject! Like a f l a s h the i n s p i r a t i o n came—the I n v e n t o r ! — and i n the Academy there you saw him...he sat, hands on knees, head bent, brows k n i t , eyes s t a r i n g ; i n a corner angels and cogwheels, and things; close to him h i s wife, cold, ragged, the baby i n her arms—he had f a i l e d ! the story was t o l d — i t was c l e a r as day—amazing!—the B r i t i s h subject! Yet Whistler's quarrel was not p r i m a r i l y with narrative a r t or even the " B r i t i s h subject." The White G i r l was a p e r f e c t l y good subject Figure 22 ) 8 5 pi-ece-andone c r i t i c thought i t an i l l u s t r a t i o n of Wilkie C o l l i n s ' 88 The Woman i n White. The r e a l quarrel between Whistler and the V i c t o r i a n s was over the sentimental character required of a subject work. An American c r i t i c had complained of the "souless eyes" of The 89 White G i r l . In V i c t o r i a n a r t i t was "de rigueur" to represent the s p i r i t as well as the body and i n breaking with t h i s convention, Whistler demonstrated h i s s t y l i s t i c r a d icalism. P o r t r a i t u r e was a l s o an area where Whistler and V i c t o r i a n a r t i s t s disagreed. His most famous p o r t r a i t s , those of h i s mother and of Thomas C a r l y l e , he c a l l e d Arrangements i n Black and Grey. Whistler s a i d of h i s mother's p o r t r a i t , "To me i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g as a p o r t r a i t of my mother but what can or ought the public to care about the i d e n t i t y 90 of the p o r t r a i t ? " G. F. Watts, an e n t h u s i a s t i c p o r t r a i t i s t of great p e r s o n a l i t i e s , disagreed. "A p o r t r a i t , " he said, "should have something i n i t of the monumental; i t i s the summary of the l i f e of a person, not 91 the record of a c c i d e n t a l p o s i t i o n or arrangement of l i g h t and shadow." Whistler's a r t was m i l i t a n t l y " a e sthetic" as he p e r s i s t e n t l y rejected the p i c t o r i a l primacy of character and s p i r i t , so much so that many of h i s p o r t r a i t s were s t i f f and belabored. Despite these disagreements, Whistler's beauty of form and c o l o r s t i l l communicated to the V i c t o r i a n s and though he was often c r i t i c i z e d f o r h i s sketchy handling and b i z a r r e subjects, c r i t i c s continued to f i n d something b e a u t i f u l i n h i s work. Mr. Whistler's work i n h i s p e c u l i a r l i n e can no longer surprise us, and i f to be e c c e n t r i c i s one of the painter's objects, he would do well to consider the propriety of astonishing the the world by p a i n t i n g l i k e an ordinary mortal. At the same time we must confess we have been equally surprised and pleased by f i n d i n g among Mr. Whistler's c o l l e c t i o n of c u r i o s i t i e s one 86-production which, under the name of a.nocturne, or an arrangement or a p i z z i c a t o , presents a sketchy view of the Thames at n i g h t f a l l which i s neither unnatural nor unpleasing. We may of course be wrong i n our notion of what the work i s intended to represent.-' The V i c t o r i a n s did not take Whistler s e r i o u s l y and although many respected h i s merits as an a r t i s t , few believed that Whistler's s t y l e or h i s a t t i t u d e s towards a r t posed a serious challenge to the i d e a l i s t s , who by the mid-1870's were already the p r e v a i l i n g force i n the a r t world. But Whistler had h i s colleagues and d i s c i p l e s , and though t h e i r „ influence was unorganized and barely v i s i b l e , , i t tended i n one d i r e c t i o n — the destruction of sentiment i n a r t . The d i s t i n c t i o n between Whistler's a r t and mid-Victorian a r t was always very c l e a r , but the p o s i t i o n of the i d e a l i s t s i n t h i s matter was not. Leighton and Burne-Jones were l e d by t h e i r love of design to f i n d merit i n Whistler's work, and yet they s t i l l b e l i e v e d that great a r t required character as well as beauty. They seemed to stand i n between. But a l i n e a r conception of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s cannot ade-quately describe them. The a r t world of the mid-1870's had become f a r too f l u i d . I t was not only that these three major groups of a r t i s t s were never organized, and thus never presented a single face to any problem; the problems themselves constantly changed forms. A r t repre-sented, i n general and i n a l l i t s concrete forms, ideas. The three major s t y l e s of the 1860's and 1870's expressed d i f f e r e n t ideas of beauty, of tru t h , of humanity. And yet the forms through which these ideas could be expressed, i n l i t e r a t u r e and painting, were so l i m i t e d that s i m i l a r forms expressed very d i f f e r e n t ideas." The great c r i s i s came i n the 1870's and l e d to that comic opera 87 which—was-the-aesthetic movement. None of the three views of a r t were very c l e a r , and none of them i n themselves could solve the problems which threatened the s t a b i l i t y of the a r t world. Ideas were powerful enough to raise expectations, to i n s p i r e l o y a l t i e s and create ant i p a t h i e s , and generally to make i t d i f f i c u l t f o r e x i s t i n g circumstances to s a t i s f y a r t i s t s and a r t - l o v e r s . Problems such as the s o c i a l role of a r t i s t s , the value of t h e i r works, the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a r t i s t s and t h e i r patrons, and the meaning of a r t and a r t works i n the d a i l y l i v e s of d i f f e r e n t classes and conditions could not be resolved without s e t t l i n g the circumstances which d i r e c t l y a f f e c t e d these problems. The new a t t i t u d e s d i d not a l t e r these circumstances, nor d i d the e x i s t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s modify them. In the 1870's the i d e a l i s t conception of a r t could no longer obscure the f a c t that the organization of the a r t world within V i c t o r i a n society d i d not correspond to i t s i d e a l s . The divergence of what was from what ought to be created a tension which a f f e c t e d a l l asipects of the a r t world as a r t i s t s could r e l i n q u i s h neither the r e a l world or the i d e a l . Por the f i r s t time a r t i s t s began to struggle b i t t e r l y among themselves and against circumstances i n order to preserve t h e i r i d e a l of a r t as well as the e x i s t i n g s o c i a l organiza-t i o n which made them respectable and r i c h . Whistler alone cared nothing f o r t h i s struggle and h i s actions i l l u m i n a t e d the c r i t i c a l state of the a r t world i n the 1870's. '88 FOOTNOTES 'Grana, Modernity and i t s Discontents, x i i i - x i v . 2 Besides the august f o r t y of the Academy i n whose footsteps M i l l a i s followed, t h e i r were several well-known a r t i s t s i n t h e i r time who l i v e d without Academic patronage, as Rossetti did, i n c l u d i n g Benjamin Robert Haydon, John Martin and John L i n n e l l . L i n n e l l was f i n a l l y e l e c t e d A.R.A. i n 1867, but he declined to accept (unlike Burne-Jones who accepted e l e c t i o n i n 1885)• According to the A r t  Journal, VI (1867), 114* having f i n a l l y achieved success without Academic patronage, he would not i n h i s old age enter that body. For Haydon's career see E r i c George, The L i f e and Death of Benjamin Robert  Haydon, H i s t o r i c a l Painter 1786-1846 (Oxford, 1967), and f o r Martin see Mary L. Pendered, John Martin, Painter. His L i f e and Times (New York, 1924). ^Sidney G. Hutchinson, The History of the Royal Academy 1768-1968 (New York, 1968), 32. Hutchinson's i s the best h i s t o r y of the Academy av a i l a b l e but i s too b r i e f . Other h i s t o r i e s include J . E. Hodgson and F. A. Eaton, The Royal Academy and i t s Members, 1768-1830 (London, 1905)* Charles Holme, ed., The Royal Academy from Reynolds to M i l l a i s (New York, 1904)* Walter Lamb, The Royal Academy (London, 1951) and G. D. L e s l i e , The Inner L i f e of the Royal Academy (London, 1914)• 4 Hutchinson, 43. The a r t i s t s who signed were Benjamin West, Francesco Z u c c a r e l l i , Nathanial Dance, Richard Wilson, George Michael Moser, Samual Wale, G. Baptis. C i p r i a n i [ s i c ] , Jeremiah Meyer, Angelica Kauffman, Charles Catton, Francesco B a r t o l o z z i , Richard Yeo, Mary Moser, Agostino C a r l i n i , Francis Cotes, William Chambers, Edward Penny, Joseph Wilton, George Barret, Fra. Milner Newton, Paul Sandby and Francis Hayman. Conspicuously abesent i s Joshua Reynolds, the f i r s t P.R.A. Because of the r i v a l r y of another group of a r t i s t s , Reynolds hesitated before he accepted e l e c t i o n as President of the Academy. See Hutchinison, 44-6. 5 The Instrument of Foundation .is contained i n Hutchinson, 209-13. For changes i n the Council see Hutchinson, 78,132,145-6. 6 I b i d , 78-8O. 7 M i l l a i s , one of the most precocious of Eng l i s h a r t i s t s , painted h i s f i r s t e x h i b i t i o n piece, Pizarro S i e z i n g the Inca of Peru, when only 16. J . G. M i l l a i s , The L i f e and Letters of S i r John Everett  M i l l a i s (London, 1900), 9* i l l u s t r a t i o n f a c i n g 16. g Hutchinson, 93-112. W. P. F r i t h , My Autobiography and Reminis- cences (London, 1889), 38. M. S. Watts, George Frederic Watts: The  Annals of an A r t i s t ' s L i f e (New York, 1912), I, 25-6. 9 There were several of these exceptions i n c l u d i n g Frederic Leighton, 89 Edward Burne-Jones and James Whistler, but D. G. Rossetti, Edward Poynter and A l b e r t Moore a l l studied at the Academy f o r a period. ""^Hutchinson, 132. 11 Por Barry, Ibid, 78-80. Por Haydon,v see B. R. Haydon, The  Autobiography and Memoirs of Benjamin Robert Haydon 1768-1846, ed. Tom Taylor (New York, 196277 2 v o l s . 1 2 Hutchinson, 56. 13 Great B r i t a i n , Report from the Select Committee on Ar t s and  t h e i r Connexion with Manufactures; With Minutes of the Evidence, Ap- pendix and Index, H.C., 1936 (568), IX, 209-343. See a l s o Hutchinson, 93-102. 14 ^ M i l l a i s , 6. 15 J F r i t h , 21-37* and M i l l a i s , 6-7. See also Stuart Macdonald, The History and Philosophy of A r t Education (London, 1970), 33. 1 6 Geoffrey Holme, ed., The Norwich School (London, 1920). 17 Barrington, Leighton, I, 191* and below, .,58-9. 18 Du Maurier wrote a f i c t i o n a l account of these student days c a l l e d T r i l b y (New York, 1927) i n which t h e i r student l i f e was roman-t i c i z e d . 19 Barrington, I, 295. 20 G. H. Fleming, Rossetti and the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood (London, 1967)* 12-3, 100. The e x h i b i t i o n was free neither f o r viewers, who paid the customary s h i l l i n g admission, nor f o r a r t i s t s , who had to rent wall-space. 21 I t i s true that Rossetti r a r e l y exhibited a f t e r I85O due to the h o s t i l e reception of h i s Ecce A n c i l l a Domini!, see W. M. Rossetti, Dante Gabriel Rossetti as Designer and Writer (London, 1889), 12-5, 45-6, hut he p r o f i t e d from h i s few e x h i b i t i o n s and the notoriety of the Pre-Raphaelites. 22 Hutchinson, 85* and Hesketh Hubbard, A Hundred Years of B r i t i s h  P a i n t i n g (1851-1951) (London, 1951), 64-5. 23 The press reviewed most of the major ex h i b i t i o n s i n c l u d i n g those at the Academy, the B r i t i s h I n s t i t u t i o n , the Dudley G a l l e r y and l a t e r , the Grovsner G a l l e r y . "Whistler's White G i r l hung i n the Berners Street Gallery, see Pennell, Whistler, 69-70. 9Q-24 r, In 1830, the hanging committee a c c i d e n t l y rejected one of Constable's paintings as i t had been reviewed with some outsiders' works. They wished to change t h e i r decision, but Constable would not allow i t saying that i t had properly been rejected as a daub. Hutchinson, 95 • 25 For a catalogue of exh i b i t o r s , t h e i r works and the year exhibited, see Algernon Graves, The Royal Academy of A r t s ; A Complete  Dictionary of Contributors and t h e i r Work from i t s Foundation i n 1769  to.1904 (London, 1905-6), 8vols. Because the Academy was founded i n December 1768, the f i r s t e x h i b i t i o n was i n the spring of 1769. 26 Barfington, I, 45-6* M i l l a i s , 43, and Watts, I, 34. 2 7 B a r r i n g t o n , I, 272. 28 Watts, I, 32-3. 29 7 F r i t h , 22. 3°Macdonald, 30, 271-2, and Hubbard, 106-7. 31 Macdonald, 146-8. 32 Gerald R e i t l i n g e r , The Economics of Taste. The Rise and F a l l of Picture P r i c e s 1760-1960, I.(London, 1961), 143-60. 3 3The P o r t f o l i o , I (1870), 110. 3 4The Fine A r t s Quarterly Review, I (1863), 6. 35 For the "Clique" see P a t r i c i a A l l d e r i d g e , Richard Dadd (London, 1974)* 13* also, A r t Journal, XXXVII (1898), 202. 3 6 A r t Journal, VI (1867), 247. 3 7 I b i d . 38 For Ruskin's works, see John Ruskin, The Complete Works of John Ruskin, eds. E. T. Cook and Alexander Wedderburn (London, 1903), 39 v o l s . The most important c r i t i c a l writings by Ruskin on contemporary a r t are contained i n John Ruskin, Pre-Raphaelitism; Lectures on A r c h i - tecture and Paint i n g (London, 19O6). 39 ^Quentin B e l l , V i c t o r i a n A r t i s t s (Cambridge, Mass., 1967), 28-39. 40 Ruskin, Pre-Raphae1iti sm, 90, 212, 240, 281. 4 1 Ibid, 186. 9 1 -.... . 4 l " T h e P i c t u r e G a l l e r i e s , " T h e S a t u r d a y R e v i e w , X L V I ( 1 8 7 8 ) , 7 9 1 . 4 3 A r t J o u r n a l , V I ( 1 8 5 5 ) , 2 1 1 - 2 . 4 4 E x c e p t i o n s w e r e t h e f e w f r e s c o s , h i s t o r i c a l a n d a l l e g o r i c a l w o r k s a n d s o m e p o r t r a i t s w h i c h w e r e c o m m i s s i o n e d b y c o r p o r a t e b o d i e s . T h e s e r a r e l y h u n g i n t h e A c a d e m y , a n d g e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g , w e r e n o t p r o f i t a b l e f o r a r t i s t s . 4 5 A r t J o u r n a l , V I ( 1 8 5 5 ) , 2 4 3 * F i n e A r t s Q u a r t e r l y , I ( 1 8 6 3 ) , 8 0 . W . M . R o s s e t t i , F i n e A r t , 3 4 - 5 * l a m e n t e d t h e p a u c i t y o f m o n u m e n t a l a r t d o n e i n s i t u . 1 9 2 . 4 ^ R u s k i n , P r e - R a p h a e 1 i t i s m , [The R e s c u e ! 1 8 9 , [ C i j n a b j i e _ J _ s M a d o n n a 1 4 7 W a t t s , I , 4 3 - 4 . 4 8 H F r i t h , 1 9 5 - 6 . 49 B a r r i n g t o n , I , 1 9 1 . 5 0 I b i d , 2 3 5 - 4 9 * a n d W i l l i a m G a u n t , V i c t o r i a n O l y m p u s ( N e w Y o r k , 1 9 5 2 ) , 5 9 . 5 1 A r t J o u r n a l , X X ( 1 8 8 1 ) , 2 7 . 5 2 W . M . R o s s e t t i , F i n e A r t , 9 4 . 5 3 - ^ B a r r i n g t o n , I , 1 0 9 . 5 4 L a d y B u r n e - J o n e s , M e m o r i a l s , I , 5 8 - 9 * 5 5 B a r r i n g t o n , I , 1 6 6 . 5 6 L a d y B u r n e - J o n e s , I , 4 8 . 5 7 B a r r i n g t o n , I , 7 3 . 5 8 I b i d , 1 5 5 - 6 , 1 9 1 , 2 8 3 . S e e a l s o , E r n e s t R h y s , F r e d e r i c , L o r d  L e i g h t o n ( L o n d o n , 1 8 9 8 ) , 6 2 , L a d y B u r n e - J o n e s , I I , 8 8 . F o r W h i s t l e r ' s a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s s e a r c h i n g o u t d e l i b e r a t e d i f f i c u l t i e s , s e e W e i n t r a u b , W h i s t l e r , 2 1 1 . 5 9 R h y s , 1 1 8 . 6 ° I b i d , 7 3 . 6 1 R e i t l i n g e r , T h e R i s e a n d F a l l o f P i c t u r e P r i c e s , 1 4 3 - 6 0 . 9 2 ^^Barrington, „II, 3 3 1 • 6 3 W. M. Rossetti, Fine Art, 2 . ^ 4 F r i t h , 7 6 . F r i t h d i d not l i k e c o l l e c t o r s because of t h e i r unpredictable demands and tastes and t h e i r i n a b i l i t y to assess the value of a r t i s t i c work. r.See F r i t h , 9 4 - 5 * 6 ^ F i n e Arts Quarterly, I ( 1 8 6 3 ) , 1 , 5 . 6 6 M i l l a i s , 3 8 , 5 5 , 8 0 . 6 7 ' F r i t h , 1 7 3 , 1 9 5 -3 6 9 6 8 M i l l a i s , 5 1 , 8 0 - 1 , and Art Journal, I ( 1 8 5 7 ) , . 1 7 0 . 'Barrington, I, 6 6 . 7 0 A. Lys Baldry, Three Great Modern Painters. Leighton. Whistler. Burne-Jones (London, 1 9 0 8 ) , 4 4 - 8 , 5 5 - 6 , 6 7 - 8 . 7 1 M i l l a i s , 8 1 . 72 Hubbard, 9 6 - 8 , Barrington, I I , 1 0 4 - 8 , Watts, I, 1 3 5 - 6 , 2 9 0 . 7 3Watts, I, 2 9 0 - 3 . 7 4 L. G. G. Ramsey, The Connoisseur New Guide to E n g l i s h P a i n t i n g  and Sculpture (London, 1962T, 1 1 7 - 2 0 , A r t Journal, VI (I855), 1 2 8 - 3 0 , l i s t s the owners of the sculpture sent to the Paris International E x h i -b i t i o n of 1 8 5 5 . Compared with the owners of the paintings, there i s a large number of peers who owned sculpture i n 1 8 5 5 * 75 Haydon wanted government patronage more from hatred of the Academy than from f a i t h i n government as a wise patron. See Haydon, I* 5 9 5 * 6 2 0 - 1 . 7 6 John Summerson, V i c t o r i a n A r c h i t e c t u r e . Four Studies i n Evaluation (New York, 1 9 7 0 ) , 7 7 - 1 1 7 . 7 7 A r t Journal, VI ( 1 8 6 7 ) , 2 8 . Government patronage was d i s c r e d i t e d e a r l y and never regained favor as an a l t e r n a t i v e to the free market. See Fine A r t s Quarterly, I ( 1 8 6 3 ) * 3 4 . 7 8Watts, I, 2 9 0 - 3 . 7 9 W. M. Rossetti, Fine Art, v i i i - i x . fto The Magazine of Art, I ( 1 8 7 8 ) , 6 2 , Rhys, 2 5 . -9.3 81 .*a.npn.,._ '_'The Present P o s i t i o n of Landscape Painting i n England," The C o r n h i l l Magazine, XI (March, 1865), 14, anon., "Art and Morality," The C o r n h i l l Magazine, XXXII (July, 1875), 97. In h i s a r t i c l e on Morris' poetry i n 1868, [Walter Pater], "Poems by William Morris," The Westminster and Foreign Quarterly Review, XXXIV (1868), 300-12, Pater d i d not use the word "aesthetic". In h i s Renaissance of 1873* he described h i s kind of c r i t i c i s m as "aesthetic" c r i t i c i s m and i n the rep r i n t of h i s Westmister Review a r t i c l e i n h i s Sketches and Reviews the a r t i c l e was r e t i t l e d "Aesthetic Poetry." 82 anon., "The Picture G a l l e r i e s , " The Saturday Review, XLVI (1878), 561. 8 3 P e n n e l l , 31-53. 8 4 I b i d , 405. 85 W. M. Rossetti, Some Reminiscences, I, 182, I I , 317* 86 C i t e d i n Pennell, 74. 8 7 I b i d , 58. 0 0 Ibid, 70. 89 7 l b i d , 100 90 7 I b i d , 119. 91 C i t e d i n Jeremy Maas, V i c t o r i a n Painters (London, 1969)* 219« 92 anon., "The Picture G a l l e r i e s , " The Saturday Review, XLVI (1878), 561. 94 The a r t world of the mid-1870's i n England was f l u i d and confused, where unce r t a i n t i e s and anxiety plagued a l l hut the most complacent. A r t i s t s were faced with the challenges of new s t y l e s ; c r i t i c s were s e r i o u s l y questioning t h e i r own a t t i t u d e s towards modern a r t and the value of t h e i r c r i t i c i s m . ^ The only thing lacking f o r a true c r i s i s was an incident of s u f f i c i e n t proportions. The inso.luable problem prompting the widespread anxiety was that of s e t t l i n g the s o c i a l r o l e of the a r t i s t , e s t a b l i s h i n g one which the a r t i s t d i d not despise and yet which d i d not disrupt the s o c i a l organization. That the o l d s o c i a l r o l e s which a r t i s t s had f i l l e d were no longer v i a b l e Whistler ably demonstrated i n h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p s with h i s patrons and c r i t i c s . But t h i s major problem was f o r a long time held i n abeyance by the f i n a n c i a l success of a r t i s t s and by the a b i l i t y of the Royal Academy to pose as a s o l u t i o n . Yet t h i s major problem spawned others which were not ob-scure: the r e l a t i o n s h i p of a r t i s t s and patrons, the role of c o l l e c t o r s i n the a r t market, determining the value of a r t i s t i c work, separating monetary concerns from aesth e t i c concerns, and defi n i n g the boundaries of c r i t i c i s m i n a world where c r i t i c i s m a f f e c t e d market value. These problems eventually t r i g g e r e d an incident of s u f f i c i e n t proportions to create a c r i s i s , the l i b e l a c t i o n taken by Whistler against Ruskin, and a l s o made possible the aesthe t i c euphoria of the l a t e 1870's and e a r l y 1880's. By the mid-1870's the o l d problems of the a r t market and t h e i r e f f e c t s on a r t were becoming c r i t i c a l . As ea r l y as 1867 the A r t Journal had condemned the disastrous e f f e c t s of competition i n the awarding of government commissions by open contest. Instead of a r t i s t i c p e r f e c t i o n ^95 and f i t n e s s * "the competitors have s t r i v e n f o r o r i g i n a l i t y as a condition 2 of success i n the competition..." In 1881 a f t e r the triumph of the new a r t consciousness of the i d e a l i s t s * the Art Journal extended t h i s p r i n c i p l e to picture e x h i b i t i o n s : Another p r o l i f i c cause of perverted aims i n A r t i s to be found i n the competition of a t t r a c t i o n on the walls of picture g a l l e r i e s . The necessity of p a i n t i n g up to e x h i b i t i o n pitch* and the tempta-t i o n to endeavour to outshine one's n e i g h b o u r l y s t a r t l i n g contrasts or mere b r i l l i a n c y of colour* have induced a meretri-cious showiness i n modern A r t . . . These problems of competition involved more than the a r t market but the market remained the model demonstrating the perverse e f f e c t s of anarchic competition. However* the a r t market was d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t from the i n d u s t r i a l or a g r i c u l t u r a l markets i n which standard commodities were interchangeable; the e n t i r e character of the a r t market depended on the f a c t that i n d i v i d u a l and unique items were traded. I n d i v i d u a l i t y and uniqueness had been important to the a r t patron* but they were e s s e n t i a l to the a r t c o l l e c t o r . The d i s t i n c t i o n between patron and c o l l e c t o r i s d i f f i c u l t to pinpoint i n a c t u a l p e r s o n a l i t i e s ; Frederick Leyland was probably more of a c o l l e c t o r than a patron* although he was generous and encouraging to several young a r t i s t s . But i n general terms the d i s t i n c t i o n i s evident. Patronage and c o l l e c t i n g s a t i s f y two d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r a l and psychological needs. Patronage involves a r e l a t i o n s h i p * u s u a l l y intended to b e n e f i t both people* which r e s u l t s i n the production of s p e c i f i c works. C o l l e c t i n g * a p e c u l i a r l y f a s c i n a t i n g and a d d i c t i v e past-time* a r i s e s from an acquisitiveness* u s u a l l y d i r e c t e d towards what i s r a r e — a r t works* stamps* china or antiques. The s a t i s f a c t i o n 96; of c o l l e c t i n g comes not from any human r e l a t i o n s h i p or creative pro-cess and only i n d i r e c t l y from the beauty of p a r t i c u l a r pieces. I t i s the c o l l e c t i o n i t s e l f * e s p e c i a l l y i t s completeness or the r a r i t y of the best pieces* and possession of i t which s a t i s f i e s . There had been c o l l e c t o r s i n England long before the 1870's. The fourth Marquess of Hertford i n the f i r s t part of V i c t o r i a ' s reign was a 4 good example of an a r t c o l l e c t o r . But i t i s probable that c o l l e c t i n g a r t works became a f a s c i n a t i o n f o r the wealthier classes i n England between i860 and 1880. The mania f o r blue and white p o r c e l a i n i n the 1860's suggests t h i s as does the r a p i d l y r i s i n g p r i c e s i n the picture market. In 1862 when the new copyright laws were passed* i t became i l l e g a l f o r an a r t i s t to reproduce or copy any work of h i s own i f he had disposed of the copyright, without the permission of the copyright holder. This was meant to protect c o l l e c t o r s . The Pennells, i n t h e i r biography of Whistler, described a man who was motivated to buy Whistler's etchings by the desire, having obtained a few of them casually, to complete h i s c o l l e c t i o n . The importance of the c o l l e c t o r i n the a r t market was i n h i s tendency to b i d compulsively, h i s willingness to pay anything f o r a p a r t i c u l a r obsession, thus d i s t o r t i n g -value. I f problems of value, competition and excessively high p r i c e s disturbed many V i c t o r i a n s , they r a r e l y fastened on the market mechanism i t s e l f as the root of the e v i l , rather i t was the ignorance, pride and avarice of c o l l e c t o r s . The e a r l y V i c t o r i a n s r a r e l y distinguished between the a r t i s t i c sense which created a r t and that which could merely appre-ciate i t . . Children were taught drawing not to become a r t i s t s but to appreciate the beauty of a r t . While the d i s t i n c t i o n between the a r t i s t 97 and connoisseur was that the former should be blessed with genius* t h e i r t r a i n i n g was similar—drawing* painting* studying the o l d masters and keeping i n close touch with one's a r t i s t i c contemporaries. A r t i s t s and connoisseurs spoke the same language and pa i n t i n g was an experience both had shared. Picture-buyers had always been p r i m a r i l y connoisseurs and behind the buying and s e l l i n g was a recognizable concept of value which blended both into p r i c e s and judgment of a r t i s t i c merit. When the c o l l e c t o r s entered the market* many of them relinquished the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of judgment to c r i t i c s . And when the buyerswas evidently no longer motivated by a natural and sincere love of art* h i s r e a l motivations were suspect. F r i t h complained that buyers i n the 1870's were motivated by "the notion of investment" rather than a love of a r t . ^ Yet F r i t h ' s assessment cannot e x p l a i n the character of the a r t market of the 1870's and 1880's adequately. Surely many buyers were driven by the desire to r e a l i z e a large p r o f i t such as the man who r e -fused to l e t F r i t h copy a pai n t i n g F r i t h had sold him because a f r i e n d 7 t o l d the buyer the o r i g i n a l would be worth les s i f a copy existed. But there was more to the desire to own paintings than simply that. Yet i n p a r t i c u l a r cases i t i s d i f f i c u l t to determine whether buyers were motivated by a love of a p a r t i c u l a r work* a love of ar t * a c o l l e c t i n g mania, or merely the hope to r e a l i z e a large p r o f i t . In the personality of Frederick Leyland, one of the wealthiest c o l l e c -tors of the V i c t o r i a n age, the patron and c o l l e c t o r merged, and Leyland's devotion to a r t i n i t s many forms was t r u l y magnificent. His home was decorated by some of the best designers of the period. 98r He bought paintings from Rossetti* Burne-Jones and Whistler and owned several o l d masters* i n c l u d i n g a B o t t i c e l l i . Leyland's home was a l a v i s h cocoon of a r t and he paid large sums f o r the p r i v i l e g e of g ownership. Yet even t h i s merchant prince found that value and p r i c e were not the same and h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p with Whistler during Whistler's decoration of the Peacock Room demonstrated a f a i l u r e of standards of value and a f a i l u r e of the patronage model. The f a i l u r e was Whistler's as well as Leyland's* but the incident i l l u s t r a t e d the changed role of the a r t i s t i n E n g l i s h s o c i e t y . Whistler desired to decorate Leyland*s dining room because h i s painting* La Princesse dj& Pays de Porcelaine* hung on the wall behind the head of the t a b l e . Leyland had engaged Thomas J e c k y l l to design the room using expensive yellow Spanish leather on the walls. The c o l o r of the leather and of the flowers painted on the leather clashed with the reds i n Whistler's work* and* anxious that h i s p a i n t i n g be spared 9 t h i s offense* Whistler asked to help decorate the room. Leyland agreed and l e f t town* leaving h i s room* and h i s home* i n Whistler's hands. Whistler took more time and spent more money than he had planned* but the room was* according to a l l accounts, a masterpiece of decorative a r t . During h i s work on the room, Whistler i n v i t e d dozens of people to see i t without consulting Leyland. When he was f i n i s h e d , he asked 1,000 quineas f o r h i s work. The cost of materials was tremendous, as Whistler had apparently used gold l e a f with abandon. Leyland was furious and paid the a r t i s t £1,000 instead, a reference to the customary d i s t i n c t i o n between the wages of a r t i s t s and tradesmen, the former paid i n guineas and the l a t t e r , in-pounds. Whistler vented h i s anger by drawing cartoons 99-~of Leyland as the r i c h P h i l i s t i n e peacock b a t t l i n g a poor a r t i s t i c peacock and as a l o b s t e r i n a f r i l l e d s h i r t . He a l s o c a l l e d Leyland a parvenu which outraged Mrs. Leyland who overheard and ordered him out of the house. Leyland and Whistler were i r r e c o n c i l a b l e , yet Leyland di d not a l t e r h i s Peacock Room i n amy way and when he sat down to dinner at the head of the table, he faced the peacock mural which was so l i k e Whistler's outrageous cartoon. Ostensibly a dispute over the p r i c e of the work, Leyland and Whistler quarreled over a more b i t t e r l y estranging issue as t h e i r l e t t e r s demonstrated. Leyland wrote to Whistler: You choose to begin an elaborate scheme of decoration without any reference to me u n t i l the work has progressed so f a r that I had no choice but to complete i t ; and i t i s r e a l l y too absurd that you should expect me to pay the exaggerated sum your vanity d i c t a t e d as i t s value.... There i s one consideration, indeed, which should have l e d you to form a more modest estimate of yourself, and that i s your t o t a l f a i l u r e to produce any serious work f o r so many y e a r s . — A t various times i n the l a s t eight or nine years you have received from me sums amounting to one thousand guineas f o r pictures, not one of which has ever been deli v e r e d . . . .at. th© time;.so many newspaper puffs of your work appeared, I f e l t deeply enough the h u m i l i a t i o n of having my name so prominently connected with that of a m^ ,g who had de-generated i n t o nothing but an a r t i s t i c Barnum. Whistler r e p l i e d : I t i s p o s i t i v e l y sickening to think that I should have laboured to b u i l d up that exquisite Peacock Room f o r such a man to l i v e i n . You speak of your public p o s i t i o n before the World, and apparently forget that the World only knows you as the possessor of that work they have a l l admired and whose pri c e you have refused to pay—... They quarreled over the p r i c e because they had two e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t views of the value of a r t and the.role of the a r t i s t . Leyland could a f f o r d to give Whistler commissions which Whistler took years to *100. begin and never finished* as long as the artist remained in the position of client. There was no risk to Leyland* financially* socially or psychologically* in this kind of patronage. But the Peacock Room involved more money than Leyland had already given Whistler for unfinished works and Leyland was not enthusiastic about the decoration. What was worse* Whistler had been the center of the affair* inviting people to Leyland1s home as i f i t were his own* and had made Leyland look ridiculous in the glare of publicity. This artist could no longer be patronized. The value of art was a tremendous problem in the 1870's and not only for Leyland and Whistler. Art was a popular enthusiasm; i t promised to sanctify life* to give i t a noble form and purpose. Several interpretations of the aesthetic movement have emphasized its relationship to Philistinism as glaring and extreme opposites. In the realm of manufactured art* this distinction was clearly expressed by Walter Gropius who saw aestheticism as a reaction to Philistinism. Our object was to permeate both types of mind; to liberate the creative artist from his otherworldliness and reintegrate him into the workaday world of realities; and at the same time to broaden and humanise the rigid* almost exclusively material mind of the business man. Our governing conception of the basic unity of a l l design in its relation to life* which in-formed a l l our work* was therefore in diametrical opposition to that of 'art for art's sake'* and the even more dangerous philosophy i t sprang from: business as an end in itself. Yet Gropius implied a distinction which could not have been true in the 1870's—that the artist and the businessman were two distinct personalities existing in separate individuals. Leyland and men like him accumulated wealth with a ferocious energy in business and 13 then spent i t extravagantly on-works of art. Materialism and aesthe-1 0 1 t i c i s m informed the same personal i t y . A r t i s t s , too, had t h e i r business side. The successful ones knew how to please the market, whether i t was the popular one which bought engravings or a c i r c l e of p a r t i c u l a r patrons. They knew how to set pric e s , how much t h e i r own labor was worth to-them, and although they d i d not turn out a masterpiece a month, they u s u a l l y managed to produce "stunners" f o r the Academy e x h i b i t i o n i n spring. This c o n t r a d i c t i o n existed not as opposing, but as complementary forces i n the same person. P h i l i s t i n i s m was given a psychological explanation by Thorstein Veblen i n 1 9 1 8 : Accountancy i s the beginning of s t a t i s t i c s , and the price con-cept i s a type of the objective, impersonal, quantitative appre-hension of things. Coincidently, because they d i d not lend them-selves to t h i s f a c i l e r ating, f a c t s that w i l l not admit of a quantitative