DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.56224#0045
of his paintings are known today: one that has sur-
vived in a faded photograph shows a few apples on a
barrel; another shows three pears between grapes (fig.
61). This small picture is painted in a broad and direct
technique, which reflects the influence of S. —
Morse, with whom Hardy studied after preliminary
training under a local Boston artist, for Morse had
achieved a considerable degree of pictorial freedom
in his portraits.
After 1850, photography began to compete seriously
with portrait painting. As a consequence, many Por-
trait painters took up still-life painting on the side;
more often than not still lifes signed by well-known
portrait painters date from the second half of the nine-
teenth century.
The Long Island master of homespun genre scenes,
William Sidney Mount (1807-68), left us a few flower
studies; one of them is illustrated here (fig. 52). It
shows a loosely bound bunch of blackeyed Susans,
daisies, roses, and other spring flowers. It is distin-
guished by an engaging directness and vividness, and
it convincingly conveys the feeling a sensitive observer
experiences on a beautiful May day, as he looks at
the humble flowers he has picked on a walk through
the fields. In all its realism this modest sketch has the
romantic fragrance of a Lied by Schubert.
It has been mentioned above that Philadelphia pro-
duced the most important school of still-life painters.
The folk art of the Pennsylvania Germans created a
favorable atmosphere for still-life painters. It stimu-
lated the sense of design; it inspired interest in decora-
tion. Boston, the second of the two oldest centers of
cultural life, patronized the art of the English upper
classes. This art was refined and individualistic and its
dominant interest was the portrait. It is significant that
the Peales settled in Philadelphia, not in Boston. The
activity of the Peales encouraged other painters to take
up stilllife painting and since their time the tradition
has not died.
Among the portrait painters of Philadelphia who en-
joyed a reputation as ‘fruit painters’ as well was Joseph
Biays Ord (1805-65), son of an ornithologist. He must
have been interested in still life as such at an early
date, for in 1840 he painted his Déjeuner & la four-
chette: a work that has nothing in common with the
decorative taste of the people who bought fruit pieces
for their dining rooms (fig. 53). On a plain table are
two oysters, some lemons, biscuits, and a knife, grouped
around a decanter and a full wine glass. The light
comes from the upper left hand corner, and the back-
ground shows a diagonal division into a bright and a
dark area. The fruit and flower paintings of the Peales
showed a similar division, but it was a conventional
pattern with them. In Ord’s still life the division log-
ically results from the prevailing distribution of light.
The whole picture is done in chiaroscuro and a subtle
harmony of warm tones prevails. The texture of the
objects is illustrated convincingly by purely technical
means, the brush strokes being left in their first, vigor-
ous state, in contrast to the smooth and glassy texture
of the Peales paintings. The composition, too, is less
regular than those of the previous generation, and al-
though well balanced, its effect is informal. All these
characteristics can be summed up in the term ‘pic-
turesque.” The painting is realistic, but its realism is
fundamentally different from objectivism, for it does
not present isolated objects to direct contemplation
under the best possible visual conditions. Rather it
tends to poetize them by means of suitable lighting
and by fusing them into a wellintegrated whole in
which associations and overtones play an important
part. Ord’s type of still life is ‘one of mood,” to adopt
a term from the history of landscape painting, and as
such it belongs to the sphere of romantic realism. Its
ancestors are the Dutch breakfast pieces of the eight-
eenth century and the kitchen still lifes of Chardin.
The next step in the stylistic development is repre-
sented by the work of a man who, after he had been
practically forgotten for more than half a century, was
recently called ‘perhaps the best stilllife painter be-
tween the Peales and Harnett, Chase, and Carlsen.
He was Pennsylvania-born John F. Francis (1810-85).
From the meager sources available we learn that he
lived in Philadelphia and Harrisburg alternately be-
tween 1840 and 1855, and afterwards stayed in Wil
mington, Delaware. He was known as a portrait and
stilllife painter. Many of his fruit pieces were sold
from the exhibition rooms of the Art Union between
1844 and 1850, but the dates of his still lifes indicate
that he continued to paint them in the ’sixties. There
is no reason to believe that he was less successful later,
even though records of his sales exist only for six years.
The still lifes that he painted as early as the middle
of the eighteen fifties show his style fully developed-
a style which, seen in the perspective of history, gives
Francis a place among the most advanced painters of
his period. Two of his important early paintings are
[23]
One of them is signed and dated 1854, but the other
lacks a date. The first shows a basket with apples and
chestnuts, a porcelain pitcher, glasses, and a dish with
apples (fig. 56)—objects repeated almost piece by
piece in a painting of the Karolik