statement and s t a t i s t i c a l handling decline i n men's esteem, considered as f a c t s , and tend i n some degree to lose the cogency which belongs to empirical r e a l i t y . They may even come to be discounted as being of a lower order of r e a l i t y or may even be denied f a c t u a l value. Yet t h i s depends on the "quantitative apprehension of things" pro-v i d i n g a s a t i s f y i n g view of r e a l i t y . I f r e a l i t y had grown vaguely unpleasant, as i t had i n the 1860's and 1870's to many observers, then those f a c t s which had ever eluded quantitative a n a l y s i s and de s c r i p t i o n appeared i n a new l i g h t . They were now precious and f u l l of promise, but they retained t h e i r u n r e a l i t y . Indeed t h e i r u n r e a l i t y became t h e i r most important q u a l i t y . This element of fantasy was evident i n Burne-Jones who declared, "Of course imagining doesn't end with my work: I go on always i n that strange land that i s more 1 5 true than r e a l . " But Burne-Jones required more than imagination i n a r t works. He i n s i s t e d on good workmanship and f i n i s h . So other 102 a r t i s t s and"art-lovers indulged i n the f a n t a s t i c l i k e Watts and Ley land, but they a l l had a keen sense of material necessity as w e l l . The aesthetes caricatured by George Du Maurier i n Punch demonstrated how fantasy was without the counterweight of s o c i a l r e a l i t y . [Figures 23 and 24] Important and precious as a r t was, i t was not to be the guiding force i n l i f e , the end and aim of a l l e f f o r t , as Whistler seemed to think. Aestheticism was not a r e j e c t i o n of P h i l i s t i n i s m , i f P h i l i s t i n i s m meant a concern f o r material welfare and a u t i l i t a r i a n outlook. These things were so imbedded i n the routine of l i f e by 1870 that they could not be eradicated; they were never meant to be eradicated. Aestheticism was the complement of P h i l i s t i n i s m . Thus the attack on P h i l i s t i n i s m which mounted dramatically i n the 1870's and was marked by a f i e r c e r h e t o r i c , was p e c u l i a r l y i n e f f i c i e n t a n d i r e s t l e s s i n i t s aims. Competition was denounced and i n iQZlf with the opening of the Grovsner Gallery* a kind of non-competitive e x h i b i -t i o n was attempted. The e x h i b i t o r s were i n v i t e d to submit works by the owner, S i r Coutts Lindsay, a banker. The g a l l e r i e s themselves were decorated with plants and b e a u t i f u l f u r n i t u r e and the walls were covered with a red damask. Because the e x h i b i t o r s were l i m i t e d by i n v i t a t i o n , they were hung on the l i n e with reasonable i n t e r v a l s between them. The Grovsner was a great success and quickly became the "other" summer ex h i b i t i o n , challenging the Academy's monopoly of modern a r t e x h i b i t i o n s . This opening i n 1877* however, caused c o n f l i c t s between a r t i s t s and c r i t i c s who professed a hatred f o r P h i l i s t i n e s . Watts thought the red 17 damask a perfect ground f o r h i s paintings, and Whistler hated them. Ruskin hated Whistler's-paintings. C r i t i c s complained that the general 1 0 3 DILETTANTISM. • J S T " ™ ™ 1 8 « » C » « r I N F A C T D 8 S*™^™. ^ ^ M O R E ^ ^ ^ ^ Figure 24 105 p u b l i c went to the e x h i b i t i o n s because i t was a s o c i a l duty* " l i k e 18 leaving cards a f t e r dining out," not out of any love f o r a r t . The truth of the matter was that the Grovsner had not solved the problem of competition i n e x h i b i t i o n s ; i t had never been a competition. The i n v i t a t i o n of e x h i b i t o r s was hardly a s o l u t i o n which the Academy could use. Not even the Grovsner could keep i t up and by the mid - 1880 's, the G a l l e r y had faded to rank with those other numberless g a l l e r i e s 19 who sponsered e x h i b i t i o n s of modern a r t . Another attack on P h i l i s t i n i s m was aimed at the common realism of mid-Victorian a r t and the Pre-Raphaelite axiom that every v i s i b l e d e t a i l be t r a n s f e r r e d f a i t h f u l l y to canvas. The i d e a l i s t s tended to equate realism with mere t e c h n i c a l d e x t e r i t y and compositional medio-c r i t y . Whistler stated t h i s p o s i t i o n i n h i s "Ten O'clock" lecture, but emphasized the u n r e a l i t y of the a r t i s t ' s v i s i o n : ...the evening mist clothes the r i v e r s i d e with poetry, as with a v e i l , and the poor b u i l d i n g s lose themselves i n the dim sky, and the t a l l chimneys become campanili, and the warehouses become palaces i n the night, and the whole c i t y hangs i n the heavens, and f a i r y l a n d i s before u s — t h e n the wayfarer hastens home; the working man and the cultured one, the wise man and the one of^pleasure, cease to understand as they have ceased to see... The i d e a l i s t s * conception of beauty was based on the truth of the i d e a l forms i n a r t and the r e j e c t i o n of realism and naturalism. But i n the 1870's a new s e n s i b i l i t y had a r i s e n which inte r p r e t e d idealism as the champion of "unnaturalism." This new s e n s i b i l i t y delighted i n the e c c e n t r i c and b i z a r r e as much as i n the f r i g i d c l a s s i c i s m of Leighton, and some of Whistler's popularity was due to h i s c u l t i v a t i o n of e c c e n t r i c i t i e s . For those who b e l i e v e d that idealism was a truer 1 0 6 k i n d o f a r t t h a n t h e m i d - V i c t o r i a n , t h e r e j e c t i o n o f n a t u r a l i s m a n d c o n v e n t i o n c o u l d e a s i l y l e a d t o t h e c u l t i v a t i o n o f u n n a t u r a l i s m a n d u n c o n v e n t i o n a l s i m . T h i s n e w s e n s i b i l i t y w a s k e e n l y a w a k e t o i m a g e s o f s a d n e s s , d i s e a s e a n d d e a t h . B u r n e - J o n e s w a s o f t e n c r i t i c i z e d f o r h i s m o r b i d s t y l e w i t h i t s s a d , p a l e f i g u r e s w h i c h , o f c o u r s e , w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p e a l i n g t o t h e n e w c o n s c i o u s n e s s . T h i s m o r b i d s e n s i b i l i t y w a s n o t t h e o v e r - r i d i n g f e e l i n g i n a n y p e r s o n , n o t e v e n W a l t e r P a t e r , w h o e x p r e s s e d i t s o w e l l i n h i s w r i t i n g s . N o n e t h e l e s s i t w a s b e c o m i n g a c o n v e n t i o n , a w a y o f l o o k i n g a t t h i n g s w h i c h t o u c h e d s o m e s e n s e o f r e a l i t y ' s o r d e r i n m a n y p e o p l e . I t w a s a n i n v e r s i o n o f t h e n a t u r a l o r d e r a s t h e m i d - V i c t o r i a n s s a w i t — i n s t e a d o f h a p p i n e s s , s a d n e s s ; i n s t e a d o f b l o o m i n g h e a l t h , p a l e d i s e a s e ; a n d i n s t e a d o f l i f e , d e a t h . T h e m o r b i d s e n s i b i l i t y d e v e l o p e d p a r t l y f r o m t h e m i d - V i c t o r i a n c r i t i q u e o f a p p e a r a n c e s ; t h i n g s w e r e s e l d o m a s t h e y s e e m e d . I n a r t , J o h n R u s k i n h a d e l o q u e n t l y a r g u e d t h a t p e r f e c t f i n i s h w a s a s i g n o f c u l t u r a l d e g r a d a t i o n i n m i d - V i c t o r i a n d e s i g n . B u t c e r t a i n c o n v e n t i o n s h e l d t r u e n e v e r t h e l e s s , e s p e c i a l l y i n p a i n t i n g w h e r e a p p e a r a n c e s h a d t o r e v e a l a l l l e v e l s o f r e a l i t y , a n d t h e s e c o n v e n t i o n s c e l e b r a t e d t h e v i r t u e s o f h e a l t h . W h e n t h e s e c o n v e n t i o n s n o l o n g e r c o n v i n c e d t h e v i e w e r , m i d - V i c t o r i a n r e a l i s m w a s n o l o n g e r r e a s o n a b l e ; r e a l i s m n o l o n g e r s e e m e d r e a l . T h e d i s a p p e a r a n c e o f m i d - V i c t o r i a n c o n v e n t i o n s , h o w e v e r , d i d n o t m a k e t h e m o r b i d s e n s i b i l i t y i n e v i t a b l e . I t w a s W a l t e r . P a t e r w h o s e c o n s c i o u s n e s s o f t r a n s i t i o n , r e g r e t a n d d e a t h i n f l u e n c e d t h e a e s t h e t i c s e n s i b i l i t y o f t h e 1 8 7 0 ' s . P a t e r h a d a l m o s t n o d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e o v e r V i c t o r i a n a r t , b u t h i s r e s p o n s e s t o a e s t h e t i c e x p e r i e n c e w e r e s o p e r f e c t l y i n t u n e w i t h o n e a s p e c t o f V i c t o r i a n 107 p a i n t i n g that h i s ideas must be r e l a t e d to the f i n e a r t s as well as to a r t theory i n the 1870's. Like so many of h i s contemporaries* Pater was not concerned p r i m a r i l y with the aesthetic q u a l i t i e s of a r t as Whistler described them. Pater's c o n t r i b u t i o n to aestheticism was not the philosophy of a r t f o r a r t ' s sake* but rather a model i n t e r a c t i o n between a r t and the s e n s i t i v e temperament of a high-strung p e r s o n a l i t y . In discussing a r t and l i t e r a t u r e i n h i s e a r l y essays* Pater r a r e l y mentioned the purely a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t i e s of form* color* l i n e * rhythm; they were always imbedded i n a catalogue of associations* h i s t o r i c a l * l i t e r a r y and personal. The poem which gives i t s name to the volume ["The Defence of Guenevere"] i s a thing tormented with passion* l i k e the body of Guenevere defending h e r s e l f from the charge of adultery* and the accent f a l l s . i n strange* unwonted places with the e f f e c t of a great cry. Pater's sty l e * i n i t s metaphors and general organization* suggests an a s s o c i a t i o n of ideas i n which connections are based on some uncon-scious perception of r e a l i t y * c e r t a i n l y an unconventional one. His imagery was unusual* even bi z a r r e * yet haunting. Here* under t h i s strange complex of conditions* as i n some medicated a i r * exotic flowers of sentiment expand* among people of a remote and unaccustomed beauty* somnabulistic* f r a i l * an-drogynous* the l i g h t almost shining through them* as the flame of a l i t t l e taper shows through the Host.22 Pater's defense of a r t f o r a r t ' s sake* made at the end of h i s a r t i c l e on William Morris' poetry i n 1868 and included i n h i s Studies i n the History of the Renaissance i n 1873* can be more c l e a r l y under-stood as a defense of a p a r t i c u l a r meaning of a r t i n l i f e rather than p r i m a r i l y as a defense of the i n t e g r i t y or amorality of a r t . Pater's 108 e a r l i e r writings everywhere displayed a curious and bewildering com-bi n a t i o n of mental reverie and the images of a f e a r f u l r e a l i t y * which he described as continual and meaningless change. Obsessed with the psychological e f f e c t s of a e s t h e t i c experience* Pater had the scholar's tendency to f e e l the r e a l i t y of i n t e l l e c t u a l a c t i v i t y as v i v i d l y as that of physical a c t i v i t y . Art was f o r Pater a means of extending experience, of a c t u a l l y extending l i f e . When Pater sa i d : Of t h i s wisdom, the poetic passion, the desire of beauty, the love of a r t f o r a r t ' s sake, has most; f o r a r t comes to you pro-f e s s i n g frankly to give nothing but the highest q u a l i t y to your moments as they pass, and simply f o r those moments' sake.23 i t i s important to know what q u a l i t i e s Pater saw i n a r t . They were, i n fact* s i m i l a r to those q u a l i t i e s Ruskin p e r c e i ved—the q u a l i t y of human l i f e of a p a r t i c u l a r c u l t u r a l epoch. The composite experience of a l l the ages i s part of each of us; to deduct from that experience* to o b l i t e r a t e any part of i t , to come face to face with the people of a past age* as i f the middle age* the Renaissance* the eighteenth century had not been* i s as impossible as to become a l i t t l e c h i l d , or enter again into the womb and be born. But though i t i s not possible to repress a single phase of that humanity, which, because we l i v e and move and have our being i n the l i f e of humanity, makes us what we are; i t i s possible to i s o l a t e such a phase, to throw i t i n t o r e l i e f , to be divided against ourselves i n zeal f o r i t . . . Such an a t t i t u d e towards Greece, a s p i r i n g to but never a c t u a l l y reaching i t s way of conceiving l i f e , i s what i s possible f o r a r t . The great difference between Pater and Ruskin was not i n t h e i r a t t i t u d e s towards what was possible f o r a r t but rather i n t h e i r a t t i -tudes towards experience and the s i g n i f i c a n c e of human l i f e , and therefore towards the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a r t and experience. For Ruskin l i f e was a duty, and i t s meaning lay i n the o b l i g a t i o n of the l i v i n g to be good and to f u l f i l l the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s imposed by a natural order of l i f e . A r t was valuable because i t expressed truth •'109 and goodness, and was therefore an education and an i n s p i r a t i o n . For Pater l i f e was an enigma with no c l e a r meaning or purpose. The necessity of order which continued to guide Ruskin and Arnold a f t e r t h e i r c r i s e s of f a i t h no longer seemed reasonable to Pater, despite h i s obvious anxiety about l i f e ' s meaningless change, and death. Art f o r Pater was a kind of redemption which pushed back the i s o l a t i n g horizon.by extending the realm of experience i n t o a t e r r a i n where meaning was immediately and personally sensible. Art was more precious than p o l -i t i c a l or char i t a b l e endeavors because a e s t h e t i c experience was purely personal and never went beyond the confines of one's own s k u l l , as did every worldly passion, to become confused i n the kaleidescope of s o c i a l experience. Pater's e f f e c t on the V i c t o r i a n s of the l a t e 1860's and 1870's was not su r p r i s i n g ; some found him dangerous, while others accepted h i s work as serious and i n t e r e s t i n g . Pater's emphasis on the u n i v e r s a l restlessness of things struck a raw nerve and several of h i s Oxford colleagues, i n c l u d i n g the redoubtable Dr. Jowett, r e c o i l e d p a i n f u l l y from i t . But several scholars and c r i t i c s , i n c l u d i n g John Addington Symonds and Mrs. Mark Pattison, found Pater's Renaissance a thoughtful 25 book by a serious writer. Pater's r e j e c t i o n of the necessity of order was c e r t a i n l y commonplace enough by the 1870's to be viewed as harmless by a large number of c u l t i v a t e d people. Pater's s e n s i b i l i t y was also important because of the way h i s s t r i k i n g imagery penetrated la t e Victorian\;'culture, or perhaps the converse was more t r u e — t h e way i n which the imagery of i d e a l i s t V i c t o r i a n a r t penetrated Pater's mind. Pater expressed b e t t e r than any a r t c r i t i c that p e c u l i a r beauty of the -.tlC-medieval i d e a l i s t s , Rossetti and Burne-Jones, i n h i s discussion of William Morris' medieval poetry> Without ever a c t u a l l y speaking of the a r t i s t s or t h e i r work, he seems to describe a Burne-Jones p a i n t i n g i n the passage, "...people of a remote and unaccustomed beauty, somna-26 b u l i s t i c , f r a i l , androgynous, the l i g h t almost shining through them..." Pater's prose discussing medievalism was the l i t e r a r y counterpart to Burne-Jones' and Rossetti's paintings, and i n the prose, i t i s easy to discover the morbid s e n s i b i l i t y , the preoccupation with disease, disorder and death. "That whole r e l i g i o n of the middle age was but a b e a u t i f u l disease or disorder of the senses," wrote Pater, and i n the f ollowing paragraph the d e s c r i p t i v e words are "delirium", "appalling", "narcotic", " f e v e r i s h " , "maddening" and "a sudden bewildering sickening 27 of l i f e and a l l things." But where was the beauty i n disorder and what was the a e s t h e t i c pleasure to be had from disease? Of course no one s e r i o u s l y promoted the beauty of sickness i n the 1870's; that was only a c a r i c a t u r e . But i t was a caricature of a sentiment to be found i n respectable places, foremost of which, i n the a r t world, was Burne-Jones' studio. Nobody could deny that h i s sense of beauty rejected the robust. This sentiment was an a e s t h e t i c expression of a deep and probably uncon-scious discontent with the robust materialism of the period, and i t a f f l i c t e d the prosperous, the secure and the educated. Long a f t e r i t s development, a biographer of Frederic Leighton described t h i s sentiment. Imbued with a rare, p e c u l i a r refinement a l l i t s own, a kind of aesthe t i c creed sprang up i n the l a t e r days of the nineteenth _ -century-apart from the a r i d s o i l of commonplace r e s p e c t a b i l i t y and t a s t e l e s s materialism. Burne-Jones painted i t . . . t h e humourist caricatured i t , the P h i l i s t i n e s denounced i t as morbid and un-wholesome. Leighton was t o l e r a n t and amused, but could not be very solemn over i t . . . . I t s text may be found i n Melisande's r e i t e r a t e d r e f r a i n , "I am not happy"—though the unhappiness does not ever seem to have been of the nature of the i r o n which entered into the soul, but rather the shadow of sadness, adopted with the idea that such a condition betokens a more rare and tende grace than the radiance of joy can give. This sweet sadness was not the r e s u l t of any t r a g i c r e a l i z a t i o n nor even of a h e a r t - f e l t despair. I t was born of the prosperity and se c u r i t y of the upper classes and t h e i r dim intimation that t h e i r dearest values were pregnant with meaninglessness. Experiencing the ennui of modern l i f e yet bound to those u n s a t i s f y i n g forms and values by a dread of r a d i c a l change, many lat e V i c t o r i a n s preferred images of i n e f f a b l e misfortune to those more robust compositions of more obvious meaning because the l a t t e r no longer touched t h e i r f e e l i n g s . The sweet sadness preferred to the radiance of joy was the image of a f e e l i n g , a h e a r t - f e l t sense of inexpressible longing, "that i n v e r s i o n of homesickness known to some, that incurable t h i r s t f o r the sense of 29 (©scape, which no ac t u a l form of l i f e s a t i s f i e s . . . " Yet no r e a l escape was wanted, or even sought, not by Pater or Burne-Jones. The aesthetic s a t i s f a c t i o n came from the longing i t s e l f , a psychology Pater described i n h i s a r t i c l e on Morris. For i n that i d o l a t r y the i d o l was absent or v e i l e d , not l i m i t e d to one supreme p l a s t i c form l i k e Zeus at Olympia or Athena i n the Acr o p o l i s , but d i s t r a c t e d , as i n a fever dream, in t o a thou-sand symbols and r e f l e c t i o n s . . . . Hence a love define by the absence of the beloved, choosing to be without hope, pr o t e s t i n g against a l l lower uses of love, barren, extravagant, antinomian. So while Burne-Jones went on working i n that world which was more true than r e a l and while Pater declared the v i r t u e of burning ,112 always with that hard gem-like flame, l a t e V i c t o r i a n c r i t i c s and a r t -lovers, perceiving the beauty and safety of ever u n f u l f i l l e d longing, grew more and more sens i t i v e to a new set of images. The tension b u i l t up by such longing, and the growing i r r i t a b i l i t y of an a r t world conscious of i t s own contradictions, created an atmosphere which was intensely susceptible to the world of images. As Pater said, describing Morris' poetry: A passion of which the out l e t s are sealed, begets a tension of nervey i n which the sensible world comes to one with a r e i n -forced b r i l l i a n c e and r e l i e f — a l l redness i s turned i n t o blood, a l l water into tears.31 So to some minds were i d e a l i s t s turned i n t o aesthetes and men of pro-perty into P h i l i s t i n e s . The i n t e n s i t y of f e e l i n g about "aesthetic" a r t was evident i n the controversies which such a r t s t i r r e d ; the attack on the " f l e s h l y " poets, the h o s t i l i t y shown to Whistler, and the a r t i c l e s i n the p e r i o d i c a l s which disapproved of the excessive love of beauty and the acute s e n s i -32 t i v i t y of the aesthete. There were few absolutely neutral f i g u r e s i n regard to aestheticism, and yet i n the a r t world i t s e l f , among the i d e a l i s t s and t h e i r associates, there was an amused though disapproving tolerance of i t a l l . I t may be as George Augustus Sala declared, that aestheticism was merely a figment of Du Maurier's i m a g i n a t i o n , 3 3 but the press c e r t a i n l y b e l i e v e d i n i t s existence and had decided opinions about i t . A r t i s t s could be amused because they d i d not take i t ser i o u s l y , knowing,?>that there were more pressing and important issues i n the practice of a r t than the chimera of a r t f o r a r t ' s sake. Art f o r a r t ' s sake was a myth invented by outsiders, as a j o u r n a l i s t invents headlines, 113 to cover and explain events i n the a r t world and to make them i n t e l l i -g i b l e and i n t e r e s t i n g to an outside audience. Nonetheless t h i s inven-t i o n d i d e x i s t and helped cause the f l u r r y of controversy among those to whom the practice of a r t was not so important as the ideas which a r t embodied. Even the i d e a l i s t s were not t o t a l l y exempt from t h i s * hence t h e i r disapproval of aestheticism. This was the state of the a r t world of the 1870's* and no event so c l e a r l y i l l u m i n a t e d the f l u i d i t y and confusion of ideas* the tension* the i r r i t a t e d nerves of the p a r t i c i p a n t s and the interdependence of two extreme views of the meaning of a r t * as d i d the Whistler vs. Ruskin l i b e l s u i t of 1878."^ 4 In the b i z a r r e arena of the courtroom* c e r t a i n a r t i s t s and c r i t i c s took the opportunity to assert p r i n c i p l e s they had 35 at heart. J Two things were c l e a r l y shown by t h i s c o n f r o n t a t i o n — f i r s t * that the ranks of aestheticism never were or could be monolithic* and second* that the r e a l danger to aestheticism was not P h i l i s t i n i s m but conscientious a r t i s t s who could not agree where the boundary lay be-tween a r t as a profession and a r t as a s p i r i t u a l c a l l i n g . Aestheticism could not be s e r i o u s l y threatened by P h i l i s t i n i s m * imbedded as the l a t t e r was i n a l l the forms of p r a c t i c a l l i f e . But a r t had been set free* so to speak* by new s o c i a l * economic and i n t e l l e c t u a l r e a l i t i e s and had not yet s e t t l e d into a recognized r e l a t i o n s h i p with any aspect of l i f e . Therefore during the t r i a l * the witnesses attempted to define art* to place i t i n i t s proper context* as a preliminary to doing j u s t i c e i n the case. The episode began i n 1877 with the opening of the Grovsner G a l l e r y . Whistler had been i n v i t e d to e x h i b i t and he sent several 114 -works,- i n c l u d i n g a p o r t r a i t of Henry I r v i n g and a view of the fireworks display at Cremorne Garden e n t i t l e d Nocturne i n Black and Gold: The F a l l i n g Rocket. The c r i t i c a l reviews of Whistler's work combined some praise f o r h i s c o l o r i n g and design with c r i t i c i s m of h i s many e c c e n t r i c i t i e s i n subject matter, handling and s t y l e . But John Ruskin pounced on Whistler i n a notice i n Fors Clavigera and r a i l e d against the Nocturne i n Black and Gold, the one pa i n t i n g Whistler had marked f o r s a le. [Figure 25] For Mr. Whistler's own sake, no l e s s than f o r the pr o t e c t i o n of the purchaser, Sir Coutts Lindsay ought not to have admitted works i n t o the g a l l e r y i n which the i l l - e d u c a t e d conceit of the a r t i s t so nearly approaches the aspect of w i l f u l imposture. I have seen, and heard much of cockney impudence before now, but never expected to hear a coxcomb ask two hundred guineas f o r f l i n g i n g a pot of paint i n the public's face. This was not merely an unfavorable review; i t was a d i r e c t attack on Whistler's character and motives and the monetary value of h i s painting. I t did, i n f a c t , amount to l i b e l as the jury i n the case found. This was not the f i r s t time Ruskin had created a purchasing drought 37 f o r an a r t i s t . A humorous verse of the period i r o n i c a l l y declared i t s e l f i n sympathy with the e c c e n t r i c Whistler. I paints and paints, Hears no complaints, And s e l l s before I'm dry; T i l l savage Ruskin S t i c k s h i s tusk i n , n And nobody w i l l buy. The e x p l i c i t attack on the f i n a n c i a l worth of the work and the seemingly malicious c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of the a r t i s t combined with Whistler's con-39 tempt f o r Ruskin's a r t i s t i c p r i n c i p l e s to make Whistler sue f o r l i b e l . Because of Ruskin's i l l n e s s the case was delayed i n coming to Figure 25 -1-16 court u n t i l November 1878. Both the p l a i n t i f f and the defendent had pressed a r t i s t s and c r i t i c s i n t o service as witnesses. Whistler persuaded W. M. Rossetti and Albert Moore to t e s t i f y f o r him while Ruskin* who was too i l l to appear* mustered the forces of Burne-Jones* W. P. F r i t h and Tom Taylor* a playwright and a r t c r i t i c f o r the Times. The l e g a l question which the jury had to decide was whether Ruskin's c r i t i c i s m had damaged Whistler's a b i l i t y to make a l i v i n g i n h i s pro-f e s s i o n and whether that c r i t i c i s m was malicious. But t h i s issue d i d not seem important to the witnesses as they pursued others* and the t r i a l atmosphere was furt h e r befogged by Whistler's reputation f o r e c c e n t r i c i t y and wit. Ruskin's lawyers refused to t r e a t Whistler s e r i o u s l y and asked such questions as* "Why do you c a l l Mr. I r v i n g an Arrangement i n B l a c k ? " 4 ^ And the ignorance of courtroom o f f i c i a l s and jury contributed to the amusement. One of the Nocturnes was displayed upside down* and when a T i t i a n was produced as an example of excellent f i n i s h * a juryman complained that they had seen enough of these Whistler Yet behind these exchanges* serious issues were being debated. Whistler began h i s testimony* a f t e r g i v i n g h i s cre d e n t i a l s of t r a i n i n g and l i s t i n g h i s patrons* by describing a r t i s t i c merit and explaining why he e n t i t l e d h i s works Nocturnes. I have perhaps meant to indi c a t e an a r t i s t i c i n t e r e s t alone i n the work* d i v e s t i n g the picture from any outside sort of i n t e r e s t which might have been otherwise attached-to i t . I t i s an a r -rangment of l i n e * form and colour f i r s t * and I make use of any incident of i t which s h a l l b r i n g about a symmetrical r e s u l t . Among my works are some night pieces; and I have chosen the word Nocturneghecause i t generalises and s i m p l i f i e s the whole set of them. This was a statement of a r t f o r a r t ' s sake as Whistler understood i t — 117 a r t had no need f o r sentiment and works of a r t could not depend upon any a s s o c i a t i o n of l i t e r a r y , h i s t o r i c a l or narrative i n t e r e s t . But Whistler's idea of a r t f o r a r t ' s sake was a part of h i s b e l i e f i n the i n t e g r i t y of the a r t i s t — a r t i s t s created a r t and the greatness of the a r t work was determined by the genius of the a r t i s t , and t h i s genius exis t e d independently of moral or i n t e l l e c t u a l values and was not influenced by s o c i a l or economic circumstances. The Ruskinian p r i n -c i p l e which i r r i t a t e d Whistler most was that a r t embodied values of t r u t h and goodness which the a r t i s t derived from the s o c i a l l i f e a-round him. Whistler's idea of the a r t i s t and h i s work was s i g n i f i c a n t to the whole of h i s career. I t was both the cause and r e s u l t of h i s estrangement from the V i c t o r i a n a r t world, and the cross-examination by Ruskin's attorney exposed the contrary a t t i t u d e s . S i r John: What i s the subject of the Nocturne i n Black and  Gold? Whistler: I t i s a night piece, and represents the fireworks at Cremorne. S i r John: Not a view of Cremorne? Whistler: I f i t were c a l l e d a view of Cremorne, i t would cer-t a i n l y b r i n g about nothing but disappointment on the part of the beholders. [Laughter 1] I t i s an a r t i s t i c arrangement. Whistler's ideas led him to c r i t i c i z e Ruskin because he was not an a r t i s t , and therefore Ruskin's c r i t i c i s m could not be of any value. S i r John: You don't approve of c r i t i c i s m ? Whistler: I should not disapprove i n any way of t e c h n i c a l c r i -t i c i s m by a man whose l i f e i s passed i n the p r a c t i c e of the science which he c r i t i c i z e s ; but f o r the opinion of a man whose l i f e i s not so passed, I would have as l i t t l e regard as you would i f he expressed an opinion on law.... S i r John: Bo you think i t f a i r that Mr. Ruskin should come to that conclusion? Whistler: What might be f a i r to Mr. Ruskin I cannot answer. 118 But—I-do--not think that any a r t i s t would come to that conclusion. L Whistler's insistence on the absolute i n t e g r i t y of the a r t i s t l e d him to another revolutionary a t t i t u d e towards V i c t o r i a n c u l t u r e . Rossetti and Burne-Jones scorned the Academy, and the public adulation which P r i t h ' s works i n s p i r e d was never t h e i r s . But a l l a r t i s t s be-l i e v e d that a r t was a p u b l i c concern, or at least a popular one, and although there were ignorant people who could not understand a r t , works of a r t , l i k e statutes of law, reached out into public l i f e a s s e r t i n g the s p i r i t u a l order of things. In speaking of the new a r t consciousness of the 1880's, a V i c t o r i a n writer analysed i t s founda-t i o n s . "The dynamic of i t a l l was the closeness of understanding be-tween a r t i s t and p u b l i c . Wow with the s t a r t of the 1880's V i c t o r i a n 45 p a i n t i n g was entering upon i t s f u l l e s t effulgence." P a r t l y of necessity, the public was never of any importance to Whistler. Whistler: A l l these works are impressions of my own. I make them my study. I suppose them to appeal to none but those who may understand the t e c h n i c a l matter.... S i r John: You send them [your p i c t u r e s ] to the Gallery to i n v i t e the admiration of the public? Whistler: That would be such vas£ absurdity on my part that I don't think I could. [Laughter] On the question of the value of works of a r t , one of the key issues i n the t r i a l , Whistler r e l i e d again on h i s idea of a r t as the c r e a t i o n of a p e c u l i a r genius. When he t e s t i f i e d that he had f i n i s h e d The F a l l i n g Rocket i n two days, Ruskin's attorney asked, "The labour of two days, then, i s that f o r which you ask two hundred guineas?" 47 And Whistler r e p l i e d , "No. I ask i t f o r the knowledge of a l i f e t i m e . " This point gained applause, the only such outburst during the t r i a l . Here, Whistler's imagination ran p a r a l l e l to that of most V i c t o r i a n s . 119 But Whistler was more secure i n h i s .assessment of value- than were h i s adversaries and h i s a l l i e s . In discussing the price of The F a l l i n g Rocket with Ruskin 1s attorney, Whistler's answers were simple and straightforward. S i r John: Is two hundred guineas a pretty good price f o r an a r t i s t of reputation? Whistler: Yes. S i r John: I t i s what we who are not a r t i s t s would c a l l a s t i f f i s h p r i c e . Whistler: I think i t very l i k e l y i t would he so. [Laughter] S i r John: A r t i s t s do not endeavour to get the highest price f o r t h e i r work i r r e s p e c t i v e of value? Whistler: That iggso, and I am glad to see the p r i n c i p l e so well established. Of course Whistler was not one to be shy i n h i s own defense but part of h i s confidence stemmed from h i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with h i s concept of value. Other witnesses had considerable d i f f i c u l t y grappling with the problem. When W. M. Rossetti, subpoenaed by Whistler's lawyers, was asked i f two hundred guineas was a s t i f f i s h price f o r The F a l l i n g Rocket, he r e p l i e d only a f t e r a long pause, and then cautiously, "I 4 9 think i t i s the f u l l value of the p i c t u r e . " Burne-Jones, a c t i n g on Ruskin's behalf i n the t r i a l , was asked the same question, and although h i s reply was ce r t a i n , i t was.hardly one which adequately addressed the problem of a r t i s t i c value. Bowen: Is the picture i n your judgment worth two hundred guineas? Burne-Jones: No, I cannot say i t i s , seeing how much c a r e f u l work men do f o r much l e s s . This i s simply a sketch. The day and a h a l f , i n which Mr. Whistler says i t was painted, seems a reasonable time f o r i t . Burne-Jones c l e a r l y d i d not mean that the value of a work of ar t depended s o l e l y on the amount of c a r e f u l labor expended on i t , but even h i s intended meaning, that c a r e f u l and d i l i g e n t work was one 1 2 0 of several necessary q u a l i t i e s of an a r t work, f a i l e d to solve the many problems posed by valuing a r t works. And Burne-Jones ideas of value were d i f f e r e n t when the work under scrutiny was a T i t i a n rather than a Whistler. Parry: What i s the value of t h i s picture of T i t i a n ' s ? Burne-Jones: That i s a mere accident of the salesroom. Parry: Is i t worth one thousand guineas? Burne-Jones: I t would be worth many thousands to me! But i t r might have been sold f o r f o r t y g u i n e a s . — He would not have paid the thousands of pounds, however, i f he could have purchased i t f o r f o r t y pounds; even f o r Burne-Jones, there was no i n t r i n s i c value i n an a r t work which could be f i g u r e d i n t o a cash p r i c e . Price was the market value. The "accident" of the salesroom was i n f a c t the only objective means of assessing value and i t pleased no one p r e c i s e l y because i t was objective, because i t was not d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to any i n t r i n s i c q u a l i t y , imagined or not, of paintings. W. P. F r i t h , the other a r t i s t who t e s t i f i e d f o r Ruskin, was emphatic i n h i s view of the value of Whistler's work. Bowen: Are the pictures works of a r t ? F r i t h : I should say not. The Nocturne i n Black and Gold i s not a serious work to me. I cannot see anything of the true repre-sentation of water and atmosphere i n the p a i n t i n g of Battersea Bridge. There i s pretty colour which pleases the eye, but there i s nothing more. To my thinking, the d e s c r i p t i o n of moon-l i g h t i s not true. The colour does not represent any more than you would get from a b i t of wallpaper or s i l k . The picture i s not worth two hundred guineas. Composition and d e t a i l are more important matters i n a p i c t u r e . I f F r i t h ' s complacency seems i r r i t a t i n g l y P h i l i s t i n e to the modern mind, i t i s only because h i s mid-Victorian prejudices are so obvious. Yet Burne-Jones' insistence on completion and d i l i g e n t workmanship was es-s e n t i a l l y the same as F r i t h ' s , although they h e a r t i l y disagreed on the 121 question of appropriate subject. During the t r i a l * t h i s preoccupa-t i o n with completeness* accurate representation and good workmanship amounted to an almost f a r c i c a l insistence on "finishV.' F i n i s h was the t e c h n i c a l f i n a l touch of p a i n t i n g — t i d y i n g up the d e t a i l s * smoothing rough touches and g i v i n g adequate form to a l l the v i s u a l components of a painting. F i n i s h was a technique but i t was a l s o an a t t r i b u t e of s t y l e . Like perspective* i t was an a t t r i b u t e which V i c t o r i a n a r t i s t s d i d not be l i e v e they could give up without taking a backward step i n a r t . But f i n i s h was not a q u a l i t y beyond debate; W. M. Rossetti c r i -t i c i z e d another a r t c r i t i c f o r h i s dogmatic insistence on f i n i s h i n a r t . We i n c l i n e to think that Mr. Palgrave remains somewhat too much of a Greek when he passes to the contemplation of other cycles and developments of a r t ; and that...he i s too anxious to f i n d i n them a c e r t a i n sort of f i n i s h * of which a kind of i d e a l or echo abides i n h i s mind from the models of Grecian perfection* but which does not* and hardly can* assume a l i k e shape i n modern. Burne-Jones craved f i n i s h f o r a d i f f e r e n t reason than F r i t h * although he would have agreed that the absence of c a r e f u l f i n i s h i n a work was a step back from the a r t i s t i c truths which the Renaissance had won. The l i b e l s u i t created an uncomfortable s i t u a t i o n f o r Burne-Jones* as he considered himself a f r i e n d of Whistler* and the same para-graph by Ruskin which i n c i t e d Whistler to sue contained high praise 54 f o r Burne-Jones' work. But Burne-Jones was w i l l i n g to put p e r s o n a l i t i e s aside because there was an issue f a r more important at s t a k e — t h e 55 idea that "good workmanship was e s s e n t i a l to a good p i c t u r e . " His testimony elaborated t h i s b e l i e f . 1.22-Burne-Jones: I think the Nocturne i n Blue and S i l v e r i s a work of a r t * hut a very incomplete one; an admirable beginning* but that i t i n no sense whatever shews [ s i c ] the f i n i s h of a complete work of a r t . I am l e d to the conclusion because while I think the picture has many good q u a l i t i e s — i n colour, f o r instance, i t i s b e a u t i f u l — i t i s d e f i c i e n t i n form* and form i s as essen-t i a l as colour.... Bowen: Do you see any mark of labour i n the pictures by Mr. Whistler that are under consideration? Burne-Jones: Yes* there must have been great labour to produce such work, and great s k i l l a l s o . Mr. Whistler gave i n f i n i t e promise at f i r s t , but I do not think he has f u l f i l l e d i t . I think he has evaded the great d i f f i c u l t y of p a i n t i n g and has not tested h i s powers by c a r r y i n g i t out. The d i f f i c u l t i e s i n p a i n t i n g increase d a i l y as the work progresses, and that i s the reason so many of us f a i l . We are none of us p e r f e c t . The danger i s t h i s , that i f unfinished p i c t u r e s become common, we s h a l l a r r i v e at a state of^mere manufacture, and the a r t of the country w i l l be degraded.-3 Burne-Jones' b e l i e f that p a i n t i n g was threatened by Whistler's me'thods was a f r i g h t e n i n g r e a l i t y to him and to many others. Designers i n the manufactured a r t s had experienced the corrosive e f f e c t s of an anarchic market-place on ae s t h e t i c standards, and i n the f i n e a r t s , the comparison had been pointedly drawn between a r t i s t s who painted because of an inner compulsion and a r t i s t s who painted because a ready 57 market exi s t e d f o r t h e i r works. Whistler's methods were dangerous because they aped the e f f i c i e n c y and heartlessness of a machine. He turned out works i n a day or two, he evaded the d i f f i c u l t i e s and ac-companying soul-searching of a r t and he d i d i t a l l with an eccentric, s e l f - p u b l i c i z i n g disregard f o r conventions. A f t e r the t r i a l , a London newspaper showed no p i t y to the bankrupt Whistler d e c l a r i n g that Whistler had only to "knock o f f " three or four works to p u l l himself out of 58 debt i n l e s s than a week. Whistler's a t t i t u d e s , as Ruskin and Burne-Jones c l e a r l y saw, were a threat to the V i c t o r i a n view of a r t ; the acceptance of Whistler's a e s t h e t i c standards meant the r e j e c t i o n of 123 mid-Victorian and i d e a l i s t standards. The c r i s i s i n the V i c t o r i a n a r t consciousness which the Whistler vs. Ruskin s u i t so admirably i l l u s t r a t e d was not the c o n f l i c t of aes-thete vs. P h i l i s t i n e or of impressionism vs. narrative a r t . In the a r t world of the late 1870's there were no longer generally v a l i d c r i t e r i a f o r assessing the value of a r t which s a t i s f i e d the sense of propriety of most V i c t o r i a n s . Tn'effijui^>lil^i the t r i a l experienced the d i f f i c u l t y of grappling with value f o r although they found f o r Whistler, they only assessed a farthi n g ' s damages. Ruskin's c r i t i c i s m had been l i b e l o u s but i t had succeeded, along with the testimony of the witnesses, i n destroying Whistler a r t i s t i c reputation. This d i f -f i c u l t y of deciding what a r t was worth was evident i n market tr a n s -actions and i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a r t i s t and men who bestowed commissions. Whistler was not the only a r t i s t to engage i n quarrels over the value of h i s work, although perhaps he had more excuse f o r i t than d i d a r t i s t s who were within s t y l i s t i c conventions. Luke Pi l d e s , a painter t r a i n e d at the South Kensington National Art School rather than the Academy, disapproved of Whistler's a r t and i n h i s own work, although c l e a r l y influenced by the i d e a l i s t tendency to decora-t i v e a r t , c a r r i e d on t r a d i t i o n s of r e a l i s t i c genre and elegant por-t r a i t u r e . Yet the problem of value l o s t him a f r i e n d as the following l e t t e r s demonstrate. My dear P i l d e s , I enclose cheque f o r £30, I agree with you i t i s a large price f o r the drawing. I t must be agreeable to you to be able to earn money so e a s i l y . F a i t h f u l l y yours, Edmund Yates .1-24 F i l d e s 1 reply to t h i s has not been preserved but Yates 1 second l e t t e r c l e a r l y suggests i t contained a reproach. My dear F i l d e s , You have not read ray note i n the s p i r i t i n which i t was written. Nothing could be f u r t h e r from my i n t e n t i o n that to suggest any-thing dishonourable i n your conduct f o r charging me £30 f o r the f r o n t i s p i e c e of Time. You y o u r s e l f i n your note forwarding the charge expressed the opinion that I should probably "think i t i s a good deal of money f r o the work," and i n my reply I merely agreed with you. I should have said nothing more on the subject, but since you have reopened i t I may t e l l you that my p r i n c i p l e f e e l i n g at the charge was s u r p r i s e . Surprise that you should have treated me, an intimate f r i e n d , on the same terms that you treated Mr. Agnew, Mr. Smith the publisher, or the proprietors of i l l u s t r a t e d newspapers. I can only i l l u s t r a t e my meaning by saying that i f I had been i n the Tom Taylor l i n e and you had asked me to write"a few pages de s c r i p t i v e , say, of the "Casuals" or "The Return of the Penitent", I should not have dreamed of taking any .money from you f o r my work. Of course, I d i d not expect you to draw my f r o n t i s p i e c e g r a t i s , but I thought, with the r e l a t i o n s between us, that the pr i c e was high. F a i t h f u l l y yours, Edmund Yates My dear Yates, The mere agreement with me that the charge f o r the drawing appeared high would c e r t a i n l y not be s u f f i c i e n t to annoy me. I t was the a d d i t i o n a l sentence that " I t must be very agreeable to you to make money B O e a s i l y " , with abundant suggestiveness, that induced me to read your note i n a d i f f e r e n t s p i r i t than i t was written. I t forced me to, what you c a l l , "re-open" the subject. But i n assuring me that you had no i n t e n t i o n of imputing anything dishonourable to me yet, i n your second l e t t e r , take away with one hand what you give the other.... I think i t due to me to say that I receive f o r every drawing I am now doing f o r the Graphic -£20 from a buyer apart from the high price I receive from the  Graphic.... In sending you the o r i g i n a l drawing of "The Embank-ment"—the f i r s t I have given to the p r o p r i e t o r of a paper or p u b l i s h e r — I sent you what I could have got €30 at l e a s t f o r ; I t r u s t some day you w i l l get £40 or £50 f ° r i t . Drawings of -q that size of mine have sold by auction f o r £44 some years ago. This exchange i s remarkable not only f o r i t s substance but a l s o f o r the suppressed b i t t e r n e s s of emotion which i s everywhere evident. 125 F i l d e s i n f a c t was so angered by Yates 1 second l e t t e r that he tore i t to shreds. C e r t a i n l y the r e l a t i o n s between a r t i s t s and picture buyers had not always been amicable, but i n the l$ja.te 1870's, t h e i r disputes over value betrayed the importance of that question and the confusion as to what determined value. How much, i f anything, d i d f r i e n d s h i p count i n a transaction? How d i d an a r t i s t determine a f a i r p r i c e f o r a p a r t i c u l a r work, e s p e c i a l l y f o r a work which l i k e F i l d e s 1 drawing earned two separate incomes? The copyright laws of 1862 made t h i s question relevant to every painter. How much did the copyright add, i f anything, to the market price of a painting? I f the a r t i s t retained the copyright i n a sale, was the p a i n t i n g worth less? Considering the great p r o f i t s to be made from the sale of engravings, the copyright could be valuable but a r t i s t s generally retained copyrights, when they did, i n order to be free to make copies of the work, not to p r o f i t from the sale of engravings. The changing c r i t e r i a of value a f f e c t e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a r t i s t and buyer i n another way. The i n s t i t u t i o n of the Royal Academy, the practice of public e x h i b i t i o n , the invasion of the a r t world by middle-class buyers and the i n f l a t i o n of picture prices had g r e a t l y a l t e r e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p of patronage. But an echo of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s t i l l e xisted i n the form of commissions given to a r t i s t s by wealthy buyers f o r s p e c i f i c pictures, usually p o r t r a i t s . The a t t i t u d e s of a r t i s t s and buyers towards commissions demonstrated the new stature of the a r t i s t i n society. Whistler was merciless to people s i t t i n g f o r p o r t r a i t s and yet h i s c l i e n t s , even Thomas C a r l y l e , struggled to endure i t . ^ The desire i n late V i c t o r i a n p o r t r a i t u r e to "drag a 12.6 man's"~ i d e n t i t y onto canvas" meant that the a r t i s t no longer f l a t t e r e d 61 as a matter of course. V i c t o r i a n p o r t r a i t s now r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e to view are generally f l a t t e r i n g to t h e i r subjects, showing them as lo v e l y and noble specimens, but not because the a r t i s t f e l t i t necessary in i n order to secure commissions. On the contrary, many p o r t r a i t s were painted because the a r t i s t had a regard f o r the subject and f e l t him to be a good subject. Watts' p o r t r a i t work was almost a l l done at h i s request because he admired h i s subjects and other important a r t i s t s were free to capture on canvas only those p e r s o n a l i t i e s they wished to paint. A r t i s t s were no longer supplicants to the wealthy and the best a r t i s t s were of a s o c i a l standing equal to that of t h e i r buyers. By the 1870's a r t i s t s were already r e c e i v i n g the homage of the great and Frederick Leyland, who had commissioned works from D. G. Rossetti and Whistler, waited p a t i e n t l y f o r years f o r the completion of these 62 commissions. The apotheosis of the a r t i s t had begun and was based on the conviction that was a tremendously valuable and unique part of l i f e . The f l u x of ideas and values i n the a r t world of the 1870's and ea r l y 1880's created a p e c u l i a r sense of the importance of a r t . Among the c u l t i v a t e d upper classes, a r t was becoming an evej;ydaynnece'ssi$y which, i f i t could not be had from paintings, was present i n wallpapers, p o r c e l a i n and even greeting c a r d s . ^ The evidence of dozens of con-temporaries bears witness to the enthusiasm f o r a r t i n i t s many forms during the period. Most of them beli e v e d the enthusiasm was a b l e s s i n g 64 f o r E n g l i s h c u l t u r a l l i f e . For E. B. Bax, a j o u r n a l i s t and s o c i a l i s t , the new world of ..the • 1880*s.'embraced not only the a r t s but a l l the 127 The s o c i a l s t r a t a a f f e c t e d by i n t e l l e c t u a l i n t e r e s t s showed an enormous advance i n the l a t e r [1880's] as compared with the e a r l i e r period [1860's]. Middle-class households* where i n the s i x t i e s anti-macassars* wax-flowers* on the walls r e l i g i o u s texts worked i n B e r l i n wool* sentimental drawing-room songs* cheap dance music or t r a n s c r i p t i o n of banal I t a l i a n a i r s l y i n g on a cha i r beside the piano* r e l i g i o u s books a l t e r n a t i n g with cheap novels i n the bookcase* Martin Tupper's "Proverbial Philosophy"* and* as the nearest approach to ac t u a l l i t e r a t u r e * Longfellow's poems, on the drawing-room table—domestic e s t a b l i s h -ments such as these gradually disappeared i n the i n t e r v a l between the periods. The generation which came to i t s own i n the e i g h t i e s had acquired truer i n s t i n c t s and higher i n t e r e s t s i n a r t , l i t e r a -ture, music, and the deeper problems of l i f e , i n d i v i d u a l and s o c i a l , gthani i t s predecessors of the e a r l y - and mid-Victorian period. I t i s perhaps natural that another witness, the son of an a r t i s t * should fasten upon a r t as the most profound expression of the change between mid-Victorian l i f e and l i f e i n the 1880's. L. V. F i l d e s pointed to the l a t e 1860's as the beginning of the a r t i s t i c awakening of the 1870's. Rather more than a hundred years ago a movement of Idealism swept over' this.country and hardly was any clas s of the community untouched by i t . On i t s a r t i s t i c side the movement has been associated with the Pre-Raphaelites* but i t went wider than that. Pre-Raphaelites* C l a s s i c i s t s * Medievalists* A e s t h e t i c i s t s * S o c i a l -Realists* p o r t r a i t - p a i n t e r s , landscape painters were a l l of them f i n d i n g patrons i n the new cl a s s of r i c h i n d u s t r i a l i s t s and merchants whose imagination the movement had caught. Nor d i d the movement stop at wealthy patrons.... The dynamic of i t a l l was the closeness of understanding between a r t i s t and pu b l i c . Now, with the s t a r t of the 1880's V i c t o r i a n p a i n t i n g was entering upon i t s f u l l e s t effulgence. Even to a very small c h i l d ^ k e myself the world of the 1880's seemed f u l l of b r i l l i a n c e . To a more mature observer, the a r t world of the late 1870's and e a r l y 1880's was a scene of r e b i r t h and r e v e l a t i o n . Art c r i t i c and j o u r n a l i s t , Harry Q u i l t e r , wrote i n the A r t Journal i n 1881: And now a l l seems as i f i t were on the eve of change—old creeds w i l l endure no longer. Art has attacked our l i n e s with a f i e r c e -ness only to be accounted f o r by the length of time i n which i t 128 has "been kept i n subjection; a dammed-up r i v e r , i t has burst i t s dykes and i s sweeping over the land. No wonder that straws and rubbish of a l l kinds f l o a t e a s i l y upon the great waters... A l l t h i s i s i r r i t a t i n g enough to some of us, and we read g r e e d i l y Mr. Du Maurier's s a t i r e s , and l i s t e n to Mr. G i l b e r t ' s plays; but, a f t e r a l l , i t ' s not the essence of the matter. The E n g l i s h p u b l i c — a t least i f we may judge from London—are beginning to have a desire f o r beauty i n t h e i r surroundings.such as they have never before shown signs of; they want Ar t with a blind,-™ longing, which would be comical-were i t not almost pathetic. In h i s "Ten O'clock" lecture, Whistler placed the blame f o r t h i s new age on the "aesthete" and h i s meddling with mattersJboth'.social and a r t i s t i c . 6 8 Each of these witnesses proclaimed the attempts made by a lar g e r c l a s s of people than had ever attempted before, to r e a l i z e within t h e i r own l i v e s the pleasures of cul t u r e . They a l l discerned a ^ r i s i n g i n -ter e s t i n a r t i n the 1870's, yet the precise character of t h i s r e v i v a l bewildered them a l l . Those who made of t h i s a r t i s t i c r e v i v a l the "aesthetic movement" di d an i n j u s t i c e to the complexity of c u l t u r a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s of the period. As these witnesses show, the concern f o r a r t was wider and more v a r i e d than the boundaries of an "aesthetic movement" allowed. Because of the changing circumstances i n the c u l t u r a l l i f e of the 1870's, and the problems and confusion which they created, a r t became a preoccupation with many c u l t i v a t e d men and women. The search f o r a c l e a r standard of value f o r a r t works apart from market pr i c e disrupted r e l a t i o n s between a r t i s t s and buyers and was a part of the i n t e l l e c t u a l and c u l t u r a l education of many i n d i v i d u a l s . Amid the confusing and c o n f l i c t i n g claims made on i n d i v i d u a l s by the r e a l i t i e s and i d e a l s of the period, few approaches to the problem could provide 129 l a s t i n g s a t i s f a c t i o n . The r e l a t i v i s m which recognized the various excellences of many s t y l e s , and acknowledged that value was ult i m a t e l y a personal and r e l a t i v e judgment was never very convincing, although c r i t i c s i n the 1880's had begun to r e l y on i t . H i s t o r i c i s m ran too deep and as L. V. P i l d e s acutely grasped, the c u l t u r a l l i f e of the 1870's 69 and 1880's was based on many mid-Victorian t r a d i t i o n s . Above a l l else, the commitment to the idea that a r t was or g a n i c a l l y and intimately l i n k e d to the s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l l i f e of a nation was only with d i f f i c u l t y abandoned. Even Oscar Wilde, the self-conscious aesthete, wrote Ruskinian c r i t i c i s m i n the lat e 1870's and consciously abandoned 70 Ruskin's p r i n c i p l e s only i n 1881. Relativism i n a r t c r i t i c i s m seemed new i n the 1870's and 1880's but an examination of the c r i t i c s who were r e l a t i v i s t s suggests that they d i d nothing more than extend the mid-Victorian p r i n c i p l e of ind i v i d u a l i s m i n a r t . W. M. Rossetti, who perceived and defended the beauty of Whistler's a r t as well as the a r t of Alphonse Legros and Burne-Jones, admired o r i g i n a l i t y and individualism i n p a i n t i n g but c l e a r l y was l o y a l to c e r t a i n standards of draughts-manship and design. Although he admired Whistler's good q u a l i t i e s , he d i d not think Whistler's work b e t t e r than the more f i n i s h e d , complete a r t of Rossetti or Burne-Jones. The many new and d i f f e r e n t s t y l e s i n the 1870's made the admiration of ind i v i d u a l i s m a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n c r i t i c i s m . But i t was individualism, not a r e l a t i v i s m recognizing no absolute standards and threatening the destruction of the ideas which made V i c t o r i a n c u l t u r a l l i f e meaningful. This ambiguous r e l a t i v i s m was i n t e l l e c t u a l l y i r r i t a t i n g to many V i c t o r i a n s and was the object of s a t i r e and r i d i c u l e f o r i others. These 130 -dissenters created aestheticism out of the ideas which seemed to them dangerous or absurd. The a e s t h e t i c movement was* i n i t s beginning* a f i c t i o n . C e r t a i n l y none of major f i g u r e s of the movement before Oscar Wilde f e l t comfortable associated with aestheticism and most of them 71 p u b l i c l y condemned the movement at some time. The character of the e a r l y a e s t h e t i c movement was p u b l i c i z e d b y s a t i r i s t s and c r i t i c s of aestheticism* not i t s protagonists. The most pervasive a e s t h e t i c doctrine c r i t i c i z e d by s a t i r i s t s was the idea that the a r t i s t * endowed with genius* created a r t and that t h i s function was completely independent of any material c i r -cumstances.? Whistler was the major propagandist f o r t h i s idea. I t had s i m i l a r i t i e s to the widespread b e l i e f i n the importance of i n d i -vidualism i n a r t * but while Whistler b e l i e v e d the a r t i s t was above circumstances by v i r t u e of being an a r t i s t * the V i c t o r i a n s b e l i e v e d an a r t i s t must s t r i v e to conquer circumstances and to assert h i s own s t y l e f o r the sake of a r t . Both recognized that genius was unteachable but most V i c t o r i a n a r t i s t s were p a i n f u l l y aware of the p i t f a l l s and 72 accidents which might forever d e r a i l genius. They bel i e v e d that unrelenting labor was necessary f o r a r t i s t i c development and i t was a moral o b l i g a t i o n to struggle against the ever increasing d i f f i c u l t i e s of p a i n t i n g towards the perfect a r t i s t i c c r e a t i o n . Por Whistler* hard work was necessary to master technique i n order to f a c i l i t a t e and perfect expression* but he never d e l i b e r a t e l y attempted a thing be-cause i t was d i f f i c u l t . Like r e l a t i v i s m i n a r t c r i t i c i s m * the concept of the independent genius was e a s i l y r i d i c u l e d * but i t was never meant to undermine V i c t o r i a n professional and a e s t h e t i c standards f o r a r t i s t s . 131 -[Figures 26 and 27] Rather, these ambiguous concepts allowed a r t i s t s and c r i t i c s more freedom i n developing an idea of the proper r e l a t i o n -ship between the a r t i s t and h i s society. The greatest a t t r a c t i o n of these two aesth e t i c doctrines was t h e i r promise to reconcile commercialism and i n d u s t r i a l i s m with a r t . These, i n the guise of P h i l i s t i n i s m , had ever been the enemies of V i c t o r i a n a r t . As the a n t i t h e s i s of a r t and industry l e d Ruskin from a r t c r i t i c i s m to s o c i a l c r i t i c i s m , so i t l e d every a r t - l o v e r to con-front the contradictory values of these two departments of l i f e . But i f V i c t o r i a n s recognized the c o n f l i c t and strove to resolve i t , the unconscious motors and gears of V i c t o r i a n society f r u s t r a t e d a l l programmatic so l u t i o n s . The a r t world rested on the material wealth and well-being of V i c t o r i a n society and thus the aesthete's contempt f o r the P h i l i s t i n e was analogous to the r e l i g i o u s anchorite's contempt f o r h i s imprisoning body. The a e s t h e t i c s o l u t i o n to t h i s dilemna was to separate a r t and commerce, to cut the t i e s of the assumed r e -l a t i o n s h i p which bound them together. Whistler's d e c l a r a t i o n of the independence of the a r t i s t i n h i s "Ten O'clock" lecture was one statement of t h i s s o l u t i o n . Why t h i s l i f t i n g of the brow i n deprecation of the p r e s e n t — t h i s pathos i n reference to the past? I f A r t be rare today, i t was seldom heretofore. I t i s f a l s e t h i s teaching of decay. The master stands i n no r e l a t i o n to the moment at which he o c c u r s — a monument of i s o l a t i o n — h i n t i n g at sadness—having no part i n the progress of h i s fellow-men.... False again, the fabled l i n k between the grandeur of A r t and the g l o r i e s and v i r t u e s of the State, f o r A r t feeds not upon nations, and peoples may be wiped from the face of the earth, but Art i s . I t i s indeed high time that we cast aside the weary weight of — i . . ^ jCWQDERN yESTHETJCS. (Ineffable Youth goes into testacies oner an extremely Old Master'—say, Fai PORCINBLLO BABARAGIANNO, A.D. 1206—1231 ?) Maiter-of-Fact Party. " BUT rr's STTCH A ,RRF%LMVR SUBJKCTI " „ Ineffable Youth. " 'SUBJECT* IN ART 18 OT HO 1COMKNT 1 THR PlCKTOBAB IS BEAUTIFUL 1" Matter-of-Fact Party. " BUT YOU'LL OWN THE DBAWINO'S VILR, AND THE COLOUR'S BEASTLY !" Ineffable Youth. *' I'M CPLLAH-BLIND, AND DOS'TT^OTRSS TO UNDERSTAND D'AWINQ ! Tax PICKTOBAB 18 BRAUTCFUI.!" Matter-of-Fact Party (getting warm). " BUT IT'S AIL OUT OF PSMSPICTTTB, HANO IT ! AND SO ABOMINABLY USTRUi TO NATtmMl" Ineffable Youth. " I DON'T CARR ABOUT NAYTCHAH, AND HATB PKKSFECTIVB ! THR PlCKTOBAB IS MOST BSAUTirUL ! " MatUr-of-Pact Party (losing all self-control). ;«« BUT, DASH IT ALL, MAN J WHRRR THE BlCKMJfS is THE BMAVTT, THKN T* Ineffable Youth (quietly). " Iii THR PIOKTCHAH !" [Total defeat of Matter-of-Fuct Part*., - • .. : »- _ — . — — — • -Figure 26 133 /ESTHETIC PRIDE. Fond Mother. "You L I V E TOO MUCH ALONE, A L O E R N O N I " Young Genius (Poet, Tainter, Sculptor, .Jkc.). ">Tis BETTER SO, M O T H E R I BESIDES I ONLY C A R E FOR T H E SOCIETY OF M Y EQUALS, A N D — A — S U C H BEING THE C A S E — A — M Y CIRCLE IS NECESSARILY RATHER LIMITED." Fond Mother. " B U T SURELY T H E SOCIETY OF YOUR S U P E R I O R S — — " Young Genius. * ' M Y WHAT, M O T H E R ! M Y SUPERIORS! W H E R E A R E T H E Y I I I " Figure 27 134 of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and co-partnership, and know that, i n no way, do our v i r t u e s minister to i t s worth, i n no way do our v i c e s impede i t s triumph! How irksome! how hopeless! how superhuman the self-imposed task of the nation! How sublimely v a i n the b e l i e f that i t s h a l l l i v e nobly or a r t p e r i s h . . . . Therefore have we cause to be merry!—and to cast away a l l c a r e — resolved that a l l i s w e l l — a s i t ever was—and that i t i s not meet that we should be c r i e d at, and urged to take measures. Whistler a l s o suggested i n h i s lecture that the a r t i s t could be immoral and s t i l l a great a r t i s t . Immorality was impossible i n the mid-Victorian and i d e a l i s t views of a r t , but the image of the indepen-dence of a r t and national l i f e had advantages and seemed to conform to the evidence of observation and experience. In the 1870's the r i s e of domestic a r t made the separation between a r t and commerce more apparent and i n t e l l i g i b l e . Both spheres of l i f e had claims on a man's time and energies, and i f the business world pressed more urgently and n e c e s s a r i l y on a man's time, a r t offered compensations which no other form of l i f e could. But t h i s a t t r a c t i v e s o l u t i o n had i t s c r i t i c s as well who struck i t a t i t s weakest p o i n t — t h e separation of a r t and commerce was a deliberate deception and could never be r e a l i z e d i n England. In The New Republic, W. H. Mallock made t h i s point when Mr. Rose, the caricature of Walter Pater, described the perfect c i t y . "You seem to have forgotten trade and business altogether," s a i d Dr. Jenkinson. "I think, however r i c h you intend to be, you w i l l f i n d that they are necessary." "Yes, Mr. Rose, you're not going to deprive us of a l l our shops, I hope?" said Lady Ambrose. "Because, you know," s a i d Mrs. S i n c l a i r , with a soft malicious-ness, "we can't go without dresses altogether, Mr. Rose. And i f I were there," she continued p l a i n t i v e l y , "I should want a bookseller to publish the scraps of v e r s e — p o e t r y , as I am pleased to c a l l i t — t h a t I am always w r i t i n g . " "Pooh!" sa i d Mr. Rose, a l i t t l e annoyed, "we s h a l l have a l l that somewhere, of course; but i t w i l l be out of the way, i n 135 a sort of Piraeus, where the necessary KdifrfAoi — " "A sort of what?" sa i d Lady Ambrose. "Mr. Rose merely means," sa i d Donald Gordon, "that there must be good folding-doors between the o f f i c e s and the house of l i f e ; and that the servants are not to be seen walking about i n the pleasure-grounds." Mallock b e l i e v e d that l i f e was a unity; a man could not change h i s values as he changed the topic of conversation. But he was mistaken i n a ttacking the separation of a r t and commerce as i f i t were a pro-gram, which i t was never meant to be. The separation of these worlds, l i k e the ambiguities of r e l a t i v i s m and a r t i s t i c genius, were f i c t i o n s maintained i n order to resolve the tension of contradictions which could not be solved. The a e s t h e t i c movement could be defined, as Harry Q u i l t e r sug-gested, as the most extreme edge of the new a r t consciousness which was developing under the influence of the i d e a l i s t s , Whistler, Pater and the pressures of changing circumstances i n the a r t world. This extremism was never meant to form the b a s i s of any programmatic change i n the a r t world. Rather, i t served to illuminate the new perspec-t i v e s on a r t which the new a r t consciousness opened up. Since the 1860's V i c t o r i a n a r t had been moving from the synthesis of a p e c u l i a r actualism i n representation and sentimentalism i n subject to a new conception of i d e a l form. The breakdown of the standards, the s t y l i s t i c forms and personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s which had supported the mid-Victorian a r t world p r e c i p i t a t e d a prolonged c r i s i s during the 1870's which allowed c e r t a i n events, a t t i t u d e s and s t y l e s to seem suddenly very promising or very dangerous i n so f a r as they offered solutions to problems. But the a e s t h e t i c movement had another c u l t u r a l r o l e ; i t was the f i r s t .-L36 major and self-conscious r e j e c t i o n of mid-Victorian c u l t u r a l values. Only a l a t e r generation turned on the mid-Victorians and attacked t h e i r a e s t h e t i c standards as r i d i c u l o u s and fraudulent* hut t h i s was foreshadowed i n the kind of c r i t i c i s m l e v e l e d against F r i t h ' s work 75 i n the 1870's. Now that i t i s fashionable to discern the ae s t h e t i c merits of mid-Victorian art* there i s a danger i n l o s i n g sight of the meaning of the re v u l s i o n against mid-Victorian a r t which began i n the 1870's. As the V i c t o r i a n s themselves pointed out* and as we are now beginning to recognize* V i c t o r i a n design was the product of a c u l t u r a l m i l i e u which was no longer v i t a l i n 1880. From one point of view i t may be s a i d that the material r e a l i t i e s of the V i c t o r i a n period betrayed the s p i r i t u a l powers and a s p i r a t i o n s of i t s a r t i s t s . But t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p could as t r u l y be stated i n i t s converse—the a r t i s t s betrayed t h e i r times and themselves by pursuing a v i s i o n of a r t i n society which was not* and could never be r e a l i z e d . A l a t e r generation discovered the f a i l u r e of the i d e a l i s t s * as the i d e a l i s t s had discovered the f a i l u r e of the mid-Victorians. But the ae s t h e t i c movement was not just the extreme edge of a r i s i n g a r t consciousness; i t was a l s o a part of the much greater c u l t u r a l changes which divided the mid-Victorian from the late V i c t o r i a n world. 137 FOOTNOTES 1 P [ h i l i p ] G [ i l b e r t ] H[amerton], "Art C r i t i c i s m , " The C o r n h i l l  Magazine, VIII (1863)* 334-343.; W. M. Rossetti, Fine Art, 324-34. 2 A r t Journal, VI (1867), 59. \ r t Journal, XX (1881), 14. 4Frank Davis, V i c t o r i a n Patrons of the Arts (London, 1963)* 40-6. ^Pennell, Whistler, 108. ^ F r i t h , Autobiography, 76, and below, 69. 7 lb i d , 149?50. C h i l d , Art and C r i t i c i s m , 312-51. g The decoration of the Peacock Room i s described i n Peter Ferriday, "Peacock Room," The A r c h i t e c t u r a l Review, CXXV (June, 1959), 407-14. The incident i s also described by Weintraub, Whistler, 169-81, and Pennell, 147-52. 10 Ferriday, "Peacock Room," 41 3• 11 William Gaunt, The Aesthetic Adventure (Harmondsworth, 1957)* 257-9. Walter Hamilton, The Aesthetic Movement i n England (London, 1882), v i i . 1 2 Cited . i i n Herbert Read, Art and Industry (London, 1966), 63. 13 Rossetti, Some Reminiscences, 340-1. 14 Thorstein Veblen, The I n s t i n c t of Workmanship and the State of the I n d u s t r i a l A r t s (New York, 1918), 245. 1"5 Lady Burne-Jones, Memorials, I, 116. l 6The Magazine of Art, I (1878), 50, 90. 17 Watts, Watts, I, 325* Pennell, 154. According to Watts, Ruskin also hated the red damask ground. 18 The Magazine of Art, I (1878), 90. 1 9Hubbard, B r i t i s h A rt, 184-5. 20 James Whistler, The Gentle Art of Making Enemies (London, 1953)* 144. 1 3 8 21 [ W a l t e r P a t e r ] , " P o e m s b y W i l l i a m M o r r i s , " W e s t m i n s t e r R e v i e w (1868), 301. 2 2 I b i d , 302. 2 3 I b i d , 312. 2 4 ^ I b i d , 307. 25 F o r J o w e t t ' s r e a c t i o n , s e e T h o m a s W r i g h t , T h e L i f e o f W a l t e r  P a t e r ( L o n d o n , 1°/07)> I* 255-6; f o r S y m o n d s r e a c t i o n , s e e J . A . S y m o n d s , " A r t a n d A r c h e o l o g y , " T h e A c a d e m y , I V ( M a r c h , 1873), 103-5; a n d f o r M r s . M a r k P a t t i s o n r e a c t i o n s , s e e W r i g h t , I , 253-4« M r s . P a t t i s o n w a s a s c h o l a r o f t h e F r e n c h R e n a i s s a n c e a n d w a s c r i t i c a l o f P a t e r ' s m e t h o d b e c a u s e h e c a l l e d h i s w o r k a h i s t o r y , w h e n i n f a c t i t w a s l i t e r a r y a n d a r t c r i t i c i s m . 2 6 S e e a b o v e , 107. 2 7 [ P a t e r ] , " P o e m s b y M o r r i s , " 302-3. 28 B a r r i n g t o n , L e i g h t o n , I I , 25. 2 9 W a l t e r P a t e r , S k e t c h e s a n d R e v i e w s ( L o n d o n , 1919)* 3 ° [ P a t e r ] , " P o e m s b y M o r r i s , " 302. 3 1 I b i d , 303. 3 2 e . g . , s e e H a m i l t o n , v i ; " P r i g s a n d P h i l i s t i n e s , " T h e S a t u r d a y  R e v i e w , X L V I (1878), 555-6; a n d S B r o w n r i g g o n t h e B e a u t i f u l , " P u n c h , o r t h e L o n d o n C h a r i v a r i , L I I ( F e b r u a r y , 1877), 84. 3 3 H a m i l t o n , v i i . 34 T h e s t o r y o f t h e t r i a l i s t o l d b y W h i s t l e r i n h i s g e n t l e A r t , 2 -18; P e n n e l l , 166-81 ; a n d W e i n t r a u b , 194-216. 35 T h e - o n e r . : r a a j o r w i t n e s s ' - w h o w a s u n a b l e t o a p p e a r , R u s k i n h i m s e l f , e a g e r l y - l o o k e d f o r w a r d t o t h e t r i a l b e c a u s e h e w i s h e d t o u s e t h e c o u r t -r o o m a s a f o r u m f o r s o m e p r i n c i p l e s o f a r t e c o n o m y . - S e e L a d y B u r n e - J o n e s , M e m o r i a l s , I I , 86. 3 6 C i t e d i n P e n n e l l , 169-70. 3 7 M a a s , V i c t o r i a n P a i n t e r s , 134* c l a i m s t h a t t h e " P r e - R a p h a e l i t e " a r t i s t , W . W i n d u s , c e a s e d h i s p a i n t i n g c a r e e r a f t e r a s e r i e s o f s h o c k s . w h i c h i n c l u d e d t h e d e a t h o f h i s w i f e a n d a s e v e r e c r i t i c i s m o f h i s w o r k b y R u s k i n . W . M . R o s s e t t i , h o w e v e r , i n h i s R e m i n i s c e n c e s , I , 134* c l a i m s 139 that Windus l e f t the a r t profession f o r a "reason which would do him honour," without s p e c i f y i n g that reason. Presumably, Windus might have r e t i r e d to spare the world bad paintings, but i t does not seem l i k e l y . However, Ruskin's c r i t i c i s m c e r t a i n l y a f f e c t e d Windus and helped dry up the market f o r Whistler's works. 38 Cited i n Hutchinson, Royal Academy, 131. 39 Pennell, 164, and Wientraub, 196-8, c i t e f i n a n c i a l problems as well, a r e s u l t of the b u i l d i n g of the White House and the buying drought. 40 Weintraub, 202. 41 * Ibid, 211. 42 H Ibid, 201. 43 J I b i d , 202. 4 4 I b i d , 203* 204. 45 / L. V. F i l d e s , Luke F i l d e s , R.A. A V i c t o r i a n Painter (London, 1968), 59. 4 6Weintraub,, 202, 203. 4 7 I b i d , 203. 4 8 i b i d , 202. 4 9 I b i d , 206. 5°Ibid, 210-1. 5 1 Ibid, 212. 5 2 I b i d , 212-3. 53 Rossetti, Fine Art, 332. 54 Lady Burne-Jones, I I , 87. 5 5 I b i d . 56 J Weintraub, 210-1. 57 J See below, 80. 58 J Weintraub, 222-3. . 140 5 9 F i l d e s , 6-1-3. °^Weintraub, 146-68. 61 Prank Holl, a Social-Realist turned fashionable portraitist* cited i n Maas, 223. u.;.^; 62 Ferriday* "Peacock Room," 409-10. 63 Art Journal, VI (1867), 115, reported on valentines which "are indeed beautiful-Art-works, that might find places i n refined collections." 64 Besides those quoted below, see Whistler, Gentle Art, 151-2; Charles L. Eastlake, Hints on Household Taste (London, 1878), v-vi; and W. Graham Robertson, Time Was (London, 1931), 34-6. 65 E. Belfort Bax, Reminiscences and Reflections of a Mid and Late  Victorian (New York, 1920), 71. 6 6 P i l d e s , 59. 6 7 A r t Journal, XX (1881), 280. V 69 ^Fildes, 59, and below, 127. 7°Wilde, Works, I, 31• 71 One of the problems that the major figures of the movement had was i n being convincing i n their denial of their own "aestheticism." Whistler was most emphatic i n his "Ten O'clock Lecture,'" Gentle Art, 152-5. Burne-Jones, however, did not like public speaking and i t was with reluctance that he appeared for Ruskin i n court i n 1878. It was there that he made his strongest statement against aestheticism i n art, Lady Burne-Jones, I I , 86-9. Pater's denial of his connection with the movement was consistent, but almost completely ignored by his contemporaries, see his note to the "Conclusion" of the 1888 edition of the Renaissance. This brief 'Conclusion' was omitted in,the second edition of this book [1878], as I conceived i t might possibly mislead some of those young men into whose hands i t might f a l l . Pater, i n a review of Wilde's Picture of Dorian Gray i n 1891* denied the va l i d i t y of amoral appreciation of beauty and experience i n his view of l i f e , see Wright, I I , 159* F o r a summary of Pater and those whose misinterpreted Pater's ideology, see John Pick, "Divergent Disciples of Walter Pater," Thought; Fordham University Quarterly, XXIII (1948), 114-28. 68 Whistler, Gentle Art, 152-3. 7 2Barrington, I, 155-6, 208, I I , 21-2. 141 Wstler, Gentle Art, 154-8. "Mallock, New Republic, 280. *See below, 80. 142 The world of painters, patrons and other cognoscenti was only a part of the V i c t o r i a n a r t world. I t was indeed the most celebrated, v i s i b l e and dramatic part but i t was also the most dream-like, s h e l -tered as i t was i n many ways from the a c t i v i t i e s and s o c i a l and eco-nomic changes which made so many V i c t o r i a n s anxious f o r the future of a r t . The fi n e a r t s d i d not d i r e c t l y depend on industry and com-merce as d i d the manufactured a r t s , and these l a t t e r (the V i c t o r i a n s a l s o r e f e r r e d to them as the lesser, i n d u s t r i a l , decorative and orna-mental a r t s ) had a d i f f e r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p with industry and commerce, with the middle-classes and with the market-place than d i d the fine a r t s . Because the manufactured a r t s were a major part of the aesthe-t i c movement, i t i s necessary to understand these r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n order to understand the o r i g i n s of aestheticism within the realm of these " l e s s e r " a r t s . In dealing with the manufactured a r t s , i t would be well to have a precise d e f i n i t i o n of them, yet the evidence i n t h i s i s not as pre-cise as could be wished. Because the ornamental a r t s included a r c h i -t e c t u r a l adornment, the l i n e between arc h i t e c t u r e , and ornamental work that had an i n t e g r i t y apart from an a r c h i t e c t u r a l s e t t i n g , was never c l e a r l y drawn. Evidence of t h i s confusion i s the dual role of many e a r l y and mid-Victorian a r c h i t e c t s as designers of bu i l d i n g s and of furnishings. Owen Jones, A. W. N. Pugin, William Burges and Matthew Digby Wyatt a l l treated i n t e r i o r decoration as a part of the 1 a r c h i t e c t ' s domain. Undoubtedly these men considered t h e i r work i n designing chairs, rugs, tables, ink wells and jewellry as a r t . 143 Much of t h i s kind of work was hand-crafted and even unique* and therefore would not be considered i n d u s t r i a l a r t which connoted mass production. At the other end of the s o c i a l and a r t i s t i c scales were the i n d u s t r i a l designers who copied or created designs f o r t e x t i l e s , pottery, cast i r o n ware and other a r t i c l e s manufactured by companies i n large f a c t o r i e s . These designers were generally drawn out of the working-classes, as i t was ea s i e r to t r a i n workers to do the a r t work required i n i n d u s t r i a l design than i t was to t r a i n a r t i s t s to design 2 f o r the manufacturing processes and the a v a i l a b l e market. There were also many i n d u s t r i e s which made no pretense at design i n t h e i r products; these were the u t i l i t a r i a n and pedestrian a r t i c l e s which a t t r a c t e d the admiration of the f u n c t i o n a l designers of the twentieth century but which few V i c t o r i a n s would have allowed to be a r t i s t i c at a l l . 3 Beginning with the 1836 Parliamentary i n q u i r y i n t o the state of the a r t s i n England, a l l the reform movements i n the manufactured a r t s aimed at the working-class designers. The architect-designers were exempla, and i t was hoped that i n d u s t r i a l designers could be tra i n e d i n design as a r c h i t e c t s were, which would ra i s e standards i n i n d u s t r i a l a r t . Yet both kinds of designers, and designers who di d not e a s i l y f i t into e i t h e r category, were engaged i n designing a r t i c l e s of manufacture. The best d e f i n i t i o n of these a r t i c l e s would unfortunately be a negative o n e — a r t i c l e s which by v i r t u e of t h e i r design have pretensions to being considered works of a r t but which 4 cannot be hung i n the Royal Academy e x h i b i t i o n s . The manufactured 144 a r t s were e n t i r e l y separate from the f i n e a r t s ; nonetheless, the l i n e between the ornamental work of a r c h i t e c t s and the hack-work of a t e x t i l e designer was greater than the l i n e between archi t e c t u r e and ornamental design done by an a r c h i t e c t . The d i s t i n c t i o n between the f i n e a r t s and manufactured a r t s based on function (an a r t i c l e of manu-factured a r t has some s p e c i f i c use apart from being b e a u t i f u l ) neglects the many a r t i c l e s which are manufactured merely to be beau-t i f u l , such as p o r c e l a i n f i g u r e s , wallpapers, decorative t i l e s and ornamental moldings. Also the i n t r o d u c t i o n of function i n t o the d e f i n i t i o n of manufactured a r t tends to confuse the issue of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between beauty and function i n V i c t o r i a n a r t ; an issue which w i l l be discussed l a t e r . One of the reasons i t i s so d i f f i c u l t to a r r i v e at a proper and precise d e f i n i t i o n of the manufactured a r t s i s the character of the manufacturing a r t world, a world f a r more d i f f u s e and complicated than that i n which the f i n e a r t s were c a r r i e d on. The immense range of a c t i v i t i e s and ranks, both s o c i a l and a r t i s t i c , within t h i s part of the a r t world involved a r t i n problems and concerns unrelated to ae s t h e t i c questions. An enduring problem which always seemed pressing to contemporaries was r e c o n c i l i n g a r t and commerce. The c o n f l i c t s between these two departments of l i f e i n the f i n e a r t s grew out of the i n t r u s i o n of commercial mechanisms, s p e c i f i c a l l y the market-place, into the sphere of a r t i s t i c i n t e g r i t y . In the manufactured a r t s , commercial considerations had to be foremost and the problem of r e -c o n c i l i a t i o n therefore lay with designers i n providing a place f o r a r t 145 i n manufactures. The love of a r t i n i t s i d e a l i z e d , ethereal forms created a tension i n the f i n e a r t s which the manufactured a r t s escaped; there the p r a c t i c a l function of design provided a v i t a l bond between aesthe t i c and u t i l i t a r i a n values which a l t e r e d the nature of the c o n f l i c t between material and a r t i s t i c values. More important, however, the manufactured a r t s were not plagued with the anxiety created by the i n t r u s i o n of market value i n t o the realm of a e s t h e t i c value. A design had to s e l l to be successful; manufacturers could not ignore the market i n order to pursue a more sublime a r t i s t i c v i s i o n . And the element of uniqueness which gave the f i n e a r t market i t s p e c u l i a r character was' l a c k i n g i n the manufactured a r t market. Even unique pieces of f u r n i t u r e were unique only i n design, not i n function, and the success of a r t manufactures depended upon how w i l l i n g those who had money were w i l l i n g to spend i t on a p a r t i c u l a r design, or on ornament apart from u t i l i t y . The manufactured a r t market was, i n one sense, the converse of the f i n e a r t market, i n that a e s t h e t i c considerations constantly intruded upon commercial considerations i n manufactured a r t . But i f p r a c t i c a l considerations of design production and mar-keting a l l e v i a t e d the i n t e n s i t y of the controversy between a r t and commerce, the conditions i n industry and the t r a i n i n g of workers as designers created a vast set of problems which the painter, protected by high p r i c e s and a r e l a t i v e l y closed profession, never faced. The degradations and miseries of l i f e among the i n d u s t r i a l population aroused a v a r i e t y of reformers and reform programs, and through the 146 manufactured a r t s , the e n t i r e a r t world came into contact with these reforming energies. These issues r e f l e c t e d the great diff e r e n c e be-tween the f i n e a r t s and the manufactured a r t s i n V i c t o r i a n E n g l a n d — the i n e v i t a b l e involvement of a l l classes i n the manufactured a r t s as producers or consumers. The f i n e a r t s remained, though not neces-s a r i l y because a r t i s t s wished i t to, out of reach of a l l but the wealthy, educated and i n t e r e s t e d . The manufactured a r t s , spreading with the ti d e s of materialism and i n d u s t r i a l production, pervaded a l l s o c i a l s t r a t a and, as the century wore on, formed more and more of the phys i c a l background of a l l l i f e ' s a c t i v i t i e s . The manufactured a r t s d i d not, however, a f f e c t a l l classes or a l l a c t i v i t i e s equally. V i c t o r i a n design a f f e c t e d the fast-growing c i t i e s more than the sleepy p r o v i n c i a l towns, and the new wealth of the middle-classes more, probably, than the o l d wealth of the a r i s t o -cracy. But the manufactured a r t s presented the problem of popular and democratic a r t i n a way that the f i n e a r t s never could. Most r e -formers who aimed at higher a e s t h e t i c standards i n the manufactured a r t s b e l i e v e d that these a r t s ought to r e a l i z e t h e i r promise of be-coming both popular and democratic; they should be cherished by a l l people f o r t h e i r beauty and they should be a v a i l a b l e to a l l people regardless of differences i n wealth, education, even geographical l o c a t i o n . At the very beginning of the V i c t o r i a n period, a reform movement attempted to solve the problems of design standards and some of the problems of working conditions by e s t a b l i s h i n g schools of design f o r t r a i n i n g i n d u s t r i a l workers. Later reformers tended to 147 accept t h i s connection of the problem of design standards with the problem of the condition, e s p e c i a l l y the ignorance, of workers. But i t was f o r these l a t e r reformers which included Henry Cole, John Ruskin, William Morris and Lewis P . Day to answer the q u e s t i o n — what can be done programmatically to improve the manufactured a r t s 5 and the l i v e s of the producers? U n t i l the 1870's no answer s a t i s f i e d reformers with r e s u l t s , e i t h e r i n a e s t h e t i c standards or i n the im-proved condition of the working-classes. The great development of domestic a r t i n the 1870's seemed to contemporaries (and a l s o to several h i s t o r i a n s of V i c t o r i a n design ) the most promising condition the manufactured a r t s had as yet achieved;. I t was i n t h i s period that the paradoxical developments of V i c t o r i a n i n d u s t r i a l design f i n a l l y culminated i n the :.failure of the main objective of most r e f o r m e r s — the r e a l i z a t i o n of a t r u l y popular and democratic a r t . The commitment to a p a r t i c u l a r a r t i s t i c v i s i o n and to an i d e a l of an aest h e t i c hu-manism made the reformers, even William Morris who rejected the wide-spread compromise of h i s contemporaries, retreat from the conditions towards which democratic a r t had to advance, machine production and labor e f f i c i e n c y . The complex system of problems and r e l a t i o n s h i p s between theory and p r a c t i c e ; worker, designer and manufacturer; t r a i n i n g and s t y l e ; various i n s t i t u t i o n s ; and the producers and consumers of manufactured a r t can best be understood by examining f i r s t , the i n t e r a c t i o n between st y l e and the i n s t i t u t i o n s and r e l a t i o n s h i p s p r e v a i l i n g within the context of the production of the manufactured a r t s . And second, i t 148 - i s necessary to examine the expectations of consumers, and the changing character of the market-place i n the 1860's and 1870's. But i n order to do t h i s properly, i t i s important to consider the role of the manu-factured a r t s within the d i f f e r e n t contexts i n which i s was important. Por example, to a r c h i t e c t s and i n d u s t r i a l designers, the manufactured a r t s afforded a means of l i v i n g and a means of expressing a r t i s t i c fancies and a s p i r a t i o n s . The t r a i n i n g and r e l a t i v e freedom of a r c h i t e c t s such as Owen Jones and A. W. N. Pugin meant that they approached design as a l o g i c a l extension of architecture, which was a f i n e a r t . The problems of architecture considered as a fin e a r t were s i m i l a r to those of painting, although aggravated by the f a c t that b u i l d i n g s were meant to please many tastes and to f u l f i l l some purpose as a b u i l d i n g . But a r c h i t e c t u r e , buffeted by the s t y l i s t i c controversy of Gothic vs. c l a s s i c a l , was i n a c r i t i c a l state i n the 1850's. C r i t i c s who were generally pleased with the progress of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l a r t s at mid-century s t i l l saw dangers. But there i s no s e c u r i t y that we s h a l l continue to advance, or s h a l l even keep what we have gained, unless the p u b l i c can control by t h e i r judgment the caprices of i n d i v i d u a l s . I t i s fo r the g r a t i f i c a t i o n of the many, and f o r the sake of t h e i r commendation, that beauty i s studied, and u n t i l they can d i s t i n -guish between what i s good and what i s bad, a r c h i t e c t s labour i n v a i n . In the hands of some the .profession.will be turned from an a r t i n t o a money-making business; others, whose a b i l i t y i s not equal to t h e i r ambition, w i l l be employed i n preference to b e t t e r men, and the Wrens and the Barrys w i l l be fortunate i f , besides being deprived of the stimulus of praise, t h e i r plans are not marred by the want of^knowledge i n t h e i r patrons of the common p r i n c i p l e s of design. The a r c h i t e c t was c l e a r l y within the realm of the f i n e a r t s , although 1 4 9 h i s purely ornamental work was not f i n e a r t as i t could not he hung i n the Royal Academy. The a r c h i t e c t therefore tended to approach the problem of design as an aesthe t i c problem; the same way an a r t i s t Q approached a pa i n t i n g . Market considerations were r a r e l y a fa c t o r , f o r the a r c h i t e c t designed furnishings f o r h i s own b u i l d i n g s , f o r himself or f o r p a r t i c u l a r commissions. He was i n an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n from the i n d u s t r i a l designer who was employed by a manufac-tu r e r to produce designs and usually to adapt the design to the manu-fa c t u r i n g process as w e l l . The confusions which plagued the manufactured a r t s were most evident i n the case of the i n d u s t r i a l designer. T r a d i t i o n and the pr a c t i c e s of the architect-designers taught that design was the pro-vince of a r t i s t s , and when a Parliamentary commission i n 1825 and 1836 inquired i n t o the reasons why B r i t i s h i n d u s t r i a l design was so i n f e r i o r q to French, the problem of the worker-artist was f i r s t explored. The e a r l y testimony of Dr. Waagen of Germany stated the t r a d i t i o n a l view, already romanticized. When the chairman asked him the best method of "applying a r t s to manufactures," Waagen r e p l i e d , "In former times the a r t i s t s were more workmen, and the workmen were more a r t i s t s , as i n the days of Raphael, and i t i s very desirable to restore t h i s happy connexion. But the processes of manufacture were very d i f f e r e n t i n the nineteenth century from what they had been i n the days of Raphael. Although manufacturers n a t u r a l l y looked to professional a r t i s t s f o r designs, 11 a r t i s t s generally d i d not make good designers. The problem was the machine and the meachanistic d i s c i p l i n e which modern manufacturing 150 processes imposed. In many cases, the process of adapting designs f o r machine production was purely mechanical i t s e l f . Ewart (Chairman of the 1835-1836 Parliamentary Commission): Are you aware that the French profession of a r t i s t i s wholly d i s t i n c t from the profession of reducing the pattern to the Jacquard loom, or adapting i t to the Jacquard loom? Gibson: I am aware of i t . Ewart: You have not stated any sum that i s given to these persons [Gibson's designers], but you say i t v a r i e s according to circumstances? Gibson: According to the d e s c r i p t i o n of the pattern. Ewart: And i t i s mixed up with a remuneration given f o r r e -ducing the design to the mould, or c u t t i n g the card, which i s necessary f o r the weaving i t i n the looms? Gibson: I t i s so. Ewart: The a u x i l i a r y branch of the business i s purely mechanical, the c u t t i n g of the card? Gibson: Quite so, an operation of machinery. Ewart: I t i s not necessary that a person should be an a r t i s t to enable him to cut ^ e card of a pattern? Gibson: By no means. This separation of the mechanical from the creative and a r t i s t i c tasks d i r e c t l y contradicted Waagen's claim that the a r t i s t and workman should be reconciled. Yet judging from the testimony of 1836 and other, a l b e i t i s o l a t e d , examples, the d i v i s i o n of labor and the con-commitant separation of d i f f e r e n t processes i n production rendered the artist-workman necess a r i l y i n e f f i c i e n t . Nonetheless, the most s i g n i f i c a n t reform a c t u a l l y implemented as a r e s u l t of 1836, the es-tablishment of the Schools of Design, aimed at t r a i n i n g artist-workmen. I t was the triumph of t r a d i t i o n , and the assertion, i n the face of much contrary evidence, that a r t was a c r e a t i o n of human beings rather than of machines and of mechanical processes. The s t r a i n between the theory that workers should be a r t i s t s , and the r e a l i t y that they were often merely highly sophisticated machines 151 was p a i n f u l l y evident i n the educational program of the Schools of 13 Design. There, students were t r a i n e d as a r t i s t s f i r s t ; great care and time was spent i n teaching them to draw and model natural f o l i a g e and h i s t o r i c a l ornament. Then the attempt was made to turn t h e i r 14 a r t i s t i c s k i l l to i n d u s t r i a l design. U n t i l Henry Cole took over the management of the Schools and the establishment of the South Kensington complex of museum and a r t school, students r a r e l y learned to design f o r s p e c i f i c methods of production, and even more r a r e l y 1 5 gained workshop experience i n the schools. ^ Although i n i t s e a r l y years the school system d i d have some b e n e f i c i a l influence on V i c -t o r i a n design, students who completed the courses of study faced the same problems that other professional a r t i s t s faced i n the factory system. I t was not that the p r o f e s s i o n a l a r t i s t , stepping to the d i f f e r e n t drum of h i s beloved muse, was temperamentally unsuited to i n d u s t r i a l design but that t h e i r t r a i n i n g , t h e i r expectations and t h e i r approach to design problems were unsuited to the needs and expecta-t i o n s of manufacturers. The day to day requirement of design pro-duction meant maintaining a steady output of designs which were " a r t i s t i c " but which also, and more necessarily, met standards d i s t a c t e d by methods of production, market demand, costs, a v a i l a b i l i t y of materials and s k i l l e d labor, and the productions of competitors. Because the Schools of Design tra i n e d a r t i s t s , most of t h e i r students were as unsatisfactory to manufacturers as professional a r t i s t s had been.^ However, the Schools d i d provide designs f o r industry i n the same way that a r t i s t s provided designs—manufacturers commissioned p a r t i c u l a r 152 works when t h e i r own designers were incapable of producing one. These works were generally the most V a r t i s t i c " productions of a com-pany and therefore much of the work shown i n i n d u s t r i a l e x h i b i t i o n s , being of t h i s type, were the gaudy exceptions of V i c t o r i a n design. The f a i l u r e of the Schools of Design to t r a i n a large group of i n d u s t r i a l designers was t a c i t l y recognized when the Schools were removed from the province of the Board of Trade and transferred to 18 the new Education Department i n 1856. The Schools concentrated on t r a i n i n g a r t teachers i n the l a t t e r h a l f of the century, although i t a l so produced some of the best i n d u s t r i a l designers of the 1860's and 1870's. Christopher Dresser was an i n s t r u c t o r i n the Schools and 19 Lewis P. Day and Frederick Hulme were train e d i n them. y More impor-tant than the f a i l u r e to t r a i n i n d u s t r i a l designers on a large scale was the f a i l u r e of the Schools to t r a i n the working-classes. Although the Schools were c a r e f u l to set up classes that workers could attend, the time and t u i t i o n required f o r a successful course of study were s i g n i f i c a n t obstacles f o r workers to overcome. Undoubtedly some workers e n r o l l e d i n classes, but the pressures to provide education f o r the middle-classes as well led to a middle-class student body who 20 r e g u l a r l y attended and r e g u l a r l y paid t h e i r fees. Besides the a c t u a l creators of designs, the production of manu-factured a r t was of primary importance to the manufacturer, the owner of the factory which produced such a r t i c l e s to s e l l i n the market-place. Their a t t i t u d e s towards i n d u s t r i a l design were c l e a r l y stated i n testimony before the Parliamentary Commission of 1836 and i n various 153 commissions since that time. Their most h e a r t - f e l t concern was the advantage which well-designed a r t i c l e s had i n both the domestic and f o r e i g n markets. During the questioning of manufacturers and r e t a i l merchants i n 1836* the s u p e r i o r i t y of French design was on everyone's mind* and the economic importance of competing with the French meant that E n g l i s h design standards had to be raised. But as to the best means of doing t h i s * manufacturers often d i f f e r e d . Almost a l l wished government to safeguard designs and patterns by copyright so that l e g a l a c t i o n could be taken against design p i r a t e s and f i n a n c i a l r e s -22 t i t u t i o n made. However* d i f f e r e n t manufactures required d i f f e r e n t lengths of time f o r copyright p r o t e c t i o n from s i x months f o r ribbon manufacturers to several years f o r iron-mongers. Aside from t h i s governmental assistance* most manufacturers be l i e v e d that competition would stimulate improvement i n design. For example* a s i l k manu-fac t u r e r from S p i t a l f i e l d s t e s t i f i e d that the emergence of French 23 manufactures i n the E n g l i s h market had greatly improved the trade. Manufacturers were of course concerned with the establishment of the Schools of Design* but although most agreed that the t r a i n i n g the Schools provided was good f o r the manufactured a r t s ; they d i s -agreed among themselves as to the s p e c i f i c program of education which the Schools ought to follow. Edmund Potter* a c a l i c o manufacturer* bel i e v e d the Schools ought to provide education f o r the middle-classes as well as the workers i n order to prevent i t s being a mere 24 c h a r i t y . On the other hand* the Manchester committee i n charge of the ^ Manchester:. School" of" Design- i n . the. late.: 1840:' s i disapproved' 154 of Ralph Wornum's lectures on the h i s t o r y of ornament (which had ap-pealed to middle-class audiences i n other c i t i e s ) because they d i d not r e f e r to anything " p r a c t i c a l " and were not "adapted to the capa-25 c i t y of the p u p i l s i n general." Undoubtedly many manufacturers hoped that the Schools would provide cheap designs and although they d i d tend to do so, the costs of design were s t i l l great at mid-century. The manufacturers d i d desire concrete r e s u l t s from the Schools, such as more and therefore cheaper designs, a r t education f o r t h e i r own chil d r e n , and designers who could s u c c e s s f u l l y compete with French work. The f a i l u r e of the Schools to produce these r e s u l t s (other than the second) was viewed by the manufacturers as the f a i l u r e of governmental interference i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n . Yet these manufacturers obviously cared f o r a r t very much, and Manchester manufacturers e s p e c i a l l y , were known f o r t h e i r c o l l e c t i o n s 27 of paintings and f i n e houses. Potter's desire to open the Schools of Design to the c h i l d r e n of the middle-classes was obviously a common one, f o r such students, e s p e c i a l l y women and g i r l s , were eager to e n r o l l . And i n t h e i r businesses, the amount manufacturers spent on design and the importance they attached to i t was great. In 1836 designers f o r various i n d u s t r i e s (at that time usually workers who had exhibited a f a c i l i t y f o r design) could earn from £100 to £200 a year, and a partner i n an i r o n foundry t e s t i f i e d that the company spent £1,500 a year i n the production of models f o r stoves and fenders 28 alone. In I 8 5 O , when most manufacturers agreed that the cost of designs had gone down s l i g h t l y , a Manchester manufacturer paid £7,000 155 f o r .designs and paid h i s head designer £500 f o r the y e a r . ^ The manufactured a r t s were therefore, as a source of l i v e l i h o o d f o r manu-facturers, of great concern to them and they were as c a r e f u l of the " a r t " as they were of the manufacture. But they r e a l i z e d more c l e a r l y than a r t i s t s that design had to be commercially sound before i t could be a e s t h e t i c a l l y successful as manufactured a r t . The methods they employed i n procuring designs involved the separation of worker and designer and thus meant the f a i l u r e of Waagen's humanistic s o l u -t i o n . The role of the manufactured a r t s i n the l i v e s of the consumer classes i s a more nebulous f i e l d of inquiry, but the fragmentary evidence c l e a r l y suggests several important points. The f i r s t was that a r t was only one consideration i n the purchase.of manufactured goods, even i f we admit that a consumer bought an a r t i c l e f o r the sake of a r t i f he considered i t more b e a u t i f u l than any other. Fashion, comfort, luxury, economy and u t i l i t y were a l l involved i n considering purchases. Generally speaking, fashion, comfort and luxury weighed most with the wealthier classes while out of necessity, economy and u t i l i t y were more important to the poorer. In 1836 fashion was iden-t i f i e d with both a r t and French design by witnesses before the Par-liamentary Commission, but by 1850 a ribbon manufacturer admitted that a prejudice f o r French goods exis t e d which had nothing to do with the s u p e r i o r i t y of French d e s i g n . 3 ^ The separation and c o n f l i c t of fashionable and a r t i s t i c taste was a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n the development of V i c t o r i a n design. I t was an issue with which Charles 156 Eastlake grappled i n 1867 and was an issue i n furnishings and women's dress* the f a i r sex being p e c u l i a r l y susceptible to the d i c t a t e s of fashion."^ In Charles Dickens' Our Mutual Friend* fashion and comfort compete f o r precedence i n the B o f f i n ' s new home but are also the two major expressions of t h e i r new wealth. Luxury was ever fashion's a l l y * but a l l these expectations of wealthy consumers were constantly changing form and meaning from season to season* -and among the various classes and occupations. The s i g n i f i c a n c e of these shades of meaning w i l l be discussed i n a d i f f e r e n t context l a t e r . The importance of the manufactured a r t s among the lower-classes i s an even more d i f f i c u l t problem* f o r the evidence i s a l l oblique. Although they undoubtedly formed a large market f o r i n d u s t r i a l goods* they assuredly only bought the p l a i n e s t a r t i c l e s of the p l a i n trade. The ambiguous aims of the 1836 Commission again revealed themselves i n this.area f o r the general educational program through museums* g a l l e r i e s and schools which was meant to make designers of the workers was u n r e a l i s t i c . But i f i t was hoped that t h i s d i f f u s i o n of a r t i s t i c p r i n c i p l e s would make the workers demand b e t t e r design i n the p l a i n trade* thus increasing the amount they spent on i n d u s t r i a l goods* that hope was u n r e a l i s t i c u n t i l workers had more money to spend. The assumption that design was p r i m a r i l y ornament meant-that.the d i r e c t i o n of design reforms l e d to higher costs as ornament was added to con-s t r u c t i o n . The working-classes therefore were only at the f r i n g e s of the reforms i n manufactured a r t s . Working-class dwellings were c e r t a i n l y d u l l productions* although i n t h i s case economy and u t i l i t y 1 5 7 crushed ornament at the demand of the builders* who were not working-cla s s members. [Figures 28 and 29] Although some ea r l y twentieth century designers found great beauty i n the severe functionalism of cheap and useful i n d u s t r i a l goods* the designs which d i d invade the p l a i n trade were crude imitations of fancy designs and well deserved Morris 1 epithet* "cheap and nasty." One of the major problems of the a e s t h e t i c movement* e s p e c i a l l y i n i t s e a r l i e r stages* was how to make manufactured a r t a v a i l a b l e to more people and to r a i s e standards of design i n the p l a i n trade. This problem was never s a t i s f a c t o r i l y solved i n the nineteenth century despite the widespread c o n v i c t i o n that* "the true p r i n c i p l e s of good design are u n i v e r s a l l y applicable* and* i f they are worth anything* 33 can be brought to bear on a l l sorts and conditions of manufacture." V i c t o r i a n designers were not w i l l i n g to take the step* f i n a l l y taken by American and continental designers* which i d e n t i f i e d beauty with u t i l i t y and function* and turned to' the machine as the r i g h t f u l pro-ducer of such a r t . I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t that the V i c t o r i a n s * recognizing the claims of both added ornament and basic construction* refused to surrender ornament to function. When Henry Cole and Ford Madox Brown designed a r t i c l e s f o r poorer consumers* they used very l i t t l e ornament* but only because ornament would have added costs* not because they be l i e v e d added ornament was not b e a u t i f u l . [Figures 30 and 31] Their commitment to the human character of a r t was too strong. These were the fundamental a t t i t u d e s towards and the meanings of the manufactured a r t s i n the e a r l y and mid-Victorian periods* but 161 162 to understand the development of these a r t s , i t i s necessary to ex-amine the development.of s t y l e and i n s t i t u t i o n s i n the 1850's and e a r l y 1860's. In 1851 a r t was the happy partner of commerce and i n -dustry, as the Great E x h i b i t i o n proclaimed. But there were problems; the design of the E x h i b i t i o n was h e a r t i l y c r i t i c i z e d by both Richard Redgrave and Ralph Wornum, administrators and l e c t u r e r s at the Head School of Design i n London. 3 4 Their major c r i t i c i s m were of the unsuitableness of ornament to use (they were appalled at r e a l i s t i c flowers on carpets), the f a u l t y use of color, the lack of proportion and r e s t r a i n t , and the bulging masses of i n t r i c a t e ornament. [Figures 32 and 33] None of t h e i r c r i t i c i s m implied that the Schools of De-sign were to blame i n themselves, only the designers. Yet many of these designers had been trai n e d at the Schools of Design, the most important i n s t i t u t i o n concerned with the manufactured a r t s at mid-century. A c o n t r a d i c t i o n thus exi s t e d within the Schools between the aims and means of the Schools, which stemmed from the many expecta-tions which d i f f e r e n t groups had of these institutions.-... The Schools themselves were under heavy c r i t i c i s m i n the late 1840's f o r not f u l f i l l i n g t h e i r primary r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of t r a i n i n g 35 i n d u s t r i a l designers. Late i n the century, Herbert von Herkomer complained that i n the f i e l d of decorative a r t , the s p e c i a l branch f o r which t h i s department was run, i t had f a i l e d egregiously, and William Morris had done more i n a few years to promote true decorative a r t than had been done by,,-South Kensington during the whole course of i t s existence. The Schools were r a r e l y popular* nonetheless, they had contributed to a change i n i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s which explained these c r i t i c i s m s , 1 6 3 Figure 32 164 165 both of s t y l e and of the a c t i v i t i e s of the Schools. By the e a r l y 1850's i n d u s t r i a l designers were no longer members of the working-c l a s s e s — t h e i r jobs were d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t and thus t h e i r r e l a -t ionships to manufacturers and to the process of manufacture were d i f f e r e n t . The i n d u s t r i a l designer was no longer a man who sold h i s labor, but rather sold h i s s k i l l and i n many cases merely the r e s u l t of h i s s k i l l e d labor, the f i n i s h e d design. The Schools of Design had done much to b r i n g about t h i s change. The curriculum i n the Schools of Design aimed at the t r a i n i n g of a r t i s t s ; they were tr a i n e d as draughtsmen through the stages of drawing i n outline f i r s t and then graduating to shade and perspective. This s k i l l was sharpened on natural f o l i a g e , examples of h i s t o r i c a l ornament and even, i n some cases, the l i v e model. Only a f t e r t h i s preliminary t r a i n i n g which took months, perhaps several years, was the student permitted to attempt problems of design. I t should not be s u r p r i s i n g that there was a general tendency i n mid-Victorian de-sign to t r e a t manufactured a r t i c l e s a f t e r the manner of the f i n e a r t s , to paint flowers on carpets and to sculpt tables and c h a i r s . Also, i n abandoning the apprentice system, which was u t t e r l y incapable of producing enough designers to f i l l industry's needs, design and work t r a d i t i o n s were l o s t and were replaced by the academic h i s t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s of design. Design became an academic d i s c i p l i n e rather than a work d i s c i p l i n e , and although p r i n c i p l e s were dogmatic, t h e i r a p p l i -c a t i o n depended upon the varying i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s by i n d i v i d u a l de-signers. The Schools of Design d i d succeed, however, almost i n spite 1 6 6 o f t h e m s e l v e s * i n p r o d u c i n g i n d u s t r i a l d e s i g n e r s . N o o t h e r g r o u p o f p e o p l e * a p a r t f r o m t h e w o r k i n g - c l a s s m e m b e r s d r a w n o u t o f f a c t o r y r a n k s * w e r e c a p a b l e o f d e s i g n i n g f o r i n d u s t r y . A l t h o u g h t h e i r t r a i n i n g w a s n o t e n t i r e l y s u i t a b l e f o r t h e i r e m p l o y m e n t i n p a r t i c u l a r i n d u s t r i e s * t h e y c o u l d a n d d i d d e s i g n f o r v a r i o u s i n d u s t r i e s * s e l l i n g t h e i r d e s i g n s r a t h e r t h a n t h e i r l a b o r . A l s o * b e c a u s e a f t e r a f e w y e a r s * t h e r e w e r e s o m a n y g r a d u a t e s o f t h e S c h o o l s , t h e i r e x p e c t a -t i o n s w e r e n o t h i g h a n d t h e y w e r e w i l l i n g t o w o r k w h e r e t h e y c o u l d . B e c a u s e o f t h i s , d e s i g n s w e r e r e l a t i v e l y c h e a p e r i n 1 8 5 0 t h a n t h e y h a d b e e n f o r y e a r s e a r l i e r . B u t t h e g a p b e t w e e n t h e k i n d o f w o r k t h a t i n d u s t r i a l d e s i g n e r s a n d w o r k e r s d i d c o n t i n u e d t o d e v e l o p a s i n d u s t r i e s e x t e n d e d t h e p r i n c i p l e o f t h e d i v i s i o n o f l a b o r . T h i s d i c h o t o m y b e t w e e n d e s i g n e r a n d w o r k e r a g g r a v a t e d t h e c h a o t i c s t y l e s i n t h e m i d - V i c t o r i a n p e r i o d . Q u i t e a p a r t f r o m R u s k i n ' s t h e o r y t h a t t h e d e g r a d i n g i n h u m a n i t y o f t h e i n d u s t r i a l s y s t e m w a s n e c e s s a r i l y d e s t r u c t i v e o f a r t , t h e s e p a r a t i o n o f d e s i g n e r a n d w o r k e r w i t h i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e a e s t h e t i c a n d i n s t i t u t i o n a l t r a d i t i o n s o f m i d - V i c t o r i a n a r t g r e a t l y c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e e x u b e r a n t s t y l i s t i c e c l e c t i c i s m o f m i d - V i c t o r i a n d e s i g n . D e s p i t e t h e e c h o e s o f m o d e r n f u n c t i o n a l i s m f o u n d i n t h e w r i t i n g s o f P u g i n , W y a t t , J o n e s a n d R e d -g r a v e , d e s i g n m e a n t o r n a m e n t . O n e o f t h e s t a n d a r d t e x t s i n t h e S c h o o l s o f D e s i g n w a s O w e n J o n e s ' T h e G r a m m a r o f O r n a m e n t , a n i m -p r e s s i v e e n c y c l o p e d i a o f h i s t o r i c a l a n d e x o t i c o r n a m e n t a l m o t i f s , c a r e f u l l y c a t a l o g u e d a n d d e s c r i b e d a n d p r i n t e d i n c o l o r . L i k e m o s t o f h i s c o n t e m p o r a r i e s i n t h e S c h o o l s o f D e s i g n , J o n e s b e l i e v e d 1 6 7 that the study of h i s t o r i c a l s t y l e s was e s s e n t i a l i n understanding the u n i v e r s a l laws which governed ornament. He d i d not wish de-signers to he f a c i l e imitators of various s t y l e s but rather that, understanding the p r i n c i p l e s which informed a l l styles* they might i 3 9 create t r u l y o r i g i n a l designs f o r the modern ta s t e . Despite t h i s insistence on o r i g i n a l i t y , the e f f e c t of h i s t o r i c i s m i n the Schools was to accentuate the i m i t a t i v e aspects of V i c t o r i a n design. The only other major f i e l d of i n s p i r a t i o n , nature, f u r t h e r contributed to i m i t a t i v e work because students learned to draw accurately from nature before they were taught the p r i n c i p l e of conventionalizing natural forms. Thus i m i t a t i v e rather than creative endeavor formed the substance of the designer's education, and o r i g i n a l i t y generally lay i n the combination and d i s t o r t i o n of these motifs i n the a p p l i -c a t i o n rather than i n the cre a t i o n of new motifs. [Figures 3 4 and 3 5 ] Because the designer d i c t a t e d to the worker, the methods of manufacture and t h e i r p o t e n t i a l f o r co n t r i b u t i n g to design were sorely neglected. The designer imposed on the material and the mechanism of production h i s ideas; they r a r e l y suggested to him aes-t h e t i c p o s s i b i l i t i e s . And the only design p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r the mid-V i c t o r i a n designer were those h i s t o r i c a l and natural motifs learned i n the Schools of Design. The designer was generally cut o f f from the manufacturing t r a d i t i o n s of the o l d hand-craft trades. The r e -s u l t s of t h i s t r a i n i n g and these r e l a t i o n s h i p s were at once v i s i b l e i n 1 8 5 1 and the demands f o r some kind of reform to avoid these r e -s u l t s were at once voiced. 168 169 Figure 35 170 These r e s u l t s were deplored by reformers then and l a t e r * how-ever* the passion f o r d e t a i l and ornament among the wealthier classes created a ready market f o r such productions. Already i n 1836 an i r o n foundry owner declared, We f i n d we cannot produce a r t i c l e s too expensive f o r the public taste of the present day. Could we employ a r t i s t s of a higher character,. I am s a t i s f i e d the p u b l i c would buy whatever was produced. Few a r t - l o v i n g peoples have demonstrated such a "horror v a c u i " as the mid-Victorians and the insistence on a crowded m u l t i p l i c i t y of ornament a f f e c t e d architecture as well as the manufactured a r t s . We hold i t almost as an axiom that there i s no i n t e r n a l por-t i o n of a b u i l d i n g , whether used f o r public or private pur-. poses, that does not admit of some kind of ornamental work, wherever the eye rests, around or below, there should.be some-thing to a r r e s t a t t e ntion, and that aims at pleasing. The a r t i f a c t s of middle-class V i c t o r i a n l i f e t e s t i f y to t h i s passion, and although the richness of surface decoration and model-l i n g may seem merely unruly to our eyes, the very profusion and magni-ficence of t h i s ornamentation i s s i g n i f i c a n t . I t can hardly be de-precated and written o f f as the ignorant materialism of a newly r i c h c l a s s , f o r these same tendencies e x i s t e d i n the work and taste of educated designers and connoisseurs. In t h e i r ornamental work, the mid-Victorians were neither shy or restrained, and i n t h e i r compli-cated and convoluted designs was an undeniable energy. Christopher Dresser's design symbolizing growth expressed a chaotic and explosive sense of design. [Figure 36] The best way to understand the aes-t h e t i c role of design i n mid-Victorian culture i s to understand the meaning of the energy which created and upheld i t . 1.71 Figure 36 112 In the creative aspect, the paucity of s t r a i g h t l i n e s , es-p e c i a l l y i n the common-place tables and chairs which furnished every room, was due to the overgenerous a p p l i c a t i o n of the p r i n c i p l e that 42 curved l i n e s were more b e a u t i f u l than s t r a i g h t l i n e s . Ruskin con-s i s t e n t l y denounced the practice of the Schools of teaching students to draw s t r a i g h t l i n e s because he d i d not believe human beings ought to be able to draw str a i g h t l i n e s . Such p e r f e c t i o n was an a t t r i b u t e of machine work, or of human labor degraded to the l e v e l of machine work. Most of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the mid-Victorian s t y l e , as opposed to the execution of that s t y l e , which are now considered aes t h e t i c f a i l i n g s can be a t t r i b u t e d to t h e i r zeal f o r a r t i s t i c de-sign rather than to i n d i f f e r e n c e or ognorance. The manufactured a r t s were valued i n the 1850's as a e s t h e t i c objects and therefore, aes-t h e t i c considerations often completely overshadowed f u n c t i o n a l ones i n design. This explains why Richard Redgrave, i n h i s c r i t i c i s m of the designs of 1851* wrote: The major e r r o r of the E x h i b i t i o n i s over-ornamentation, an e r r o r which i s apt to sicken us of decoration, and leads us to admire those objects of absolute u t i l i t y (the machines and uten-s i l s of various kinds), where use i s so paramount that ornament • i s repudiated and f i t n e s s of purpose being the end sought, a noble s i m p l i c i t y w i l l r e s u l t . Redgrave was not one of the prophets of the modern movement i n which functionalism was the main aesthe t i c c r i t e r i o n ; he was merely reacting against the blindness to function which many designs demonstrated. Ornament was as necessary to Redgrave as i t was to William Morris, but they both rejected the s u b s t i t u t i o n of ornament, a l s o understood 173 as pure a r t , f o r an a r t i c l e which was intended to be u s e f u l . The major consumers of manufactured a r t and thus the audience f o r which these designs were created was the middle-classes. The reasons why they accepted such design were more complex than the reasons why they were created. U n t i l the 1860's middle-class taste emulated the old a r i s t o c r a t i c taste which had developed i n the pre-ceeding two centuries. Even the new Gothic taste of the nineteenth century was e s s e n t i a l l y an a r i s t o c r a t i c one. The a r i s t o c r a c y had, a f t e r a l l , the only t r a d i t i o n of indulging a e s t h e t i c whims with wealth and power. Yet the a r i s t o c r a t i c t r a d i t i o n developed out of a r u r a l -based power system which involved s p e c i a l p o l i t i c a l and s o c i a l r e -s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , and the number of craftsmen who produced t h e i r manu-factured a r t had been l i m i t e d . The middle-classes entered t h i s t r a d i -t i o n , cherishing the things they associated with i t , but were unable to enter i n t o the re l a t i o n s h i p s which had made i t v i t a l , and were un w i l l i n g to r e l i n q u i s h t h e i r own a t t i t u d e s and a c t i v i t i e s which made i t meaningless. In her novel, North and South, Mrs. Gaskell exposed t h i s tension between the new l i f e of the middle-classes and the old a r i s t o c r a t i c tastes which the middle-class characters had taken up. Mrs. Hale would have been more than i n t e r e s t e d , — s h e would have been astonished, i f she had seen the sumptuousness of the dinner-table and i t s appointments. Margeret, with her London c u l t i v a t e d taste, f e l t the number of d e l i c a c i e s to be oppres-sive; one h a l f of the quantity would have been enough, and the e f f e c t l i g h t e r and more elegant. But i t was one of Mrs. Thorn-ton" s rigorous laws of h o s p i t a l i t y , that of each separate dainty enough should be provided f o r a l l the guests to partake, i f they f e l t i n c l i n e d . Careless to abstemiousness i n her d a i l y habits, i t was part of her pride to set a feast before such of 174 her guests as cared f o r i t . Her son shared t h i s f e e l i n g . He had never known—though he might have imagined* and had the. c a p a b i l i t y to r e l i s h — a n y kind of society but that which de-pended on an exchange of superb meals... There was no one u p s t a i r s i n the drawing-room but Mrs. Thorn-ton and Fanny. Every cover was taken off* and the apartment blazed f o r t h i n yellow s i l k damask and a b r i l l i a n t l y flowered carpet. Every corner seemed f i l l e d up with ornament* u n t i l i t became a weariness to the eye* and presented a strange con-t r a s t to the b a l d ugliness of the look-out i n t o the great m i l l -yard* where wide f o l d i n g gates were thrown open f o r the ad-?; \ emission of carriages. Here i s the oppressive materialism and* too* a suggestion that the Thorntons are victims of ignorance. These are minor considera-tions* however* compared with how very much the Thorntons cared f o r t h i s display because i t s i g n i f i e d graciousness to them* and the i n -congruity between these forms of graciousness and the way of l i f e that the Thorntons led i n the shadow of t h e i r f a c t o r y . This incon-g r u i t y i s emphasized by the f a c t that the Thorntons themselves r a r e l y used t h e i r drawing-room* and when they were not entertaining* every-thing was covered to protect i t from dust. And i t i s symbolic that Mr. Thornton* the factory owner* was learning the c l a s s i c s * the premier symbol of a r i s t o c r a t i c c u l t i v a t i o n * from a t i r e d o l d country parson who had l o s t h i s f a i t h and resigned h i s l i v i n g . The Thorntons had taken into t h e i r clumsy but vigorous hands the forms of a moribund culture* because these forms represented the best things i n l i f e . Yet t h e i r own experiences and s i t u a t i o n made them i n t e r p r e t these forms i n a way which seemed incongruous* even oppressive* to an ob-server l i k e Margeret* who had l i v e d among the o l d cu l t u r e . The two most s i g n i f i c a n t changes f o r the l a t e r development of V i c t o r i a n d e s i g n — t h e r i s e of the independent designer* and the com-175 b i n a t i o n of middle-class wealth and t h e i r willingness to spend i t on a r t and ornament—resulted from the system of i n d u s t r i a l manufacture which strove f o r the most e f f i c i e n t methods of production i n order to return higher p r o f i t s . The foundation of the changing character of the manufactured a r t market i n the l a t e 1860's and 1870's there-fore lay within the organization of the i n d u s t r i a l and f i n a n c i a l worlds. Any proposed reform which aimed at the reorganization of those worlds i n order to change conditions i n the manufactured a r t s would destroy the two factors which had already by the 1870's done so much to improve those a r t s . Designers d i s l i k e d the mechanistic modes of production i n industry because they replaced the free human e f f o r t which they b e l i e v e d was necessary to a r t work. But most professionals accepted the machine as an i n e v i t a b l e e v i l , and middle-class consumers, i f they associated t h e i r incomes with working conditions i n industry, were consoled by the fa c t that by buying good manufactured a r t , they 45 were a i d i n g the cause of a r t . The r i s e of the independent designer was s i g n i f i c a n t , but the single most important change, without which even Morris and Company might have languished i n e c c l e s i a s t i c a l decoration, was the awakening of the middle-classes to the importance of a r t i n t h e i r surroundings, and the development of domestic a r c h i t e c t u r e i n accordance with t h i s 46 i n t e r e s t . As t h i s i n t e r e s t developed, and possibly one of the reasons f o r i t , the tastes of the middle-classes were breaking away from the a e s t h e t i c t r a d i t i o n s of the a r i s t o c r a c y and developing along new l i n e s . I d e a l i s t painting, which f l o u r i s h e d i n a number of s p e c i -176 f i c styles* emphasized r e s t r a i n t * proportion* elegance* and c l e a r and harmonious c o l o r . And i t was i n some ways a c t i v e l y c r i t i c a l of contemporary design. But i t was the decorative work of a r t i s t s and a r c h i t e c t s i n t h e i r own homes which provided concrete models f o r a reform of contemporary design standards and created the fashion f o r p a r t i c u l a r s t y l e s . William Morris' experiments are well known* but he was neither the f i r s t or the l a s t a r t i s t to f i n d contemporary work unsatisfactory and to create h i s own. A. W. N. Pugin had done p r e c i s e l y that i n the 47 1o40's. The fashion f o r blue and white* and i n c i d e n t a l l y f o r pieces of f u r n i t u r e designed to display porcelain* began i n the 1860's* when 4 8 Whistler and Rossetti started t h e i r c o l l e c t i o n s . Throughout the 1860's and 1870's a r t i s t s * on the strength of the higher p r i c e s they received f o r t h e i r works* designed and i n many cases decorated t h e i r homes as an exercise of t h e i r a r t i s t i c s k i l l s and s e n s i t i v i t y . Leigh-ton's home with i t s exotic Arab h a l l * and Alma-Tadema's l a v i s h use of marble i n h i s home were opulent examples of t h e i r a e s t h e t i c pre-d i l e c t i o n s * where Whistler's p l a i n White House i n Chelsea c l e a r l y demonstrated h i s severe taste. [Figures 37 and 3 8 ] Houses were a f i e l d f o r a r t i s t i c expression and a l s o a haven f o r individualism* even e c c e n t r i c i t y . Nor were a r t i s t s the only ones to L.treat t h e i r homes as works of a r t . A l f r e d Morrison* Frederick Lehmann and George Howard commissioned houses from Owen Jones* George A i t c h i s o n and P h i l l i p Webb, respectively* with i n t e r i o r decoration i n each case 49 undertaken by Jones* A l b e r t Moore,"and William Morris. The home* Figure 37 Figure 38 179 as an i d e a l * undoubtedly f i l l e d a vacuum which others besides a r t i s t s perceived i n V i c t o r i a n c u l t u r a l l i f e . We are too much accustomed i n these days of locomotion* to look upon our houses as mere h a l t i n g places between the stages of our journey through l i f e * and to treat them with as l i t t l e respect as i f they were inns or railway s t a t i o n s . Surely there .v should be some sanc t i t y about our homes! The place where we were born* or where we began the new married l i f e * where our c h i l d r e n were born—and died perhaps—and where wg hope at l e a s t to die* should have some claim on our reverence.- 3 In many ways* e s p e c i a l l y i n so f a r as the home provided a f i e l d f o r the expression of s p i r i t u a l values* the l o s t impulse of r e l i g i o n i n a r t revived somewhat as a r t i s t s t r a n s f e r r e d ^ t h e i r reverence from the houses of God to the houses of men. By 1867 the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of domestic a r t seemed so promising that Charles Eastlake* an architect-designer and the nephew of the former President of the Royal Academy* published Hints On Household Taste* the f i r s t major statement of the new a r t i s t i c g o s p e l . J I t was an i n f l u e n t i a l book and although i n England Eastlake's reputation was soon e c l i p s e d by those of other designers* i n America* Eastlake's influence was so strong that h i s name was given to a s t y l e of f u r n i -ture (of which he h e a r t i l y disapproved). In h i s book* Eastlake pursued two d i f f e r e n t themes* and they described the basic problems with which the new designers and consumers had to deal. The intimate connection* f o r good and bad* between the f i n e a r t s and the manufactured a r t s concerned Eastlake and he observed: . . . i t must be evident to a l l who have thought earnestly on the &}J ;>'•: —sub jeet* tthat there i s an intimate connection between t h i s f a l l i n g o f f i n the excellence of our manufactures* and the tame vapid character which distinguished even our best painter's work i n the early part of the present V i c t o r i a n age.... National 180 a r t i s not a thing which we may enclose i n a g i l t frame and hang upon our walls, or which can he locked up i n the cabinet of a c o l l e c t o r . To be genuine and permanent, i t ought to a n i -mate with the same s p i r i t the blacksmith's forge and the sculp-tor's a t e l i e r , the painter's studio and the haberdasher's shop. In the great ages of a r t i t was so. This was an echo of Waagen's testimony i n 1836 and i t had i t s counter-part i n the writings of Ruskin and Morris, although the..;specific r e -l a t i o n s h i p s between the f i n e a r t s and manufactured a r t s was viewed d i f f e r e n t l y by each of them. The importance of t h i s assumed r e l a -t i o n s h i p i n the minds of V i c t o r i a n a r t i s t s and designers was i t s e f -f e c t on the second theme of Eastlake's book—the costs of good design. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new s t y l e i n domestic design evolving i n the l a t e 1860's obscured i n some ways the r e a l i t i e s of the manu-factured a r t market. In 1867, the same year as the p u b l i c a t i o n of Eastlakes's book, the Art Journal reviewed a French p u b l i c a t i o n on domestic decoration and noted that i n most cases "taste was l e s s 54 c o s t l y than d i s p l a y . " The importance of c o l o r as a decorative motif allowed walls to be merely painted rather than papered or panelled. The emphasis on s i m p l i c i t y of design seemed to promise that a r t i c l e s would cost l e s s because le s s work would a c t u a l l y be done on them, e s p e c i a l l y f u r n i t u r e since i n t r i c a t e carving was no longer fashionable. Yet as Eastlake pointed out, the cost of good design was i n f a c t much higher than bad. A f e e l i n g i s , I t r u s t , being gradually awakened i n favour of •art f u r n i t u r e ' . But the u n i v e r s a l obstacle to i t s popularity up to the present time has been the cost which i t e n t a i l s on people of ordinary means. And t h i s i s a very natural obstacle. I t would be quixotic to expect any one but a wealthy enthusiast to pay twice as much as h i s neighbour f o r chairs and tables i n the cause of a r t . 181 Eastlake's answer to the problem of costs was to increase the demand f o r 'art f u r n i t u r e ' and to increase supply, which would lower the p r i c e s . As to whether demand or supply must be increased f i r s t , he was l e s s precise; he wavered between blaming buyers f o r not r e -cognizing and demanding b e t t e r design, producers f o r not manufacturing 56 i t and making i t more a v a i l a b l e . But the a r t market, as the market i n paintings c l e a r l y demonstrated, rested on a p e c u l i a r complex of supply and demand i n which s p i r i t u a l and material values mingled and clashed. The assumption that the same s p i r i t must animate the black-smith's forge and the painter's studio was stronger i n the minds of the i d e a l i s t s than i t had been among mid-Victorian a r t i s t s . Burne-Jones, Leighton, Whistler, Poynter, Moore and Walter Crane a l l under-57 took decoration work i n p u b l i c and private b u i l d i n g s . As the decora-t i v e aspects of i d e a l i s t p a i n t i n g became accepted as the a r t i s t i c q u a l i t i e s of a l l a r t , the decorative p o s s i b i l i t i e s i n i n d u s t r i a l and domestic design were viewed as more purely a r t i s t i c . When F r i t h con-temptuously r e f e r r e d to Whistler's work as no b e t t e r than the a r t i n colored wallpaper or a piece of s i l k , he inadvertently stated the equality of the a r t s which Oscar Wilde l a t e r proclaimed as an aesthete. Because the independent designer l i v e d through the sale of h i s designs, not h i s labor, he was more r e a d i l y accepted as an a r t i s t by society. As an a r t i s t , the p r e v a i l i n g standards of a r t were imposed on the designer, the c h i e f of these being that a r t had to e x h i b i t •59 human workmanship.' The e f f e c t of t h i s e l e v a t i o n of the designer to a r t i s t on the manufactured a r t s was decisive, and the subsequent deve-lopment of the domestic r e v i v a l and the a r t s and c r a f t s movement 182 depended on i t . The most immediate r e s u l t and one which the widening market never d i d o b l i t e r a t e was the higher costs of good design. The aim of the new i d e a l was f o r a l l work to appear hand-wrought, and while some designers d i d t h i s by producing a r t i c l e s by hand, even those that d i d design f o r machine work attempted to make the design appear hand-wrought. Although machine work promised b e n e f i t s f o r the lower-classes i n l e i s u r e and cheaper goods, i t was s t i l l viewed by designers as an unavoidable e v i l . Even J . D. Sedding, who was not unsympathetic to machine work, declared, "Art i s human or ' t i s nothing. 60 Real l i f e forms i t s substance as well as i t s garniture." But what was t h i s human element, and what a c t u a l l y comprised the hand imprint i n design? The importance of h i s t o r i c a l ornament i n t h i s context was quite c l e a r ; as Gothic design i n architecture was associated with r e l i g i o n , so i n i n d u s t r i a l design a s i m i l a r a s s o c i a t i o n operated. Ornament with a h i s t o r y of fine hand work, e s p e c i a l l y designs with uneven parts and proportions such as Gothic c a p i t a l s or Venetian glass, was associated with human freedom and genius. Perfection, e s p e c i a l l y perfect f i n i s h and exact symmetry, was associated with the machine, with l i f e l e s s n e s s 61 and meanes.s.' 'u In the manufactured a r t s as i n the fine a r t s , genius was valued because i t represented that aspect of human labor which the machine could not reproduce. Although i n the 1870's those q u a l i t i e s of design which i d e a l i s t p a i n t i n g demonstrated were emphasized—elegance, c l e a r and harmonious color, proportion, r e s t r a i n t , and i d e a l f o r m s — h i s t o r i c i s m continued to influence designers strongly and Morris had 183 a copy of Jones' Grammer of Ornament on h i s bookshelf.""^ Along the same l i n e s , naturalism remained strong i n design be-cause natural growth remained beyond the ken and control of science and the machine. But naturalism f o r designers i n the 1870's had to be conventional rather than n a u t r a l i s t c and, as with h i s t o r i c a l motifs, i t was studied not i n order to imitate forms but rather f o r the de-signer to create b e a u t i f u l and human ornament through an i n s t i n c t i v e understanding of the i n e f f a b l e p r i n c i p l e s at work i n nature and i n o l d a r t work. A designer acquaints himself with natural form, natural color, natural growth and so f o r t h , and e s p e c i a l l y with everything suggestive to him of ornament. But i n designing he uses not so much these as memories of them. Just so much of nature as comes to him at the moment, and just that i n nature which comes unbidden i s to the purpose. The rest i s overmuch. Ornament can digest no more. And as with natural motives,, so with suggestions from o l d work. What has become so much a part of a man that he i s no longer conscious whence he had i t , does not r e a l i z e that i t i s not e n t i r e l y h i s own, that he may make use of. More than that i t i s dangerous^ to borrow, i f he would keep a l i v e i n him the f a c u l t y of design. Yet t h i s was what the Schools of Design had taught since t h e i r foundation and there i s no reason that the designers of the 1870's should have understood^it b e t t e r than those of the 1850's. However, under the influence of i d e a l i s t painting, Ruskin's propaganda and the fashions f o r exotic ornament such as Japanese, designers i n the l a t e r period took d i f f e r e n t motifs as t h e i r own. The a e s t h e t i c fad f o r the sunflower and l i l y and the peacock was an exaggerated c e l e -c r a t i o n of these new motifs which were i n f a c t more suitable to the kind of conventional designs which mid-Victorian designers had pur-184 sued than were the grand motifs of the Gothic and I t a l i a n a t e design. Designers i n architecture and the manufactured a r t s i n the l a t e 1860's and 1870's c e r t a i n l y tended to be less i m i t a t i v e of h i s t o r i c a l motifs than mid-Victorian designers* and yet they demonstrated neither the abandon of a r t nouveau or the s t e r i l i t y of functionalism. [Figures 39 and 40] In a r t h i s t o r y the designs of the 1870's may be labeled "tra n s i t i o n a l * . " but i t would be misleading i f the student of c u l t u r a l l i f e therefore assumed that these designs only imperfectly r e a l i z e d i d e a l s which flowered i n e i t h e r the 1890's or the e a r l y twentieth century. Design i n the 1870's s a t i s f i e d the a e s t h e t i c preferences and the commercial r e a l i t i e s which were p e c u l i a r to the period; i t was a f r u i t * not a seedling* i n the eyes of contemporaries. The standards of the best manufactured a r t were the antique hand workmanship of s k i l l e d craftsmen i n p r e - i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t i e s . Seventeenth century furniture* o r i e n t a l rugs* eastern porcelain* l a t e medieval t a p e s t r i e s and Venetian glass embodied some of the i d e a l s which contemporary design emulated. Designers copied not only the decorative motifs and p r i n c i p l e s they discerned i n such work* but a l s o the manufacturing methods which produced them. William Morris was an extreme example of t h i s f i d e l i t y * both to p r i n c i p l e s of design and methods of production* but the same sentiment pervaded the Schools of Design and influenced Lewis F. Day and Christopher Dresser as w e l l . Even Eastlake i n 1867 suggested that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between designer* worker and the process of manufacture ought to be s i m i l a r to that which had e x i s t e d i n the i d e a l i z e d worshops which Waagen so admired 165 ,tfrf * Figure 3 9 186 Figure 40 187 i n 1836, but with an important d i f f e r e n c e . Now, though the age of old woodwork does, indeed, enhance the beauty of i t s colour, that i s by no means i t s highest recom-mendation. The r e a l secret of i t s value l i e s i n the immense su p e r i o r i t y of ancient over modern workmanship, both as regards joinery and decorative carving.... At the present time, when d i r e c t supervision i s exercised by a q u a l i f i e d designer, and i n the c l a s s of f u r n i t u r e which i s c a l l e d ' a r t i s t i c 1 , more a t -ten t i o n i s given £p t h i s branch [ j o i n e r y ] and the r e s u l t i s very d i f f e r e n t . . . This was not the equal partnership of a r t i s t and worker which Waagen wished to r e - e s t a b l i s h ; i n Eastlake's mind c l e a r l y the designer over-saw and c o n t r o l l e d a l l aspects of production, using the s k i l l e d worker as a kind of superior t o o l i n the c r a f t i n g of a designed product. The involvement of the designer i n a l l aspects of production, and the necessity of using h i g h l y s k i l l e d workers who were capable of c a r r y i n g out the designer's ideas meant that such work must be c o s t l y . The willingness of c o l l e c t o r s and much of the c u l t i v a t e d middle-classes to spend money on the manufactured a r t s was absolutely c r u c i a l to t h i s development. Their willingness stemmed from t h e i r i n f a t u a t i o n with a r t as a symbol of the good l i f e and even of goodness i t s e l f . Of course, without t h i s f i n a n c i a l basis, so much of the painstaking workmanship which characterized the best pieces of the a r t s and c r a f t s movement would not have been poss i b l e . Neither, pro-bably, could the i n d u s t r i a l designer have moved so e a s i l y into the sphere of the f i n e a r t s . By the late 1880's designers were as neces-sary and as important to the V i c t o r i a n a r t world as were painters and a r c h i t e c t s . ^ Yet hand work was not the only kind of work a f f e c t e d by the 188 changes i n the market i n the 1870's* and the adaption of designs to machine work was one of the triumphs of the period. The i n e v i t a b i l i t y of the machine was recognized by Lewis F. Day* who wrote: A designer* whatever h i s natural g i f t * i s of no p r a c t i c a l use u n t i l he i s at home with the conditions of manufacture. I t i s only when he knows f u l l well the d i f f i c u l t i e s of the case that he i s i g 7 a p o s i t i o n to avoid or meet them—according to h i s courage. The conditions i n manufacture were i n most industries* at least i n part* mechanical* and even Day saw i t as a threat to good design which must be met with courage. But the advantages of machine work* es-p e c i a l l y the lower costs of production* could not be denied and there were many manufacturers around i n the 1870's eager to take advantage of the domestic a r t market. As the Schools of Design had succeeded i n t r a i n i n g some students i n methods of adapting designs to machine production, there was s k i l l enough to adapt hand-wrought patterns to machines. There was a ready market f o r these productions because the new st y l e was fashionable but a l s o expensive. Lazenby Lib e r t y ' s warehouse of a r t manufactures catered to a l e s s e r c l i e n t e l e than d i d Morris and Company, and below Lib e r t y ' s were s t i l l more and f a r cheaper 68 shops, most of whose products were machine made. The d i s t i n c t i o n between hand and machine work, obvious i n such products as f u r n i t u r e and needlework, d i d not divide manufactured a r t into two d i s t i n c t categories. There were methods of manufacture i n which the hand and machine were recognized as respectable partners, or where hand work was merely tedious and i t s aesth e t i c advantages, a c c i d e n t a l . Such was the case i n block-printed wallpaper. Designers, 1.89 i n c l u d i n g Morris and Day* drew patterns on blocks which were then cut by other hands and the papers printed by J e f f r e y and.Company* an i n -69 dependent manufacturer. The a c t u a l drawing of the pattern was the only task that was not purely mechanical and whether the a c t u a l p r i n t i n g was done by hand or by machine made only one difference to the result* a difference a r i s i n g from the drying times of d i f f e r e n t inks. The much longer time required f o r hand p r i n t i n g over machine r o l l e r p r i n t i n g allowed the use of a thicker* more opaque ink* which could dry between hand p r i n t i n g s but which would smudge on the r o l l e r s . The high cost of manufactured a r t i n the 1870's and l a t e r was due p a r t l y to the expensive hand work* but i t was also due* and perhaps more d e c i s i v e l y * to the involvement of the designer i n a l l phases of production. Most designers* of course* merely drew up designs f o r i n d u s t r i e s which were then adapted to methods of manufacture by strange hands. But an important part of V i c t o r i a n design t r a d i t i o n was the emphasis on the designer understanding the methods of production and c o n t r o l l i n g h i s design from h i s f i r s t conception to the f i n i s h e d product. One of the reasons that hand work was so much more s a t i s -f y i n g to V i c t o r i a n designers was because the designer* committed to hand-wrought motifs* could more e a s i l y v i s u a l i z e and control the out-come of hand work. A l l the most notable names i n V i c t o r i a n design* from Pugin through the a r t s and c r a f t s movement, c l o s e l y supervised the production of t h e i r designs, i n many cases even trai n e d the workers 70 who executed them. This s t r i c t d i r e c t i o n of a l l phases of production tended to increase the costs of f i n i s h e d products by l i m i t i n g the 190 production of works, as the work of one man was nece s s a r i l y l i m i t e d , and by adding the cost of the designer's time and e f f o r t , which was more valuable than any worker. These conditions a l l sprang from the conviction summed up by W. R. Lethaby i n Art and Workmanship, "Every  work of a r t shows that i t was made by a human being f o r a human being. Although the domestic r e v i v a l both i n arch i t e c t u r e and the manu-factured a r t s began long before the a e s t h e t i c movement, i t became an i n t e g r a l part of the f i c t i o n of the movement. In one aspect, the mania f o r blue and white porcelain, the domestic a r t s a c t u a l l y pre-ceeded the f i n e a r t s i n the aest h e t i c movement. Du Maurier's "china-maniacs" appeared i n Punch i n the e a r l y 1870's, and i n 1874 the Montgomery S p i f f i n s e s appeared i n a Du Maurier cartoon with a newly decorated drawing-room c e i l i n g . [Figures 41 and 42] One of the reasons that the domestic r e v i v a l became a target f o r caricature and was taken up as a part of aestheticism was because i t represented the extension of a r t i s t i c s e n s i b i l i t i e s i n t o a new sphere. Therefore i t was an example of a r t ' s a b i l i t y to reform an aspect of l i f e by making i t more d e l i g h t f u l and g i v i n g i t a new meaning. The r e a l i z a t i o n that the home was a refuge from commercial values, where the enduring human experiences of love, innocence of childhood, compassion, even g r i e f and consolation provided the context f o r the c o l l e c t i o n and appreciation of a l l kinds of a r t work. The manufactured a r t s were deeply involved i n the anti-modern sentiment which pervaded the a r t enthusiasm of the 1870's. The a n t i - c a p i t a l i s t passion which animated Morris and others within the a r t s and c r a f t s movement was only one Figure 41 ;••".>.':'. ART IN EXCELSIS. T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S P I F F I N S E S HATJt JIT8T H A D T H E I R DfiAWlNCl-KoOM C E I L I N G E L A B O R A T E L Y D E C O R A T E D B Y A R T I S T I C H A K D S . T H R Y A R B M U C H o i u T i r i E D B Y T H E S E N S A T I O N raoDDCED u r o H T H E I R F R I E N D S . Figure 42 193 aspect of the general discontent with modern conditions. As i n the f i n e a r t s , designers who were not opposed to the s o c i a l and economic foundations of modern industry s t i l l lamented the contrary aims of a r t and commerce. Designers of the present day do not l i v e under conditions the most favorable to t h e i r a r t . I t i s t h e i r misfortune that they are not l e f t to wbrkioutothe v e i n of design natural to them, but are c o n t i n u a l l y c a l l e d o f f i n some other d i r e c t i o n . What matter i f there i s gold or s i l v e r i n the neglected working, i f i t i s brass or pewter which happens to be the fashion? We are free neither to follow t r a d i t i o n nor to perfect a s t y l e , be i t ever so d i s t i n c t l y our own. I t i s the g l i t t e r of newness which a t t r a c t s . This i s the more s i g n i f i c a n t because i t presumes a past freedom which never existed; the i n d u s t r i a l designer of the 1870's was, i f anything, f r e e r to develop h i s s t y l e than were o l d craftsmen who received d i r e c t d i c t a t i o n from buyers. The lament i s i n fa c t a c r i t i c i s m of the d i s c i p l i n e s of the machine age, the necessity of being prudent and marketable, the impersonality of the market and the vulgar fashions of a large and incoherent mass of consumers. By the late 1870's, despite Morris' l a t e r defection to Marxism, the enemy of a r t and culture was not merely the middle-classes and i n d u s t r i a l i s m , without both of which the a r t i s t i c r e v i v a l never would have existed, but rather modernity i t s e l f and a l l the mechanical rhythms of modern l i f e . The enduring h i s t o r i c i s m of the V i c t o r i a n a r t i s t i c t r a d i t i o n and the passion f o r the eternal forms of nature were evidence that the V i c t o r i a n a r t consciousness stood steadfast f o r the c u l t u r a l l i f e of the past against the imposition of the modern rhythm of a c t i v i t y , of which the great symbol was the machine. In the 194 struggle f o r a r t , the working cl a s s was no more an a l l y than the mid-dle c l a s s ; they suffered more from the machine than any group hut they also had much to gain from the wealth which e f f i c i e n t i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n generated. Even Morris believed that the workers could revive a r t i n a new society, not simply because of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to the means of production but because a l l human labor was capable of a r t ; i t was i n a r t i s t s rather than i n workers that Morris believed and trusted. In 1870 when news of the Pa r i s commune reached Ruskin, he r e j o i c e d i n the revolutionary e f f o r t u n t i l he received news of the burning of the Louvre and, r e c a l l i n g Burckhardt's re a c t i o n i n Basle, Ruskin r e j e c t e d communism 73 as yet another barbaric side of modernity. In painting, a r t i s t s strove to r i s e above these obstacles i n order to perfect t h e i r s t y l e and assert t h e i r pure i n d i v i d u a l i t y . In indus-t r i a l l i f e , the designer had to deal with many of these obstacles, to accommodate himself to t h e i r d i r e c t i o n s and according to Day, t h i s was part of a designer's a r t i s t i c duty. " I t rests with those who have some f a c u l t y of design ( t h e i r name i s not legion) to come to the a i d of manu-facture, which, without help from a r t , i s given over to the ugliness 74 they deplore." I n d u s t r i a l designers were therefore, despite t h e i r intimate and l a s t i n g sojourn i n enemy t e r r i t o r y , worthy champions of aestheticism over P h i l i s t i n i s m . As Walter Crane saw i t , i t was a holy war i n which design, as a r t ' s weapon, might carry the b a t t l e deep i n h o s t i l e t e r r i t o r y . Turn where we w i l l , we must confront the enemy, however, and each do h i s part towards the s o l u t i o n of the problem... But new d i f f i c u l t i e s must be met by new methods, and when we go f o r t h i n our warpaint, tatooed, as i t were, with the whole grammar of 195 ornament* to meet the monsters of our time clad i n plate glass and iron* or f o r t i f i e d i n desirable residences* l e t us not f o r -get the s l i n g and stone of i n d i v i d u a l thought and judgment* and that i t may yet be potent to put to f l i g h t the armies of the P h i l i s t i n e s . . Yet the dependence of aestheticism upon P h i l i t i n i s m * i f under-stood as the dependence of a r t production on industry and commerce* was inescapable i n the manufactured a r t s . The s o l u t i o n to the problem of opposing tendencies of a r t i s t i c and commercial values was sought i n the separation of these two aspects of modern c u l t u r e . In 1881* the E a r l of Derby declared* We do not boast of aesthet i c c o t t o n - m i l l s . I have seen one or two attempts i n that d i r e c t i o n * but on the whole* the less s a i d about them the b e t t e r . But I think our law courts* our town h a l l s * our free l i b r a r i e s * and public b u i l d i n g s of that sort*.-even i n our poor smoky Lancashire* w i l l bear a r c h i t e c t u r a l comparison with the most modern European work I know, A great writer i s perpetually i n c u l c a t i n g the theory that so long as we l i v e i n smoky towns and use steam-engines and b u i l d t a l l chimneys* i t i s no use our t r y i n g to be a r t i s t i c . Well* that seems to be a hard doctrine...and i f E n g l i s h a r t i s only to begin to f l o u r i s h when Engli s h manufactures cease* I am a f r a i d i t w i l l have a very long time to wait* nor would people u t t e r l y impoverished care (-much f o r anything that was not necessary f o r t h e i r subsistence.' In many ways the 1870's and e a r l y 1880's was a great age f o r manufactured a r t . Not only were there many able designers producing works which s a t i s f i e d the most c r i t i c a l tastes but they also were popular works which sold w e l l . There was every reason f o r optimism* both f o r the future of a r t and the future of manufacturing. I t was t h i s part of the aes t h e t i c movement—the sunflower dados and peacock-patterned t i l e s — w h i c h gave credence to the widespread f i c t i o n that there was an a r t movement* f o r c e r t a i n l y the outward forms of ornament seemed new and represented a new order. [Figures 43 and 44] Yet the conditions upon which t h i s effulgence rested were ephemeral and the tremendous problems which had always plagued i n d u s t r i a l design were 196 Figure 43 197 198 not solved. The domestic r e v i v a l and the a e s t h e t i c movement generally i n a l l i t s a r t i s t i c productions rested on the wealth which the middle classes were w i l l i n g to spend on a r t work. As long as they were con-vinced of the pricelessness of a r t i s t i c expression and had the money c to pursue a r t , the movement flourished* both i n the handicraft indus-t r i e s and i n the a t e l i e r s . But economic d i f f i c u l t i e s took t h e i r t o l l on a r t i n d u s t r i e s , which were more susceptible to market pressures than were painters, e s p e c i a l l y when designers chose to put t h e i r a r t i s t i c i n t e g r i t y above the commercial r e a l i t i e s of the marketplace, or were 77 ignorant of those conditions. Pew of the a r t s and c r a f t s i n d u s t r i e s survived more than a few years. Also the domestic r e v i v a l had aimed i t s reforms more at the consumer and the designer than at the workers i n a r t i n d u s t r i e s . Por one thing, the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the worker to the designer and the pro-cess of manufacture had been f i x e d pragmatically; i t was impossible to t r a i n a l l workers as designers and i n p r a c t i c e , a r t workers became highly s k i l l e d i n a s p e c i f i c aspect of production i n order to f a c i l -i t a t e the accurate reproduction of designs. Nothing more could be done about the worker, to improve design. The reform movements had concentrated on the designer and h i s freedom and the education of public taste and even Morris believed that a l l workers ought to be designers and a l l men ought to work. But because designers were accepted as a r t i s t s , t h e i r problems were very d i f f e r e n t from those of the majority of the working c l a s s , even the s k i l l e d laborers i n a r t i n d u s t r i e s . I t was no coincidence that Morris began h i s missionary a c t i v i t y i n the la t e 1870's when the fate of a r t and the fate of the working cl a s s were being severed; f o r him the d i v i s i o n was f a l s e * as workers had to be a r t i s t s as well. Yet i f i n d u s t r i a l a r t had any hope of being democratic* of being r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e to the multitude* Morris 1 i d e n t i f i c a t i o n had to be relinquished. A f t e r the enthusiasm f o r domestic a r t died and the market turned to newer s t y l e s i n the 1890's and e a r l y twentieth century* the handicraft designer* the a r t worker as Morris defined him* was an expensive commodity on the luxury market. CR. Ashbee* one of Morris' d i s c i p l e s lamented decades l a t e r * "We have made of a great s o c i a l movement* a narrow and tiresome l i t t l e 78 a r i s t o c r a c y working with great s k i l l f o r the very r i c h . " In both the f i n e and manufactured a r t s then* the aesthetic movement was a f i c t i o n created both by those who championed what they saw as the new freedom of a r t and those who feared that such freedom merely signaled the beginning of a r t ' s estrangement from the serious and v i t a l experiences of a l l human l i f e . The movement was then a c r e a t i o n of hopes and fears* a straw-man whose substantial r e ^ a l i t y was the r e s u l t of vigorous but confused a c t i v i t y . In f a c t the groups who supported aestheticism and those that condemned or r i d i c u l e d i t were often very a l i k e i n t h e i r love of a r t and t h e i r b e l i e f i n i t s importance to modern cult u r e . A f t e r the c r i s i s i n the V i c t o r i a n a r t consciousness which accompanied the r i s e of the new s t y l e s and new methods i n the a r t world i n the 1860's* i n the heady optimism of the delight with new forms and ideas* quite d i s s i m i l a r ideas* a c t i v i t i e s and people were grouped together because they seemed to fur t h e r the cause of a r t . Even "the cause of a r t " * so near to so many hearts* became a blanket which covered a multitude of aims and i d e a l s . Within 200 the a r t world, these differences were quite c l e a r hut the outsider and the neophyte saw these things i n a l i g h t which cast no shadows, the b r i g h t l i g h t of a new age. 201 FOOTNOTES 1 Ferriday, i'Peacock Room," A r c h i t e c t u r a l Review, CXXV (June, 1959)> 411; A. Welby Pugin, The True P r i n c i p l e s and Revival of C h r i s t i a n A r c h i t e c - ture (London, 1853). 2 Great B r i t a i n , Report from the Committee on Arts, H.C., 1836 (568), IX, 16, 17* 33; Great B r i t a i n , Reports and Documents, E x h i b i t i n g the  State and Progress of the Head and Branch Schools of Design, H.C., I85O (731 )* XLII, 337-8; N e i l McKendrick, "Josiah Wedgwood and Factory D i s c i p l i n e , " The H i s t o r i c a l Journal, IV (1961), 32-7. "^Herwin Schaefer, The Roots of Modern Design (London, 1970). The fun c t i o n a l t r a d i t i o n should not be confused with a r t i s t i c design t r a d i t i o n s ; they r a r e l y were the same. 4 The rules f o r hanging i n the Academy e x h i b i t i o n are found i n Hutchinson, Royal Academy, 54-5* and these were l i t t l e changed throughout the V i c t o r i a n period. Hutchinson, 58* states that needlework and wax-flowers were allowed i n other e x h i b i t i o n s of the eighteenth century, so the Academy's d e f i n i t i o n of f i n e a r t was rather more s t r i c t than was usual at the time. Henry Cole, F i f t y Years of Public Work (London, 1884); John Ruskin, The Complete Works of John Ruskin, eds., E. T. Cook and Alexander Wedderburn (London, 1903,)," XVI^XVIII, XXVII-XXX; William Morris, William Morris, The  Coll e c t e d Works of William Morris (London, 1918), XXI-XX; Lewis F. Day and Walter Crane, Moot Points: F r i e n d l y Disputes on Art and Industry (London, 1903). ^Eastlake, Household Taste, v i i i - i x ; E l i z a b e t h A s l i n , The Aesthetic  Movement: Prelude to A r t Nouveau (London, 1969)* 13; Nikolaus Pevsner, Pioneers of Modern Design (New York, 1949)• 7 anon., "The Present State of A r c h i t e c t u r e , " The Quarterly Review, xcv (1854), 362. Q Pugin, True P r i n c i p l e s , 35* confesses that he s a c r i f i c e d f i t n e s s to purpose i n f u r n i t u r e design to a r t i s t i c p r i n c i p l e s . 9 Great B r i t a i n , Report from the Committee on Arts, 1836, 11. 10 I b i d , 29. 11 McKendrick, "Wedgwood," 36, explains these problems as ones of temperament, but they were more probably due to the work expectations of a r t i s t s , which were very d i f f e r e n t from those of laborers. Hence i t was eas i e r to make workers i n t o a r t i s t s than to make a r t i s t s i n t o designers. 1 2 Great B r i t a i n , Report from the Committee on Arts, 1936, 33. 13 Macdonald, Art Education, 60-185; Gordon Sutton, A r t i s a n or 202 A r t i s t ? A History of the Teaching of Art and Crafts i n Eng l i s h Schools (Oxford, 1967)> 45-106. ^ 4Great B r i t a i n , Reports and Documents, 1850, 315. 1 5Macdonald, 81, 132. 16 Great B r i t a i n , Reports and Documents, I85O, 337-8. 1 7 I b i d , 326. 18 Sutton, 63. A f t e r the transfer, construction began at the South Kensington s i t e i n 1857• 19 Stuart Durant, V i c t o r i a n Ornamental Design (London, 1972), 9-12. 20 Macdonald, 172; Great B r i t a i n , Reports and Documents, 1850, 333» 21 There were annual reports from the Schools of Design from 1843 on, but the major i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the Schools was made i n I85O, see Great B r i t a i n , Reports and Documents, 1950* 311—447• 22 Great B r i t a i n , Report from the Committee on Arts, 1836, v i i , 16, 24. 2 3 I b i d , 31, 33. 2 4Macdonald, 136-7. 25 I b i d , 243. Wornum's lectures were published, see Ralph N. Wornum, Analysis ,of Ornament: The C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Styles (London, 1882). 26 Great B r i t a i n , Reportsvand Documents, T85O, 331-2.'. : 27 anon., "The Manchester Exhibition,'" The Quarterly Review, CII (1857)* 165. 28 Great B r i t a i n , Report from the Committee on Arts, 1836, 15* 33* 29 Great B r i t a i n , Reports and Documents, 1850, 331. 30 Ibid, 336; Great B r i t a i n , Report from the Committee on Arts, 19-20, 28. 3 1 A r t Journal, VI (1855), 40; Eastlake, 1 3 , 118, 258, 270. 32 M i l l i c e n t Rose, "Dwelling and Ornament i n the East End," The  A r c h i t e c t u r a l Review, CIII (June, 1948), 244-6. See als o , Eastlake, 32. 203 3 3 E a s t l a k e , 91. 34 Richard Redgrave, "Supplementary Report on Design," Report by  the J u r i e s f o r the Great E x h i b i t i o n (London, 1852); Ralph N. Wornum, "The E x h i b i t i o n as a Lesson i n T a s t e — A n Essay on Ornamental Art as Displayed i n the I n d u s t r i a l E x h i b i t i o n i n Hyde Park," The Ar t Journal I l l u s t r a t e d  Catalogue of the Great E x h i b i t i o n , London 1851 (London, 1851T» 35 The Reports and Documents submitted to the House of Commons i n I85O was a part of a reform campaign aimed at reorganizing the Schools. 3 ^ C i t e d i n Sutton, 166. 3 7 I b i d , 47.-6.7-; Macdonald, 73-112. 38 Owen Jones, The Grammar of Ornament (London, 1856). 3 9 I b i d , 5-8. ^ G r e a t B r i t a i n , Report from the Committee on Arts, 1836, 17« 4 1 A r t Journal, VI (1855), 28. 4 2 E a s t l a k e , 55. 4 ^ C i t e d i n N i c o l e t t e Grey, "Prophets of the Modern Movement," The A r c h i t e c t u r a l Review, LXXXI (January, 1937)* 50. 4 4 E l i z a b e t h Gaskell, North and South (London, 1897), 156-7. 4^Lewis F. Day, Pattern Design (London, 1915)* 2; Ruskin, Works, 4 ^ A s l i n , 36-78^  H. S. Goodhart-Rendel, "The V i c t o r i a n Home," V i c t o r i a n Architecture, ed., Peter Ferriday (Philadelphia, 1964)* 73-83. 47 John Summerson, "Pugin at Ramsgate," The A r c h i t e c t u r a l Review, CII ( A p r i l , 1948), 163-6. Gerald R e i t l i n g e r , The Economics of Taste. The Rise and F a l l of the Objets d'Art Market since 1750* II (New York, 1963)7 202-3. 49 H 7 F e r r i d a y , "Peacock Room," 4.11;v;'i;..-:.»;;:.•;:*:;.^ u'c.z:. 7°The Magazine of Art, I I I (1880), 270. 51 Part of Eastlake's book appeared as e a r l y as 1864* see Charles Eastlake, "The Fashion of Furniture," The C o r n h i l l Magazine, IX (1864)* 337-49. X, 197-9. .204 a s t l a k e , H o u s e h o l d T a s t e * v i i i . 5 3 I b i d , 4-5* 5 4 A r t J o u r n a l * V I (1867)* 229. 5 5 ^ E a s t l a k e , H o u s e h o l d T a s t e * 91. 5 6 I b i d , 1 3 * 270. 57 L a d y B u r n e - J o n e s * M e m o r i a l s * I* 156-68; B a r r i n g t o n * L e i g h t o n * I , 276-277* I I » 1 0 4 - 8 , 110-2, 203-4. 58 W i l d e , W o r k s , I , 32-3* d e c l a r e d * " a p a i n t i n g [ h a s n o t ] a n y m o r e s p i r i t u a l m e s s a g e o r m e a n i n g f o r u s t h a n a b l u e t i l e f r o m t h e w a l l s o f D a m a s c u s o r a H i t z e n v a s e . " 5 9 O n e o f t h e p r o b l e m s g r o w i n g o u t o f t h i s w a s w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e a r t w o r k o f d e s i g n w a s v a l u e d s e p a r a t e l y f r o m t h e a c t u a l m a n u f a c t u r e o f t h e o b j e c t . I n 1836 d e s i g n a n d m a n u f a c t u r e w e r e n o t s e p a r a t e j o b s i n m a n y i n d u s t r i e s a n d t h e w o r k e r r e c e i v e d w a g e s w h i c h d i d n o t d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n a r t w o r k a n d m e c h a n i c a l l a b o r , s e e G r e a t B r i t a i n , R e p o r t f r o m t h e  C o m m i t t e e o n A r t s , 1836, 33. W h e n M o r r i s 1 f i r m b e g a n m a n u f a c t u r i n g s t a i n e d g l a s s i n t h e 1860's, t h e f i r m ' s a c c o u n t a n t a t t e m p t e d t o s e p a r a t e t h e c h a r g e s m a d e t o c l i e n t s f o r d e s i g n a n d m a n u f a c t u r e , a n d t o a s s e s s h i g h e r p r i c e s f o r d e s i g n s i n o r d e r t o p u t t h e f i r m ' s a r t i s t s o n a l e v e l a p p r o a c h i n g o t h e r a r t i s t s , s e e R a y m o n d W a t k i n s o n , W i l l i a m M o r r i s a s D e s i g n e r ( L o n d o n , 1967), 35. ^ G i l l i a n N a y l o r , T h e A r t s a n d C r a f t s M o v e m e n t - . - ; « A S t u d y o f . i t s > S o u r c e s , I d e a l s a n d I n f l u e n c e s o n D e s i g n T h e o r y ( L o n d o n , 1971)* 153. 61 R u s k i n , W o r k s , X , 197—8, 202; E a s t l a k e , H o u s e h o l d T a s t e , 105. 6? P a u l T h o m p s o n , T h e W o r k o f W i l l i a m M o r r i s ( L o n d o n , 1967), 89-90. ^ L e w i s F . D a y , P a t t e r n D e s i g n , 2 6 3 . 64 I b i d , 2 6 4 ; C h r i s t o p h e r D r e s s e r , P r i n c i p l e s o f D e c o r a t i v e D e s i g n ( L o n d o n , 1873). 6 5 ^ E a s t l a k e , H o u s e h o l d T a s t e , 66-7. ^ N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n f o r t h e A d v a n c e m e n t o f A r t a n d i t s A p p l i c a -t i o n t o I n d u s t r y , T r a n s a c t i o n s ( L i v e r p o o l , 1888), a n d T r a n s a c t i o n s ( E d i n -b u r g h , 1889). 67 L e w i s F . D a y , P a t t e r n D e s i g n , 2 6 3 - 4 • 205 6 8 A s l i n , 128-44. 69 Durant, V i c t o r i a n Ornamental Design, 75? A s l i n , 129* 7 0 " Naylor, A r t s and Crafts Movement, 115-6.5 McKendrick, "Wedgwood," 35-6; Michael Trappes-Lomax, Pugin: A Medieval V i c t o r i a n (London, 1933)* 31-2. 71 C i t e d i n Naylor, 181. 72 Lewis P. Day, Pattern Design, 262. 7 3 R u s k i n , Works, XXVII, Fors Clavigera (1 J u l y 1871), 181-2. Ruskin's statement was: Por, indeed, I am myself a Communist of the old school— r e d d e s t a l s o of the red; and was on the very point of saying so at the end of my l a s t l e t t e r ; only the telegram about the Louvre's being on f i r e stopped me, because I-thought: the Communists of i t h e new school, as I could not at a l l understand them, might not quite understand me. Por we Communists of the o l d school think that our property belongs to everybody, and everybody's property to us; so of course I thought the Louvre belonged to me as much as to the Parisians, and expected they would have sent word over to me, being an Art Professor, to ask whether I wanted i t burnt down. But no message or intimation to that e f f e c t ever reached me. 74 Lewis :P^Day,: PatternDesign, 2. 7 ^ A r t journal, XX (1881), 228. 7 6 I b i d , 232. 7 7 N a y l o r , 153, 170-1. 7 8 C i t e d i n Naylor, 9. 206 The e x i s t i n g h i s t o r i e s of the aesthetic movement have drawn t h e i r landscapes with large* bold, and always c o l o r f u l strokes. Cer-t a i n forms have been c l e a r l y delimited through t h e i r techniques and have entered the f i e l d of h i s t o r i c a l myth i n which a form i t s e l f i s s u f f i c i e n t to convey an e n t i r e complex of images. Unfortunately, too often t h i s complex of images has been created by the h i s t o r i a n rather than discovered by him. The sunflower and peacock, William Morris and h i s wallpapers, Walter Pater's dreamy Renaissance, Du Maurier's intense and drooping aesthetes, and Burne-Jones' languid canvases— these are some of the obvious expressions of the E n g l i s h a e s t h e t i c movement and they are a l l , more or l e s s , myths i n that t h e i r meaning and r e l a t i o n s h i p s to V i c t o r i a n culture are imposed on them i n order to explain events and a t t i t u d e s whose s i g n i f i c a n c e has already been decided upon. These r e l a t i o n s h i p s and meanings do not seem, a f t e r even preliminary research, genuine; they do not s a t i s f y . Most of the h i s t o r i e s of aestheticism have been content to explain V i c t o r i a n culture mythically because the h i s t o r i a n s , most of them a r t or l i t e r a r y c r i t i c s , have assumed from the outset that they understand the forms and r e l a t i o n s h i p s with which they are dealing. This i s quite obvious i n the h i s t o r y of V i c t o r i a n a r t where the only a r -t i s t s to win serious praise and consideration used to be those under the 1 influence of French a r t . And even more prevalent was the approval given to a r t t h e o r i s t s f o r t h e i r "progressive" approach to the problems of design and the disapproval heaped on p r a c t i s i n g designers f o r t h e i r "monstrous" creations and t h e i r i n a b i l i t y to develop a t r u l y modern 207 s t y l e * b y w h i c h t h e h i s t o r i a n g e n e r a l l y m e a n t m o d e r n i s m . T h e p a t e n t a b s u r d i t y o f t h i s a p p r o a c h r e v e a l s i t s e l f i n a n a r t i c l e b y N i c o l e t t e G r a y * p u b l i s h e d i n 1 9 3 7 « 3 I n t h e " P r o p h e t s o f t h e M o d e r n M o v e m e n t " s h e p o i n t e d o u t t h a t p r e c i s e l y t h e s a m e c r i t i c i s m s w e r e l e v e l e d a g a i n s t m i d - V i c t o r i a n d e s i g n b y R i c h a r d R e d g r a v e i n 1 8 5 1 a s b y N i k o l a u s P e v s n e r i n 1 9 3 6 . T h e i n t e r e s t i n g q u e s t i o n f o r h e r ( a n d t h e f a c t t h a t * a s f a r a s I c a n t e l l * s h e w a s t h e f i r s t t o d e a l w i t h i t s u g g e s t s t h e s t a t e o f t h e p r o b l e m ) w a s w h y h a d n o t R e d g r a v e * a l i v e t o t h e f a u l t s o f m i d - V i c t o r i a n d e s i g n * s u c c e e d e d i n e v o l v i n g a m o d e r n s t y l e ? A n d w h y h a d n o t R u s k i n a n d P u g i n * u n d o u b t e d l y m e n o f g e n i u s * s e e n a s o c l e a r l y a s R e d g r a v e t h e p r o b l e m s o f m o d e r n d e s i g n ? G r a y ' s a n s w e r t o t h e f i r s t q u e s t i o n w a s t h a t R e d g r a v e a n d o t h e r s o f h i s o p i n i o n l a c k e d g e n i u s . B u t o f c o u r s e t h a t m e r e l y m a k e s t h e s e c o n d q u e s t i o n m o r e i n s i s t e n t . W h y * w h e n m e d i o c r i t i e s w e r e s o p e r c e p t i v e * w a s g e n i u s s o b l i n d ? I f G r a y d e m o n s t r a t e s t h e a b s u r d i t y o f t h i s a p p r o a c h * s h e i s n o t a l o n e i n t h e b a s i c f a i l i n g . I n s o m e d e g r e e * e v e r y m a j o r h i s t o r y o f t h e a e s t h e t i c m o v e m e n t a n d m o s t o f t h e h i s t o r i e s o f V i c t o r i a n a r t s u f f e r f r o m t h e " i n t e r e s t e d n e s s " o f t h e i r a u t h o r s . B o t h t h e f i e l d s o f a r t a n d l i t e r a t u r e t e n d t o w a r d s t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t i e s a r e a b s o l u t e o r e t e r n a l l y v a l i d . I t i s o n e o f o u r h e i r l o o m b e l i e f s f r o m t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y . P r e o c c u p i e d w i t h t h e e s s e n t i a l a n d t h e l a s t i n g * a r t a n d l i t e r a r y h i s t o r i a n s o f t e n m a k e j u d g m e n t s w h i c h t h e h i s t o r i a n o f c u l t u r e c a n n o t a c c e p t . F o r e x a m p l e * i t i s a s e r i o u s d i s t o r t i o n r o f V i c t o r i a n h i s t o r y t o d i s m i s s L e i g h t o n a s a m e d i o c r e a r t i s t a n d t o p r a i s e a n d c a r e f u l l y c a t a l o g u e W h i s t l e r ' s e x p e r i m e n t s . S u c h a 208 judgment dismisses the aesthetic c r i t e r i a of the l a t e r V i c t o r i a n s , and more ser i o u s l y s t i l l , i g n o r e s the i n t r i c a c i e s of the a r t world and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to the s o c i a l and economic worlds. The student of V i c t o r i a n h i s t o r y who knows why Rossetti exhumed h i s wife's body, but knows l i t t l e or nothing of the Royal Academy's c o n s t i t u t i o n or a c t i v i t i e s has a d i s t o r t e d view of V i c t o r i a n c u l t u r e . However dear they may be to us, we can no longer impose our aesth e t i c standards on past c u l t u r e s . Yet t h i s i s not the end of the d i f f i c u l t y , f o r the h i s t o r i a n finds i n the nineteenth century the same problems i n c u l t u r a l l i f e that he may see i n the c u l t u r a l l i f e of the twentieth century. More so than the p o l i t i c a l or s o c i a l h i s t o r i a n of the period, the c u l t u r a l h i s t o r i a n finds not merely suggestive s i m i l a r i t i e s but i n many cases a penetrating sameness of past and present problems. I t i s therefore understandable i f h i s t o r i a n s draw c e r t a i n parts of the landscape more c l e a r l y than other, even to the extent of r u i n i n g the perspec-t i v e . In t h i s manner, h i s t o r i a n s have done much to illuminate the V i c t o r i a n world and have f u l f i l l e d an important function i n t h e i r own time, as myth makers, i n d e l i m i t i n g the c u l t u r a l problems of modern men. Some of these myths, however, are no longer acceptable. In t h i s study, i n re-examining r e l a t i o n s h i p s and the context of a c t i -v i t i e s and events, I attempted to demonstrate why they are untenable; they simply do not adequately explain aestheticism. The most prevalent and seductive myth abouth the character of the aesth e t i c movement 209 i s that i t marked the f i n a l a l i e n a t i o n , i n both the comic and t r a g i c modes, of the a r t i s t from the bourgeoisie and t h e i r a t t i t u d e s and values. Although many a r t i s t s and c r i t i c s condemned middle-class ignorance and meaness, there was a v i t a l f i n a n c i a l and s p i r i t u a l bond between a r t i s t s and t h e i r bourgeois c l i e n t s . The two worlds fed on each other, a r t i s t s r e c e i v i n g money and t h e i r c l i e n t s r e c e i v i n g the only s a t i s f y i n g proof of human n o b i l i t y and d i g n i t y which they could buy. Except i n cases where arguments arose, there i s nothing to suggest that c o l l e c t o r s or a r t i s t s f e l t i t to be e i t h e r i n s u l t i n g or demeaning to buy a n d i s e l l these works at extravagantly dear p r i c e s . I f the character of the a e s t h e t i c movement could be understood i n terms of a l i e n a t i o n at a l l , which i s doubtful, i t would be the a l i e n a -t i o n of humanity from the machine, of culture from modernity, of the past from the present. Of a l l t h i s , the middle-classes with t h e i r u t i l i t a r i a n philosophy and m a t e r i a l i s t i c preoccupations became the symbol of P h i l i s t i a , as they were more vulnerable:- and moretamusing than the r e a l enemy symbolized by the machine. Attacking the machine and the mechanistic i n s t i t u t i o n s and r e l a t i o n s h i p s which sought to emulate the e f f i c i e n c y of the machine meant destroying what w e l l -being had been won from the past; " P h i l i s t i n e " values had so penetrated V i c t o r i a n culture and society that few were w i l l i n g to accept the dreadful consequences of the end of the machine age. The a r t i s t s of the 1870's almost a l l sided with the past against the present, but they c a r r i e d on t h e i r holy war i n such a way that they c a r e f u l l y avoided contact with the enemy. 210 The second myth i s that the movement embodied the idea of a r t f o r a r t ' s sake* a conception that confuses more than i t c l a r i f i e s . The phrase i n i t s e l f i s meaningless but i t was used by Whistler* Pater and Wilde to express i n various contexts the independence of ar t and the a r t i s t * and the r e j e c t i o n of a l l extraneous values and standards when dealing with a r t . Even t h i s d e f i n i t i o n obviously needs q u a l i f i c a t i o n * f o r a r t i s t i c i d e a l s and standards cannot be independent of experience and are therefore involved to some degree i n extraneous values. Given t h e i r understanding of the term* however* a program of a r t f o r a r t ' s sake was never s e r i o u s l y advocated by anyone i n the ar t world of the 1870's. The i d e a l i s t s c l e a r l y wished to reintegrate a r t i n t o the national l i f e and to reawaken a concern f o r a r t , as an expression of man's s p i r i t u a l nature* i n every sensible person. More importantly* t h e i r i d e a l was a society which had high aesthetic* s o c i a l and moral values which would c a l l f o r expression at the a r t i s t s ' hands. The designers of the period a l s o wished to reintegrate a r t and society although i n a d i f f e r e n t way. They were more concerned with the p a r t i c u l a r problems of a r t i n industry* i n awakening the aesthe t i c d i s c r i m i n a t i o n of both consumers and producers. Both of the major trends i n the a r t world of the 1870's then accepted a r t f o r a r t ' s sake only i n the sense that i t meant a r t was valuable and ought to be an important part of national l i f e and cu l t u r e . Whistler and Pater* the most outspoken advocates of a r t f o r a r t ' s sake i n the e a r l y years of the movement* believed that a r t had a v i t a l l i n k with experience and therefore* to them the slogan had a p a r t i c u l a r meaning. 211 Por Whistler i t meant the freedom of the a r t i s t from the interference of c r i t i c s and d i l l e t a n t e s , the establishment of the a r t i s t as a pro-f e s s i o n a l within h i s own system of e t h i c s . Por Pater i t meant that culture (by which he meant what Arnold meant, the best that men have said and done) was a personal possession which he valued f o r i t s l i b e r a t i n g and enhancing q u a l i t i e s , not as a guide f o r a c t i o n as Arnold had. Both Whistler and Pater were attempting to f i n d a s a t i s -f y i n g s o l u t i o n to the problem of the incongruity of a r t i n i t s s o c i a l and i n t e l l e c t u a l s e t t i n g s . They bel i e v e d i n the supreme importance of the l i f e of the s p i r i t and were attempting to define i t s proper expression within a culture which had no objective method of measuring the value of s p i r i t u a l experience. The aesthete completely devoted to a r t as h i s only goddess and neglecting or deprecating every other aspect of l i f e was only a c a r i c a t u r e . The l a s t myth, and one of the e a r l i e s t as i t was put forward by both Wilde and Hamilton, i s that the a e s t h e t i c movement was a r e -b i r t h of a r t , or of the romanticism of E n g l i s h l i t e r a t u r e of the beginning of the nineteenth century. Wilde e s p e c i a l l y , i n h i s lecture on the movement given i n America i n 1882, took these as h i s themes. In a r t the idea that aestheticism was a r e b i r t h of the romantic i d e a l s of Keats and Shelley can be dismissed on the grounds that i t has no useful, i n t e l l i g i b l e meaning. C e r t a i n l y the a r t i s t i c s t y l e i n p a i n t i n g and design had no a f f i n i t y with the Romantic st y l e i n p a i n t i n g exem-p l i f i e d by Haydon and John Martin, and none of the a r t i s t s of the 1870's looked to the e a r l y nineteenth century f o r i n s p i r a t i o n . The kinship 2 1 2 with the e a r l y romantics of which Wilde was sensible sprang from h i s perception that Keats had been scorned by society and had attempted to immortalize himself through the f a b r i c a t i o n of a r t . Wilde d i d not a r r i v e at aestheticism through Keats* but rather interpreted Keats through h i s aestheticism. I t i s equally obvious that the 1870's witnessed a r e b i r t h of a r t only i n the sense that the st y l e of the 1870's was opposed to the work done i n the 1850's* and the aesth e t i c judgment that the l a t e r work was superior to the e a r l i e r has generally been confirmed by l a t e r commentators. Of course the a r t i s t s of the 1870's b e l i e v e d t h e i r work was true and mid-Victorian work was f a l s e and because of t h i s * the r e b i r t h of a r t i s a meaningful image. But there are a myriad such r e b i r t h s of a r t i n h i s t o r y (the mid-Victorian era had a l s o enjoyed one on i t s r e j e c t i o n of Regency design) and the term can have no precise meaning u n t i l the a c t i v i t i e s * r e l a t i o n s h i p s and ideas p e c u l i a r to the 1870's are grasped. Only then can the nature of the a r t i s t i c r e v i v a l be understood. And i n examining these* i t becomes c l e a r that many of the i n s t i t u t i o n s and r e l a t i o n s h i p s which contributed to t h i s r e v i v a l were i n fa c t developed during the e a r l y h a l f of V i c t o r i a ' s reign* e s p e c i a l l y i n the realm of the manu-factured a r t s where the Schools of Design, the independent designer and the idea that a r t enobled manufactures prepared the way f o r the domestic r e v i v a l . In t h i s study I have attempted to look beyond the obviousness of the evidence on the aesth e t i c movement i n order to view the con-text of change. I have focused e s p e c i a l l y on the changing^relationships 213 and meanings* rather than p e r s o n a l i t i e s and ideas* and have exposed a few of the most .vi s i b l e threads which weave through the a r t world. F i r s t of a l l * the aesthe t i c movement was a f i c t i o n i n that i t was created by people who wished to use i t as an im a g e — e i t h e r to express c e r t a i n truths and to popularize ideas and a c t i v i t i e s * or to c r i t i c i z e ideas and a c t i v i t i e s as absurd. The a s s o c i a t i o n of people and ideas i n a movement was imposed by observers both sympathetic and c r i t i c a l . Although r e l a t i o n s h i p s between various people associated with the movement were often close and of c r i t i c a l importance ins the develop-ment of t h e i r ideas and attitudes* those r e l a t i o n s h i p s were e x t r a -neous to the formation of the movement. A r i s i n g out of sympathies unconnected with the supposed tenets of aestheticism* or even i n the case of the fr i e n d s h i p between Burne-Jones and Morris opposed to them* these r e l a t i o n s h i p s are only i n c o r r e c t l y understood within the con-f i n e s of the aesthe t i c movement. Much of the character of the ae s t h e t i c movement was* i n a manner of speaking* an accident* the r e s u l t of, a p e c u l i a r combination of interests, and b e l i e f s . I t appeared suddenly i n the late 1870's but had no exact beginning. Yet i t d i d appear new* even g l i t t e r i n g l y new* to contemporaries. This novelty existed more i n the combination than i n the p a r t i c u l a r ideas and i n t e r e s t s * most of which had been impor-tant f o r years. In many ways aestheticism was based on the culmina-t i o n of trends which stretched f a r back to the f i r s t years of the reign. The middle-class i n f a t u a t i o n with art* the r i s e of the i n -dependent designers* the i d e a l i s t s t y l e s i n painting* a r t i s t i c i n d i -214 vidualism and i t s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with freedom of the human s p i r i t , culture as a personal possession a l l were f e l t and accepted to a J. large degree by the a r t world long before 1875. What gave them t h e i r i n t e n s i t y i n the late 1870's was the accompanying reaction to t r a -d i t i o n s , the r e j e c t i o n of customary i d e a l s and sol u t i o n s . In them-selves, each of these ideas was a c r i t i c i s m of some aspect of e x i s t i n g prejudices or conditions. Such c r i t i c i s m s were e n t i r e l y character-i s t i c of the i n t e l l e c t u a l climate of the 1850's and 1860's, but i n the 1870's t h i s c r i t i c i s m coalesced i n t o a r e j e c t i o n of an era, the mid-Victorian era. The thing c r i t i c i z e d was, of course, not an i n -t e l l e c t u a l concept but a f i c t i o n as w e l l . The aesthet i c movement gre a t l y contributed to the development of the idea of "Victorianism." The combination of t r a d i t i o n and novelty can also be described i n the way i n which the aesthet i c movement appeared to overcome some of the long-standing problems which the a r t world faced. The problems had e x i s t e d since before the 1850's and the solutions which the aesthe-t i c movement offered appeared to be new. The independent genius was to resolve the bankruptcy of patronage i n the f i n e a r t s rather than the Royal Academy, and the i n s p i r a t i o n and i n t e g r i t y of the i n d i v i d u a l were judged more capable of upholding a r t than the contrived a c t i v i t i e s of a corporation of a r t i s t s . The degraded state of i n d u s t r i a l design was to be reformed by the free a r t i s t - d e s i g n e r who was approaching the s o c i a l and a r t i s t i c rank of the painters, by v i r t u e of the widespread a t t i t u d e s towards the value of h i s work. These, of course, were only seeming solutions and t e s t i f y both to the f a i t h put i n a r t as a r e -2 1 5 generative force, and to the overwhelming desire to resolve the ten-sion which existed i n the a r t world between i t s i d e a l s and the l i m i t a -t ions of i t s s o c i a l organization. The solutions had to be merely believable and novel, which they were, although t h e i r novelty sprang from t h e i r implied r e j e c t i o n of t r a d i t i o n a l solutions ( i . e . , the Royal Academy and the Schools of Design). This seeming novelty was a part of the a e s t h e t i c f i c t i o n and l i k e the rest of i t , had a substantial r e a l i t y . F i r s t , the a e s t h e t i c s o l u t i o n proposed a r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a r t and i t s role i n modern society, often under the heading of a r t f o r a r t ' s sake. A r t i s t i c values, given free r e i n i n the confined arenas of domestic l i f e and " a t e l i e r s " , expanded to f i l l and c o l o r these areas with the appealing sentiment that human l i f e could be b e a u t i f u l and noble, and that a r t made i t so. In the midst of these v i t a l discoveries, i t seemed as i f e a r l i e r decades had neglected a r t and had abused humanity i n doing so. Of course e a r l i e r generations had loved a r t as well, but because r e l a t i o n s h i p s had changed, a r t was more deeply s a t i s f y i n g to more people i n the 1870's than before because i t was more tangible. One of the s i g n i f i c a n t changes i n a t t i t u d e i n t h i s respect was the tendency to view a r t and the appreciation of a r t as a personal possession, and culture as a personal refinement. Unfortunately a r t as a personal possession implied a r t works as personal possessions and became some-thing which could be bought, something which i t was d i f f i c u l t to har-monize with the democratic hopes f o r a r t of those who cared f o r a r t and democracy. Education was absolutely necessary f o r achieving 216 culture and even i f education could be made more democratic* education alone could not sustain personal c u l t u r e . A c e r t a i n environment had to be maintained. Yet t h i s dilemna only became v i s i b l e years l a t e r when aestheticism* stripped of i t s economic foundations and with many of i t s contradictions a l l too evident* retreated from the problems which democratic a r t posed. In a curious dream* the a r t i s t . Charles Ricketts* described the fate of a man the aesthetic movement could not redeem. He was a "common-place man," shy with women but a t t r a c t e d to talented men* who wished eagerly to accomplish something. A coarse and ignorant woman trapped him i n t o marriage and i n t h i s d u l l and loveless a l l i a n c e * h i s hopes and a s p i r a t i o n s rottedlaway. His wife stopped any trend towards culture on h i s part by an " i n s t i n c t i v e h o s t i l i t y " and i n the end* the man spent a l l h i s v i t a l energy on the preservation of a vestige of peace and the shreds of h i s s e l f - r e s p e c t . In h i s journal f o r 1900* Ricketts recorded h i s reactions to h i s dream and i t s p o s s i b i l i t i e s as a p l o t f o r a novel. A l l t h i s seemed h o r r i b l e to me* and I wondered i f i t would be of i n t e r e s t to anyone. Yet the man seemed to me t e r r i b l y p i t i f u l * and I f e l t that i n h i s degradation some dim consciousness would be h i s of the f e a r f u l odds against common people* the tragedy of common l i v e s * and the absence of human intercourse among common people. Small glimmerings of f i n e r things would shine within him l i k e stars r e f l e c t e d i n the mud of a r i v e r . The aest h e t i c movement i n the l a t e 1870 1s*developed as an uneasy truce between a r t and commerce* was allowed by the separation of a r t i s t i c and commercial values i n t o two c l e a r l y defined areas. This allowed the humanism which had always been an important part of the V i c t o r i a n a r t t r a d i t i o n to f l o u r i s h l i k e a hot-house plant and to become the 217 s p i r i t u a l solace f o r the i n j u r i e s which the materialism and the mechanism of modern society i n f l i c t e d . This a r t i s t i c humanism was based on h i s t o r i c a l i d e a l s of l i f e expressed by the i d e a l i s t painters and by many designers i n t h e i r s t y l e s and i n t h e i r methods of pro-duction. Above everything else the new a r t consciousness cherished a r t as a fundamental expression of human excellence, an idea which implied moral s u p e r i o r i t y as well as a e s t h e t i c . As t h i s humanism was e s s e n t i a l l y an h i s t o r i c a l i d e a l and sentimental (because i t op-posed the m a t e r i a l i s t i c conditions of modern society yet could not r e a l i s t i c a l l y attack them), the a e s t h e t i c movement could not form a program or even a systematic organization of ideas. As the condi-tions which gave i t l i f e faded, aestheticism grew more and more tenuous and more dream-like. I t could not hope to restore the c u l t u r a l grandeur which the V i c t o r i a n s perceived i n the s o c i e t i e s which exi s t e d i n the West before the eighteenth century. Nor d i d i t r e a l l y make the attempt. I t was enough at the time to c u l t i v a t e the sense of that past glory, to recreate some aspect of the former beauty and d i g n i t y of human existence. Of course, any r e a l r e s t o r a t i o n was im-possible and was even made absurd by the f i d e l i t y to s p e c i f i c h i s t o r i c a l d e t a i l s which h i s t o r i c i s m fostered and which was evident i n Alma-Tadema's minutely-plotted v i s i o n s of ancient Greece and Rome. I t was, i n the very best sense, play-acting of a sober but d e l i g h t f u l kind. I t would be misleading to think of i t as escapism f o r even i n i t s most e s o t e r i c forms, aestheticism had a serious, one i s tempted to say an earnest, purpose—the preservation of c e r t a i n values, and 218 the c u l t i v a t i o n of a humanism, both of which were moribund i n the mechanistic society of the 1870's. In t h i s c u l t u r a l play-acting, the a e s t h e t i c movement was only the most t h e a t r i c a l part. I d e a l i s t painting, the domestic r e v i v a l i n a r c h i t e c t u r e , impressionism, the a r t s and c r a f t s movement, the personal r e l a t i v i s m of Pater a l l contributed to a wider emergence of humanism i n the a r t s . These more general, .more^respectable and more acceptable changes formed the raw material of the a e s t h e t i c movement f i c t i o n , as l i f e among the V i c t o r i a n upper classes formed the raw material f o r Trollope's f i c t i o n . Aestheticism and the wide-spread changes i n the perception of a r t and i t s value d i d tend i n the same d i r e c t i o n and suffered from the same weaknesses and contra-d i c t i o n s . Both b e l i e v e d i n a hopeless r e s t o r a t i o n — t h e r e c r e a t i o n of the forms of c u l t u r a l grandeur while renouncing the s p i r i t u a l and material organization of older s o c i e t i e s . Only a few, the c h i e f among them William Morris, r e a l i z e d that the a r t of the earth, man's true expression of worthwhile labor, could only be restored by destroying 5 the material organization of society. Yet h i s l o g i c a l consistency was only what the E a r l of Derby c a l l e d f o o l i s h , f o r to give up the e f f i c i e n c y of the i n d u s t r i a l organization, which was absolutely neces-sary to Morris' i d e a l , meant widespread s u f f e r i n g f o r a l l c l a s s e s . On the other hand, renouncing a r t , which embodied the p r e - i n d u s t r i a l values of freedom, beauty, f a i t h and d i g n i t y , meant l o s i n g the precious sense of man's worth to himself as a man apart from the machine. The paradox then was the only reasonable answer, the only promising 219 view of a r t and society at the time. The b r i l l i a n c e of the 1870's and 1880's lay i n the trembling r e a l i z a t i o n that i t worked. Of course* i t could not work f o r long as i t rested on such uncertain foundations* and once put asunder* the opposing values of a r t and commerce were not e a s i l y reconciled. This opposition p a r t l y explained the curious and f i t f u l languor of l a t e x V i c t o r i a n i c u l t u r e which was i n e f f e c t divided against i t s e l f . The a r t c r i t i c s of the 1870's were the f i r s t to perceive that an aes-t h e t i c fraud had been perpetrated by mid-Victorian a r t i s t s and t h i s perception quickened the r e j e c t i o n of mid-Victorian values by adding moral indignation to the t r a d i t i o n a l c r i t i c i s m s of mid-Victorian ideas and s t y l e s . Yet the a e s t h e t i c movement was i n i t s e l f a fraud* a f i c t i o n containing g l a r i n g contradictions. Once exposed* as i t was to Ricketts i n h i s dream* to Morris at the height of the move-ment and to Wilde i n Reading Gaol* i t became yet more evidence of the bankruptcy of Victorianism. Thus the optimism of the 1870's* so b r i l l i a n t and so various* turned to b i t t e r n e s s and hopelessness by the century's end. 220 FOOTNOTES Any l i b r a r y catalogue w i l l reveal the f r u s t r a t i n g condition of secondary material i n t h i s respect. The books on Whistler and the Pre-Raphaelite painters f a r outnumber those on Leighton* Poynter* B r i t o n R i -viere* or any number of other a r t i s t s who d i d not challenge the Academic t r a d i t i o n s of s t y l e and professional p o s i t i o n . The works that are a v a i -la b l e on the l a t t e r are outdated f o r the most part and many were never meant as s c h o l a r l y studies of e i t h e r a r t or h i s t o r y . 2 Pevsner* Pioneers of Modern Design. "^Nicolette Grey* "Prophets of the Modern Movement*" The A r c h i t e c t u r a l  Review* LXXXI (January, 1937)* 49-50. ^Charles Ricketts* S e l f - P o r t r a i t * Taken From the Letters and  Journals of Charles Ricketts* R.A.* ed. C e c i l Lewis (London* 1939)* 33. 5 Even before h i s conversion to Marxist revolutionary doctrine* Morris was led* perhaps by h i s Icelandic studies* to believe that the world required a dreadful devastation before a r t could be reborn. See William Morris* The L e t t e r s of William Morris to h i s Family and Friends* ed.* P h i l l i p Henderson (London* 1950), 62, 64*.113. 2-2-1-GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS Great B r i t a i n . Report from the Select Committee on Art s and t h e i r Connexion with Manufactures; With Minutes of the Evidence, Appendix  and Index. H.C. 1836 (568), V o l . IX, 1-409. Great B r i t a i n . Reports and Documents, E x h i b i t i n g the State and Progress of the Head and Branch Schools of Design. H.C. 1850 (731)> V o l . XLII, 311-447. PERIODICALS The A r t Journal (1850-1881) The Fine A r t s Quarterly Review (1863-1881) The Magazine of Art (1878-1881) The P o r t f o l i o (1870-1881) PUBLISHED MEMOIRS, CORRESPONDENCE AND CONTEMPORARY BIOGRAPHIES Arnold, Matthew. Letters 1848-1888, ed. G. W. E. R u s s e l l . New York: Macmillan and Company, 1895> 2 v o l s . Baldry, Albert Lys. Albert Moore. London: George B e l l and Sons, 1894. . Hubert von Herkomer, R.A. A Study and a Biography. London: George B e l l and Sons, 1904* . Three Great Modern Painters. Leighton, Whistler, Burne-Jones. London: T. C. and E. C. Jack, 1908. Barrington, Mrs. R u s s e l l . The L i f e , L e t t e r s and Work of Fr e d e r i c  Leighton. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1906, 2 v o l s . Bax, Ernest B e l f o r t . Reminiscences and Ref l e c t i o n s of a Mid and Late  V i c t o r i a n . New York: Seltzer, 1920. B a y l i s s , S i r Wyke. Five Great Painters of the V i c t o r i a n E r a . London: Sampson Low, Marston and Company, 1902. . O l i v e s . The Reminiscences of a President. London: George A l l e n , 19O6. 222 Benson,. A.. C. Walter Pater. London: The Macmillan Company, 1906. Benson, E. P. As We Were. London: Longmans, Green and Company, 1931. Brown, Horatio. John Addington Symonds. A Biography. London: Smith, E l d e r and Company, 1903* Burne-Jones, Georgiana, Lady. Memorials of Edward Burne-Jones. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1906. Carr, J . Comyns. Some Eminent V i c t o r i a n s . Personal Recollections i n the World of Art and L e t t e r s . London: Duckworth and Company, 1908. Cobden-Sanderson, Thomas James. The Journals of Thomas James Cobden- Sanderson 1879-1922. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1926. Cole, Henry. F i f t y Years of Public L i f e . London: George B e l l and Sons, 1884, 2 v o l s . Collingwood, William Gershom. The L i f e of John Ruskin. London: Methuen and Company, 1905* Crane, Walter. An A r t i s t ' s Reminiscences. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1905. Du Maurier, George. The Young Du Maurier; A S e l e c t i o n of Letters , 1860-1922, ed. Daphne Du Maurier. Garden Cit y , N. Y.: Doubleday and Company, 1952. . T r i l b y . London: Harper and Brothers, 1927* Duret, Theodore. H i s t o i r e de James McNeill Whistler et de son oeuvre. P a r i s : H. Floury, 1904. Eddy, Arthur Jerome. Recollections and Impressions of James A. McNeill  Whistler. P h i l a d e l p h i a : J . B. Lippincott, 1903. F r i t h , William Powell. My_ Autobiography and Reminiscences. London: Richard Bentley and Son, 1889. Grenvilie-Murray, E.>C. Side-Lights on Eng l i s h Society. D e t r o i t : The Singing Tree Press, 1969. Hake, Thomas and Compton-Rickett, Arthur. The L i f e and L e t t e r s of Theodore Watts-Dunton. London: T. C. and.E. C. Jack, 1916, 2 v o l s . Hamerton, P h i l i p G i l b e r t . Aut ob i ography. Boston: Roberts Brothers, 1897. 223 Haydon, Benjamin Robert. The Autobiography and Memoirs of Benjamin  Robert Haydon 1786-1846, ed. Tom Taylor. New York: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1962, 2 v o l s . ' . The Diary of Benjamin Robert Haydon. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1960, 4 vols.. Herkomer, S i r Hubert von. The Herkomers. London: Macmillan and Company, 1910-1911, 2 v o l s . ' Holliday, Henry. Reminiscences of My L i f e . London: Heinemann, 1914* Horsley, John C a l c o t t . Recollections of a Royal Academician. London: John Murray, 1903. Hueffer, Ford Madox. Ford Madox Brown: A Record of His L i f e and Work. London: Longmans, Green and Company, 1896. Hunt, William Holman. Pre-Raphaelitism and the Pre-Raphaelite Brother- hood. New York: The Macmillan Compaiiy, 1905-1906, 2 v o l s . K e l l e t t , E. E. A_£ X Remember. London: V. Gollancz, 1936. Keppel, Frederick. The Golden Age of Engraaving. A S p e c i a l i s t ' s Story About Fine P r i n t s . New York: The Baker and Taylor Company, 1910. Lazarus, Emma. "A Day i n Surrey with William Morris." The Century  Magazine, XXXII (July, 1886), 388-397. L e s l i e , Charles Robert. Autobiographical Recollections, ed. Tom Taylor. Boston: Ticknor and F i e l d s , i860. L e s l i e , George D. The Inner L i f e of the Royal Academy. London: John Murray, 1914. Lucas, E. V. The Colvins and Their Friends. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1928. Mackail, J . W. The L i f e of William Morris. London: Longmans, Green and Company, 1899> 2 v o l s . Mallock, William H u r r e l l . Memoirs of L i f e and L i t e r a t u r e . New York; Harper and Brothers, 1920. M i l l a i s , John G u i l l e . The L i f e and Letters of S i r John Everett  M i l l a i s . London:,Methuen and Company, 1900. M i l l s , Ernestine. The L i f e and Le t t e r s of F r e d e r i c Shields. London: Longmans, Green and Company, 1912. 224 ...Palgrave, Gwenllian P. Francis Turner Palgrave. London: Longmans, Green and Company, 1.899 • Pattison, Mark. Memoirs. London: Macmillan and Company, 1885. Q u i l t e r , Harry. "James Abbott McNeill Whistler, A Memory and a C r i -t i c i s m . " Chambers Journal, VI (1903), 691-696. Preferences i n Art, L i f e and L i t e r a t u r e . London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1892. Redgrave, F. M. Richard Redgrave, A Memoir. London; C a s s e l l , 1891. Rhys, Ernest. Frederic, Lord Leighton. London: George B e l l and Sons, 1900. . Wales England Wed. London: J . M. Dent and Sons, 1940. Ricketts, Charles S. Oscar Wilde, R e c o l l e c t i o n s . F o l c r o f t , Pa.: F o l c r o f t Press, 1969. . S e l f - P o r t r a i t , Taken from the Letters and Journals of Charles Ricketts, R.A., ed. C e c i l Lewis. London: P. Davis, 1939. Robertson, W. Graham. Time Was. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1931• Rossetti, Dante G a b r i e l . Dante Gabriel R o s s e t t i : His Family Letters, With a Memoir, ed. W. M. R o s s e t t i . London: E l l i s and Elvey, 1899* Rossetti, William Michael. Rossetti Papers, 1862-1870. London: Sands, 1903. . . Ruskin: R o s s e t t i : Pre-Raphaelism. Papers, 1854-1862. London: George A l l e n , 1899. . Some Reminiscences of William Michael R o s s e t t i . London: Brown Langham, 1906, 2 v o l s . Rothenstein, William. Men and Memories. New York: Coward-McCann,' 1931. Scott, William B e l l . Aut ob i ographi ca1 Notes of the L i f e of William  B e l l Scott and Notices of His A r t i s t i c and Poetic C i r c l e of  Friends, ed. William Minto. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1892, 2 v o l s . Starr, Sidney. "Personal Recollections of Whistler." The A t l a n t i c  Monthly, CI ( A p r i l , 1908), 528-537. Stephens, Frederic George. Memoirs of S i r Edwin Landseer. London: George B e l l and.Sons, 1874. 2 2 5 Symonds, John Addington. Le t t e r s and Papers of John Addington  Symonds, ed. Horatio Brown. London: John Murray, 1 9 2 3 . Vallance, Aymer. William Morris: His Art, His Writings and His Pub l i c  L i f e . London: George B e l l and Sons, . 1 8 9 7 • Watts, M. S. George Frederic Watts; The Annals of an A r t i s t 1 s L i f e and  His Writings. New York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1 9 1 2 , 3 v o l s . Way, Thomas R. Memories of James McNeill Whistler, the A r t i s t . London: John Lane, 1 9 1 2 . Whistler, James A. M. The Gentle Art of Making Enemies. London: Heinemann, 1 9 5 3 • Wilde, Oscar. The Le t t e r s of Oscar Wilde, ed.s:Rupert Hart-Davis. London: Rupert Hart-Davis, 1 9 6 2 . Woolner, Amy. Thomas.'Woolner, R.A., Sculptor and Poet. London: Chapman and H a l l , 1 9 1 7 . Wright, Thomas. T h e l L i f e '.of'-Walter Pater. London: Everett, 1 9 0 7 , 2 v o l s . OTHER CONTEMPORARY PRINTED SOURCES 1 . Books Anonymous. Concerning Carpets and A r t Decoration of F l o o r s . London: Waterlow and Sons, 1 8 8 4 . Armstrong, S i r Walter. Art i n Great B r i t a i n and Ireland. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1 9 0 9 . Arnold, Matthew. Complete Prose Works, R. H. Super. Ann Arbor: Uni-v e r s i t y of Michigan Press, I96O-, 1 0 v o l s . The Art Journal I l l u s t r a t e d Catalogue of the Great E x h i b i t i o n , London  1 8 5 1 . London: George Virt u e , 1 8 5 1 . The A r t s and Cra f t s E x h i b i t i o n Society, London. Art and L i f e . London: Rivington, P e r c i v a l , 1 8 9 7 • Ashbee, Charles Robert. An Endeavour Towards the Teaching of John  Ruskin and William Morris. London: Essex House Press, 1 9 0 6 . Audsley, George Ashdown. Keramie Art of Japan. London: H. Sotheran, 1 8 8 1 . 226 Audsley, W. G. Outlines of Ornament i n the Leading S t y l e s . A Book of Reference f o r the A r c h i t e c t , Sculptor, Decorative A r t i s t , and  P r a c t i c a l Painter. London: Sampson Low, Marston, Searle and Rivington, 1881. - . ,. Balfour, Henry. The Evo l u t i o n of Decorative A r t . London: Rivington, P e r c i v a l , 1893. Benson, A. C. R o s s e t t i . London: Macmillan and Company, 1904. Blanc, Charles. Art i n Ornament and Dress. London: Chapman and H a l l , 1873. Brown, Prank P. South Kensington and i t s Art T r a i n i n g . London: Longmans, Green and Company, 1912. Burty, P h i l l i p p e . Chefs-d'oeuvres of the I n d u s t r i a l A r t s . ^London: Chapman and H a l l , 1869. Carr, J . Comyns. Essays on A r t . London: Smith, E l d e r and Company, 1879* Chesneau, Ernest. The E n g l i s h School of Painting. London: C a s s e l l , Chesterton, G. K. G. P. Watts. Chicago: Rand, McNally, 1904. C h i l d , Theodore. Art and C r i t i c i s m . New York: Harper and Brothers, 1892. Cobden-Sanderson, Thomas James. Ecce Mundus: I n d u s t r i a l Ideals and the Book B e a u t i f u l . London: Hammersmith Publishing Society, 1902. C o l l i n g , James Kellaway. Art Fo l i a g e. London: C o l l i n g , 1865• Collingwood, William Gershom. The A r t Teaching of John Ruskin. London: P e r c i v a l , 1891. . The Philosophy of Ornament: Eight Lectures on the History of Decorative A r t . London: George A l l e n , 1883. Conway, Moncure Danial. Travels i n South Kensington, With Notes on  Decorative Art and Architecture i n England. London: Trubner, T88T Crane, Walter. The Bases of Design. London: George B e l l and Sons, 1902. . The Claims of Decorative A r t . London: Lawrence and Bullen, 1892. . Ideals i n A r t : Papers The o r e t i c a l , P r a c t i c a l , C r i t i c a l . London: George B e l l and Sons, 1905. 227 -Crane* Walter. William Morris to Whistler. London: George B e l l and Sons* 1911. Day* Lewis Foreman and Crane* Walter. Moot-nPoints—Friendly Disputes  on Art and Industry. London: B. T. Batsford, 1903. Day* Lewis Foreman. Nature and Ornament. D e t r o i t : Book Tower* 1970* . Pattern Design. London: B. T. Batsford* 1915. . Some P r i n c i p l e s of Everyday A r t : Introductory Chapter on the A r t s Not Fine. London: B. T. Batsford* 1890. . Windows; A Book About Stained and Painted Glass. London: B. T. Batsford, 1902. Destree, O l i v i e r Georges. Les Pre-Raphaelites: notes sur 1'art d e c o r a t i f et l a peinture en Angleterre. Brussels, D i e t r i c h , 1894. Dresser, Christopher. The Art of Decorative Design. London: Day and Son, 1862. . Modern Ornamentation. London: B. T. Batsford, T8"86\ . Studies i n Design f o r House Decorators, Designers and Manufacturers. London: C a s s e l l , 1875• Eastlake, Charles Lock. Hints on Household Taste. London: Longmans, Green and Company, 1878. Edis, R. W. Decoration and Furniture of Town-Houses. London: C. Kegan Paul, 1881. Escott, Thomas Hay. S o c i a l Transformation of the V i c t o r i a n Age. London: S e l l e y and Company, 1897• Facey, James William. Elementary Decoration. London: Crosby Lockwood, 1882. Ford, Sheridan. A r t : A Commodity. New York: Press of Rodgers and Sherwood, 1888. G a l l a t i n , A l b e r t Eugene. Whistler's Art Dicta and Other Essays. Boston: Goodspeed, 19.04. Garrett, Rhoda and Garrett, Agnes. Suggestions f o r House Decoration. London: Macmillan and Company, 1876. 228 Godwin, E. W. Art Furniture. London: B. T. Batsford, 1877. Hamerton, P h i l i p G i l b e r t . Thoughts About A r t . Boston: Roberts Brothers, 1882. Hamilton, Walter. The Aesthetic Movement i n England. London: Reeves and Turner, 1882. Haweis, H. R. The Art of Decoration. London: Chatto and Windus, 1881. Haweis, Mary E l i z a . B e a u t i f u l Houses. London: Sampson Low, Marston, Searle and Rivington, 1882. Henley, William Ernest and Lang, Andrew. Pictures at Play or. Dialogues of jbhe G a l l e r i e s . New York: AMS Press, 1970. Henley, William Ernest. Views and Reviews. London: Macmillan and Company, 1921. Hodgson, J . E. and Eaton, F. A. The Royal Academy and i t s Members. London: John Murray, 1905« Charles Holme, ed. The Royal Academy from Reynolds to M i l l a i s . New York: John Lane, 1904. Hulme, F. E. P r i n c i p l e s of Ornamental A r t . London: C a s s e l l , 1875* Jones, Owen. Examples of Chinese Ornament. London: Day and Son, 1867• . The Grammar of Ornament. London: Day and Son, 1856. King, Georgiana Goddard. George Edmund Street. Unpublished Notes and Reprinted Papers. New York: The Hispanic Society of America, 1916. Leighton, John. Suggestions i n Design. New York: D. Appleton, 1881. Lockwood, M. S. and G l a i s t e r , E. A r t Embroidery. London: Marcus Ward, 1878. MacColl, D. S. Nineteenth Century A r t . Glasgow: Maclehose, 1902. Mallock, William H u r r e l l . The New Republic, or Culture, F a i t h , and  Philosophy i n an E n g l i s h Country House. London: Chatto and Windus, 18787 Monkhouse, Cosmo. B r i t i s h Contemporary A r t i s t s . New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1899. Moody, F. W. Lectures and Lessons on A r t . London: George B e l l and Sons, - - 1875. 229 Moore, George* -Modern Painting, London: Scott, 1900. Morris, William. The C o l l e c t e d Works of William Morris. London: Longmans, Green and Company, 1910, 24 v o l s . . The Unpublished Lectures of William Morris, ed. Eugene D. Lemire. D e t r o i t : Wayne State U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1963. National A s s o c i a t i o n f o r the Advancement of A r t and i t s A p p l i c a t i o n to industry. Transactions. Liverpool, 1888. Published i n London, 1889. National A s s o c i a t i o n f o r the Advancement of Art and i t s A p p l i c a t i o n to Industry. Transactions. Edinburgh, 1889. Published i n London, 1890. Pater, Walter. Studies i n the History of the Renaissance. London: Macmillan and Company, 1873. Later e d i t i o n s are e n t i l e d The  Renaissance: Studies i n Art and L i t e r a t u r e . . The Works. London: Macmillan and Company, 1900-1901, 8 v o l s . Pennell, E l i z a b e t h and Pennell, Joseph. The L i f e of James McNeill  Whistler. London: Heinemann, 1925. Phythian, J . E. F i f t y Years of Modern Painting, Corot to Sargent. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1908. Pugin, A. Welby. The True P r i n c i p l e s and Revival of C h r i s t i a n A r c h i - tecture. London: Henry G. Bohn, 1853. Redgrave, Richard. On the Necessity of P r i n c i p l e s i n Teaching Design, An Address. Published i n London, 1853. Report by the J u r i e s f o r the Great E x h i b i t i o n . Published i n London, 1852. Rossetti, William Michael. Dante G a b r i e l Rossetti as Designer and  Writer. London: C a s s e l l , 1889• . Fine Art, C h i e f l y Contemporary. London: Macmillan and Company, 1867• Ruskin, John. Pre-Raphae1itism. Lectures on Architecture and Painting, and C r i t i c a l Notes. London: J . M. Dent and Sons, 1906. . The Complete Works of John Ruskin, ed. E. T. Cook and Alexander Wedderburn. London: George A l l e n , 1903* 39 v o l s . Sedding, John D. Art and Handicraft. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1893. 230 Spofford, Harriet Prescott. Art Decoration Applied to Furniture. New York: Harper Brothers, 1878. Squire, John C o l l i n g s . Socialism and A r t . London: XXth Century-Press, 1907. W a l l i s , George. B r i t i s h Art, P i c t o r i a l , Decorative, and I n d u s t r i a l : A F i f t y Years Retrospect 1832-1882. London: J . M. Dent, 1882. Wedmore, S i r Frederick. Painters and Painting. New York: H. Holt, 1912. Wilde, Oscar. Works. London: Methuen and Company, 1908, 13 v o l s . 2. P e r i o d i c a l s A., G. "Decorative Decorations." The C o r n h i l l Magazine, XLII (1880), 590-600. Anonymous. "Art and Democracy." The C o r n h i l l Magazine, XL (1879), 225-236. . "Art and Morality." The C o r n h i l l Magazine, XXXII (1875), 91-101. . "The Modern Doctrine of Culture." The C o r n h i l l Magazine, XIII (1866), 434-438. . "The Work of Christopher Dresser." The Studio, XV (1899), 104-114. Cole, Henry. "Decoration." The Atheneaum, XIV (1843), 1074-1075, 1114T-111 5, 1162-1164. Day, Lewis Foreman. "Decorative Art of William Morris." A r t Journal, XIX' (1899)* -277-281 : • . " V i c t o r i a n Progress i n Applied Design." The A r t Journal Royal Jubilee Number, VII (1887), 185-202. H[amerton], P [ h i l i p ] G [ i l b e r t ] . "Art C r i t i c i s m . " The C o r n h i l l Magazine, VIII (1863)* 334-343. L., E. L. and B., W. "Our C i v i l i z a t i o n . Two Views." The C o r n h i l l  Magazine, XXVII (1873), 671-686. [Pater, Walter], "Poems by William Morris." The Westminster and Foreign  Quarterly Review, XXXIV (1868), 300-312. 231 SECONDARY SOURCES 1. Books Alston, Rowland. The Mind and Work of G. P. Watts. London: Methuen and Company, 1929. Ames, Winslow. Prince Albert and V i c t o r i a n Taste. New York: V i k i n g Press, 1967. Appleman, P h i l l i p , W. A. Madden and Michael Wolfe, eds. 1859: Entering  an Age of C r i s i s . Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1959. Arnot, R. Page. William Morris; A V i n d i c a t i o n . London: M. Laurence, 1934. A s l i n , E l i z a b e t h . The Aesthetic Movement: Prelude to Art Nouveau. London: Elek, 1969. . Nineteenth-Century E n g l i s h Furniture. London: Faber and Faber, 1962. Banham, Reyner. Theory and Design i n the F i r s t Machine Age. New York: Praeger, i960. Barnard, J u l i a n . V i c t o r i a n Ceramic T i l e s . London: Studio V i s t a , 1972. Bazin, Germain. The Museum Age. New York: Universe Books, 1967. B e l l , Quentin. The Schools of Design. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963. . V i c t o r i a n A r t i s t s . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Uni-v e r s i t y Press, 1967. Best, Geoffrey. Mid-Victorian B r i t a i n , 1851-1875. New York: Schocken Books, 1972. Betjeman, John. Ghastly Good Taste. London: Chapman and H a l l , 1933. Black, Eugene Charlton. V i c t o r i a n Culture and Society. New York, Walker, 1974. Boe, A l f . From Gothic Revival to Functional Form, A Study i n V i c t o r i a n  Theories of Design. Oslo: Oslo U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1957* Casson, Hugh Maxwell. An Introduction to V i c t o r i a n A r c h i t e c t u r e . London: Art and Technics, 1948. 2 3 2 -Cecil,--David-.- Visionary and Dreamer. Palmer and Burne-Jones. Princeton, N. J . : Princeton U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1969. Charlesworth, Barbara. Dark Passages; The Decadent Consciousness i n V i c t o r i a n L i t e r a t u r e . Madison: U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin Press, 1 9 6 5 . Child, Ruth C. The Aesthetic of Walter Pater. New York: Macmillan, 1 9 4 0 . Crow, Gerald. William Morris, Designer. London: Studio,H 1.9-34.» - 3" ?. Davis, Prank. V i c t o r i a n Patrons of the A r t s . London: Country L i f e , 1 9 6 3 . De Laura, David. Hebrew and Hellenism i n V i c t o r i a n England. Newman, Arnold and Pater. Austin: U n i v e r s i t y of Texas Press, 1 9 ^ 9 * Durant, Stuart. V i c t o r i a n Ornamental Design. London: Academy E d i t i o n s , 1 9 7 2 . Egan, Rose Fr a n c i s . The Genesis of the Theory of 'Art f o r Art's Sake' i n Germany and i n England. Northampton, Mass.: Smith College Studies i n Modern Language, 1 9 2 1 . Egbert, Donald. S o c i a l Radicalism i n the Arts, Western Europe: A C u l t u r a l History from the French Revolution to 1 9 6 8 . New York: A l f r e d Knopf, 1 9 7 0 . Entwisle, E. A. A L i t e r a r y History of Wallpaper. London: B. T. Bats-ford, 1 9 6 0 . Farmer, A l b e r t J . Le_ mouvement esthetique et decadent en Angleterre  1 8 7 3 - 1 9 0 0 * P a r i s ; H. Champion, 1 9 3 1 . . Via I t e r Pater as a C r i t i c of E n g l i s h L i t e r a t u r e . Grenoble: D i d i e r et Richard, 1 9 3 1 * Ferriday, Peter. V i c t o r i a n A r c h i t e c t u r e . London: J . Cape, 1 9 6 3 . F i l d e s , L. V. Luke F i l d e s , R.A. A V i c t o r i a n Painter. London: Michael Joseph, 1 9 6 8 . Fleming, G. H. Rossetti and the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood. London: Rupert Hart-Davis, 1 9 ^ 7 -. That Ne'er S h a l l Meet Again. London: Michael Joseph, 1 9 7 1 . Fletcher, I a i n . Walter Pater. London: Longmans, Green and Company, 233 ..Fre.deman, William E. Pre-Raphaelitism» A B i b l i o c r i t i c a l Study, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Un i v e r s i t y Press, 1965. Gaunt, William. The Aesthetic Adventure. London: J . Cape, 1945' . The Restless Century. Pain t i n g i n B r i t a i n 1800-1900. New York: Phaidon Press, 1972. . V i c t o r i a n Olympus. New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1952. , and Clayton-Stamm, M. D. E. William De Morgan. Pre- Raphaelite Ceramics. New York: Graphic Society, 1971. George, E r i c . The L i f e and Death of Benjamin Robert Haydon, H i s t o r i c a l  Painter 1756-1846. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1967. Gloag, John. The En g l i s h T r a d i t i o n i n Design. London: Adarn and Charles Black, 1959. . V i c t o r i a n Comfort: A S o c i a l History of Design from I83O-1900. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1961. Godwin, Edward P. Warrior Bard: The L i f e of William Morris. London: G. G. Harrap, 1947. Gotch, John A l f r e d . The Growth and Work of the Royal I n s t i t u t e of  B r i t i s h A r c h i t e c t s . London: RIBA, 1934. Grana, Cesar. Modernity and I t s Discontents: French Society and the French Man of Letters i n the Nineteenth Century. ;New York: Harper, 1967. Grennan, Margaret Rose. William Morris, Medievalist and Revolutionary. New York: King's Crown Press, 1945• G r y l l s , Rosalie Glynn. P o r t r a i t of R o s s e t t i . London: Macdonald, 1964. Harbron, Dudley. The Conscious Stone: The L i f e of Edward William  Godwin. New York: E. Blom, 1971. Harrison, Martin and Waters, B i l l . Burne-Jones. New York: G. P. Putnam and Sons, 1973. -Heal, S i r Ambrose. The London Furniture Makers. London: B. T. Batsford, 1953. Henderson, P h i l i p . William Morris: His L i f e , Work and Friends. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. 234 golden,.;Donald. Whistler Landscapes and Seascapes. Hew York: "Watson-Guptill, 1969. Holme, Geoffrey. The Norwich School. London: The Studio, 1920. Hough, Graham. The Last Romantics. London: Duckworth, 1949* Hubbard, Hesketh. A Hundred Years of B r i t i s h Painting 18^ 1—1951. London: Longmans, Green and Company, 1951' Hudson, D. and Lockhurst, K. The Royal Society of A r t s . London: John Murray, 1954. Holman-Hunt, Diana. My_ Grandfather, His Wives and Loves. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1969• Hunt, John Dixon. The Pre-Raphaelite Imagination 1848-1900* London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1968. Hutchinson, Sidney C. T_he His t o r y of the Royal Academy 1768—1968. New York, Toplinger, 1968. Ironside, Robin and Gere, John. Pre-Raphaelite Painters. London: Phaidon, 1948. Johnson, Robert Vincent. Aestheticism. London: Methuen and Company, 1969* Jordan, Robert Purneaux. V i c t o r i a n A r c h i t e c t u r e . Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1966. Klingender, Francis D. Art and the I n d u s t r i a l Revolution. London: N. Carrinton, 1947* Ladd, Henry Andrews. The V i c t o r i a n Morality i n A r t : An Analysis of  Ruskin's E t h i c s . New York: R. Long and R. R. Smith, 1932. Lamb, Walter. The Royal Academy. London: George B e l l , 1951* Lethaby, W. R. P h i l i p Webb and His Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1935. Lewis, Lloyd. Oscar Wilde Discovers America. New York: Brace.and Harcourt, 1936. Lewis, Frank. Benjamin Williams Leader. Leigh-on-Sea: F. Lewis, 1971* L i s t e r , Raymond. V i c t o r i a n Narrative Paintings. New York, C. N. Potter, 1966. 235 Maas, Jeremy. V i c t o r i a n Painters. London: B a r r i e and R o c k l i f f , 1969. • Macdonald, Stuart. The History and Philosophy of A r t Education. London: University, of London Press, 1970. Madsen, Stephan Tschudi. Sources of A r t Nouveau. New York: G. Witteriborn, 1956. Masse, H. J . L. J . The A r t Workers' G u i l d . London: Shakespeare Head Press, 1935. Morris, Barbara. V i c t o r i a n Embroidery. New York: Universe Books, 1970. Morris, May. William Morris, A r t i s t , Writer, S o c i a l i s t . Oxford: B a s i l Blackwell, 1936, 2 v o l s . Muthesius, Stefan. The High V i c t o r i a n Movement i n Architecture 1850- 1870. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1972. Naylor, G i l l i a n . The A r t s and Craf t s Movement. A Study of i t s Sources  Ideals and Influence on Design Theory. London: Studio V i s t a , 1971. Ormond, Leonee. George Du Maurier. Pittsburgh: U n i v e r s i t y of P i t t s -burgh Press, 1969. Pearson, Hesketh. The Man Whistler. London: Methuen and Company, 1952. Peckham, Morse. V i c t o r i a n Revolutionaries. New York: B r a z i l l e r , 1970. P e l l e s , Geraldine. Art, A r t i s t s and Society: Origins of a Modern  Dilemna. Englewood C l i f f s , N. J . : Pre n t i c e - H a l l , 1963. Pevsner, Nikolaus. Academies of Art, Past and Present. Cambridge, En. The U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1940. . High V i c t o r i a n Design. London: A r c h i t e c t u r a l Press, 1951. . Pioneers of Modern Design. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1949-. Some A r c h i t e c t u r a l Writers of the Nineteenth Cen- tury. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1972. Pocock, Tom. Chelsea Reach. The B r u t a l Friendship of Whistler and Walter Greaves. London: Hodder and,Stoughton, 1970» 236 - R e d g r a v e , R i c h a r d a n d R e d g r a v e , S a m u e l . A C e n t u r y o f B r i t i s h P a i n t e r s , e d . R u t h v e n T o d d . L o n d o n : P h a i d o n , 1g47. R e i t l i n g e r , G e r a l d . T h e E c o n o m i c s o f T a s t e . T h e R i s e a n d F a l l o f  P i c t u r e P r i c e s 1760-1960. L o n d o n : B a r r i e R o c k l i f f , 1 9 6 1 , " i . . T h e E c o n o m i c s o f T a s t e . T h e R i s e a n d F a l l o f t h e O b j e t s d ' A r t M a r k e t S i n c e 1750. N e w Y o r k : H o l t , R i n e h a r t a n d W i n s t o n , 1963, I I . R e y n o l d s , G r a h a m . P a i n t e r s o f t h e V i c t o r i a n S c e n e . L o n d o n : B . T . B a t s f o r d , 1953. _ . V i c t o r i a n P a i n t i n g . L o n d o n : S t u d i o V i s t a , 1 9 6 6 . R o e , F . G o r d o n . V i c t o r i a n C o r n e r s : T h e S t y l e a n d T a s t e o f a n E r a . L o n d o n : G e o r g e A l l e n a n d U n w i n , 1968. R o s e n b u r g , J o h n D . T h e D a r k e n i n g G l a s s : A P o r t r a i t o f R u s k i n ' s  G e n i u s . N e w Y o r k : C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1961. R o t h e n s t e i n , S i r J o h n K n e w s t u b M a u r i c e . N i n e t e e n t h C e n t u r y P a i n t i n g , A S t u d y i n C o n f l i c t . L o n d o n : J o h n L a n e , 1932. S c h a e f e r , H e r w i n . T h e R o o t s o f M o d e r n D e s i g n . L o n d o n : S t u d i o V i s t a , 1970. S i t w e l l , S a c h e v e r e l l . C o n v e r s a t i o n P i e c e s . L o n d o n : B . T . B a t s f o r d , 1936. . N a r r a t i v e P i c t u r e s . L o n d o n : B . T . B a t s f o r d , 1969. S p e n c e r , R o b i n . T h e A e s t h e t i c M o v e m e n t : T h e o r y a n d P r a c t i c e . L o n d o n : S t u d i o V i s t a , 1972. S t a n t o n , P h o e b e . P u g i n . L o n d o n : T h a m e s a n d H u d s o n , 1971* S t e e g m a n , J o h n ; . V i c t o r i a n T a s t e . L o n d o n : N e l s o n , 1970. S t e r l i n g , A . M . W . W i l l i a m De_ M o r g a n a n d H i s W i f e . L o n d o n : B u t t e r w o r t h , 1922. S u g d e n , A l a n V i c t o r a n d E d m o n d s o n , J o h n L u d l a m . A H i s t o r y o f E n g l i s h  W a l l p a p e r 1509-1914. L o n d o n : B . T . B a t s f o r d , . 1925. S u r t e e s , V i r g i n i a . T h e P a i n t i n g s a n d D r a w i n g s o f D a n t e G a b r i e l R o s s e t t i . O x f o r d : T h e C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1971, 2 v o l s . 237 - S u s s m a n , „ _ _ H e r b e r t L . V i c t o r i a n s a n d t h e M a c h i n e ; T h e L i t e r a r y R e s p o n s e  t o T e c h n o l o g y . C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 6 8 . S u t t o n , D e n y s . N o c t u r n e : T h e A r t o f J a m e s M c N e i l l W h i s t l e r . L o n d o n : C o u n t r y L i f e , 1963. S u t t o n , G o r d o n . A r t i s a n o r A r t i s t ? A H i s t o r y o f t h e T e a c h i n g o f A r t  a n d C r a f t s i n E n g l i s h S c h o o l s . O x f o r d : P e r g a m o n , 1 9 6 7 . S y m o n d s , R o b e r t W e m y s s a n d W h i n e r a y , B . B . V i c t o r i a n F u r n i t u r e . L o n d o n : C o u n t r y L i f e , 1962. T h o m p s o n , E . P . W i l l i a m M o r r i s : R o m a n t i c t o R e v o l u t i o n a r y . L o n d o n : L a w r e n c e a n d W i s h a r t , 1955* T h o m p s o n , P a u l R i c h a r d . W i l l i a m B u t t e r f i e l d . L o n d o n : R o u t l e d g e a n d K e g a n P a u l , 1971. . T h e W o r k o f W i l l i a m M o r r i s . L o n d o n : H e i n e m a n n , 1967. T r a p p e s - L o m a x , M i c h a e l . P u g i n . A M e d i e v a l V i c t o r i a n . L o n d o n : S h e e d a n d W a r d , 1933. T r i l l i n g , L i o n e l . M a t t h e w A r n o l d . N e w Y o r k : C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1949. V e b l e n , T h o r s t e i n . T h e I n s t i n c t o f W o r k m a n s h i p a n d t h e S t a t e o f t h e  I n d u s t r i a l A r t s . N e w Y o r k : B . W . H u e b s c h , 1918. W a k e f i e l d , H u g h . V i c t o r i a n P o t t e r y . L o n d o n : H e r b e r t J e n k i n s , 1962. W a t k i n s o n , R a y m o n d . P r e - R a p h a e l i t e A r t a n d D e s i g n . . . L o n d o n : S t u d i o V i s t a , 1970. . W i l l i a m M o r r i s a s D e s i g n e r . L o n d o n : S t u d i o V i s t a , 1967. W e i n t r a u b , S t a n l e y . W h i s t l e r . A B i o g r a p h y . N e w Y o r k : W e y b r i g h t a n d T a l l e y , 1974. W h i t e , G l e e s o n . E n g l i s h I l l u s t r a t i o n : T h e S i x t i e s 1855-70. L o n d o n : A , C o n s t a b l e , 1906 W i l l i a m s , R a y m o n d . C u l t u r e a n d S o c i e t y 1780-1950. L o n d o n : C h a t t o a n d W i n d u s , 1958. . T h e L o n g R e v o l u t i o n . - L o n d o n : C h a t t o a n d W i n d u s , 1961. 238 -Wood, Hi-Truman. History of the Royal Society of A r t s . London: John Murray, 1913. 2. .Periodicals Alexander, Edward. "Ruskin and Science." Modern Language Review, LXIV (1969), 508-521. Ames, Winslow. "Inside V i c t o r i a n Walls." V i c t o r i a n Studies, V (1961), 151-162. Anonymous. "Art and Mammon." Times L i t e r a r y Supplement, LXXI (August, 4* 1972), 905-908. • "Art of the High Wire: Pater i n L e t t e r s . " Times L i t e r a r y Supplement, LXX (February 26, 1971), 229-231. Baker, Houston A., J r . "Tragedy of the A r t i s t : The Picture of Dorian Gray." Nineteenth Century F i c t i o n , XXIV (1969), 349-355. Banham, Reyner. "The Reputation- of William Morris." New Statesman, LXV (March 8, 1963)* 350-351. B i z o t , Richard. "Pater i n T r a n s i t i o n . " P h i l o l o g i c a l Quarterly, LII (1973)* 129-141. Boase, T. S. R. "The Decoration of the New Palace of Westminster." Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld I n s t i t u t e s , XVII (1954)* 348-367. Chamberlin, J . E. "Oscar Wilde and the Importance of Doing Nothing." Hudson Review, XXV (Summer, 1972), 194-218. Cooper, Jeremy. " V i c t o r i a n Furniture, An Introduction to the Sources." Apollo, XCV (February, 1972) 115-122. De Laura, David. "Wordsworth of Pater and Arnold: The Supreme, A r t i s t i c View of L i f e . " Studies i n E n g l i s h L i t e r a t u r e , VI (Autumn, 1966), 651-667. Ferriday, Peter. "Peacock Room." The A r c h i t e c t u r a l Review, CXXV (June, 1959)* 407-414. F i e l d i n g , K. G. "Charles Dickens and the Department of P r a c t i c a l A r t . " Modern Language Review, XLVIII (1953), 270-277* Fleming, Donald. "Charles Darwin, The Anaesthetic Man." V i c t o r i a n  Studies, IV (1961), 219-236. 239 Floud, - Peter. "Dating Morris Patterns." The A r c h i t e c t u r a l Review* CXXVI (July* 1959)* 14-20. . "The Inconsistencies of William Morris." The Listener* LII (October 14* 1954)* 615-617. . "William Morris as an A r t i s t : A New View." The Listener* LII (October 7* 1954)* 562-564. Forsyth* R. A. "The Myth of Nature and the V i c t o r i a n Compromise of the Imagination." Journal of English L i t e r a r y History* XXXI (1964)* 213-240. Grey* N i c o l e t t e . "Prophets of the Modern Movement." The A r c h i t e c t u r a l  Review, LXXXI (January, 1937)* 49-50. Grigson, Geoffrey. "The Preraphaelite Myth." The A r c h i t e c t u r a l Review, XCII (August, 1942), 27-30. Gross* Beverly. "Walter Pater and the Aesthetic F a l l a c y . " South  A t l a n t i c Quarterly, LXVIII (1969), 220-230. H a r r i s , Wendell V. "Arnold, Pater, Wilde and the Object as In Themselves They See I t . " Studies i n Engl i s h L i t e r a t u r e , II (Autumn, 1971)* 733-747. Kent, John. "The V i c t o r i a n Resistance: Comments oh Religious L i f e and Culture, 1840-80." V i c t o r i a n Studies, XII (1968), 145-154. Madden* William A. "The V i c t o r i a n S e n s i b i l i t y . " V i c t o r i a n Studies, VIII (1963)* 67-97. McKendrick, N e i l . "Josiah Wedgwood and Factory D i s c i p l i n e . " The  H i s t o r i c a l Journal* IV (1961), 30-55. MoskPacker, Lona. "William Michael Rossetti and the Q u i l t e r Contro-versy: 'The Gospel of Intensity':"' V i c t o r i a n Studies, VII (1963)* 170-183. Pevsner, Nikplaus. "Christopher Dresser, I n d u s t r i a l Designer." The  A r c h i t e c t u r a l Review, LXXXI (February, 1937)* 183-186. Pick* John. "Divergent D i s c i p l e s of Walter Pater." Thought: Fordham  Un i v e r s i t y Quarterly, XXIII (1948), 114-128. Rieff* P h i l i p . "Impossible Culture: Oscar Wilde and the Charisma of the A r t i s t . " Encounter, XXXV (September, 1970), 33-44. 240 Robinson, James-K. "A Neglected Phase of the Aesthetic Movement: English Parnassianism." Modern Language As s o c i a t i o n . P u b l i c a t i o n , LXVIII (1953)* 733-754. Rose, M i l l i c e n t . "Dwelling and Ornament i n the East End." The A r c h i - t e c t u r a l Review, CIII (June, 1948), 241-246. Stein, Richard L. "Dante Gabriel R o s s e t t i : .Painting and the Problems of Poetic Form." Studies i n E n g l i s h L i t e r a t u r e , X (Autumn, 1970), 775-792. Summerson, John. "Pugin at Ramsgate." The A r c h i t e c t u r a l Review, CIII ( A p r i l , 1948), 163-166. T i l l o t s o n , Geoffrey. "Pater, Mr. Rose, and the 'Conclusion' of the Renaissance." Essays and Studies by Members of the Engl i s h  Association, XXXII (1946), 44-60. Unrau, John. "Ruskin's Use of the Adjective Moral." E n g l i s h Studies, LII (1971)* 339-347. V i c t o r i a n Society. "A Special Report on the High V i c t o r i a n C u l t u r a l Achievement." V i c t o r i a n Studies, VIII (1965), 213-228. Watson, Fra n c i s . "The D e v i l and Mr. Ruskin." Encounter, XXXVIII (June, 1972), 64-70. 3. "Works of Reference Bryan, Michael. Dictionary of Painters and Engravers, Biographical  and C r i t i c a l . London: George B e l l and Sons, 1886. Graves, Algernon. The Royal Academy of A r t s . A Complete Dictionary of Contributors and Their Work from i t s Foundation i n 1769 to  1904. London: H. Graves, 1905-1906, 8 v o l s . 4. E x h i b i t i o n Catalogues, Arranged by Subject The Aesthetic Movement. Camden Arts Centre E x h i b i t i o n : London, 1973* Ford Madox Brown. Catalogue of an E x h i b i t i o n given by the Walker Art Gall e r y ; Liverpool, 1964. S i r Edward Coley Burne-Jones. Catalogue of an E x h i b i t i o n given at Fulham Lib r a r y : London, 1967* Richard Dadd. Camden Arts Centre E x h i b i t i o n : London, 1974* 241 Christopher Dresser. The Pine Art Society: London, 1972 . Dyce Centenary E x h i b i t i o n . Catalogue of an E x h i b i t i o n of William Dyce's works at Messrs. Agnew: London, 1964-An E x h i b i t i o n of Paintings by_ William Powell F r i t h , R.A., 1819-1909. Catalogue of a Whitechapel Art G a l l e r y and Harrogate Arts Society E x h i b i t i o n : London, 1951 • William Holman Hunt. Walker Art G a l l e r y E x h i b i t i o n : Liverpool, 1969. Paintings and Drawings by S i r Edwin Landseer. Catalogue of a Royal Academy E x h i b i t i o n : London, 1961. Daniel Maclise 1 806 -1870 . A r t s Council of Great B r i t a i n E x h i b i t i o n : London, 1972. The Works of S i r John Everett M i l l a i s . Catalogue of an E x h i b i t i o n at the Grovsner G a l l e r i e s : London, 1886. Painters^ of. the ^ Beautif u l ; i Catalogue of-an .,-Exhibition.jat .^Messrs. 1 Dujlacher Brothers: New York, 1964. Paintings and Drawings by V i c t o r i a n A r t i s t s i n England. Catalogue of an E x h i b i t i o n at the National G a l l e r y : Ottawa, 1965. Paintings and Drawings of the Pre-Raphaelites and t h e i r C i r c l e . Cata-logue of an E x h i b i t i o n at the Fogg Museum, Harvard: Harvard, 1946. John P h i l l i p , R.A. Catalogue of an E x h i b i t i o n given by the Aberdeen Art G a l l e r y : Aberdeen, 1967. Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Painter and Poet. Catalogue of a Royal Academy E x h i b i t i o n : London, 1973. The F i r s t Hundred Years of the Royal Academy, 1 769 -1868 . Catalogue of a Royal Academy E x h i b i t i o n : London, 1951* Royal Academy Diploma Pictures, 1768-1851. Catalogue of an A r t s Council E x h i b i t i o n : London, 196I. Ruskin and His C i r c l e . Catalogue of an Arts Council E x h i b i t i o n : London, 1964. Ten Decades of B r i t i s h Taste. Catalogue of an Arts Council E x h i b i t i o n : London, 1951. 242 James T i s s o t . Catalogue of an E x h i b i t i o n given at the Museum of A r t , Rhode Island School of Design, Providence, and the Art G a l l e r y of Ontario,; Toronto: Toronto, 1968. V i c t o r i a n and Edwardian Decorative A r t s . Catalogue of an E x h i b i t i o n at the V i c t o r i a and Albert Museum: London, 1952. V i c t o r i a n and Edwardian Decorative A r t s : The Handley-Read C o l l e c t i o n . Catalogue of an E x h i b i t i o n at the Royal Academy: London, 1972. V i c t o r i a n Painting. Catalogue of an E x h i b i t i o n at Nottingham Univer-s i t y G a l l e r y : Nottingham, 1959• V i c t o r i a n Paintings. Catalogue of an Arts Council Exhibition:,London, 1962. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093415/manifest

Comment

Related Items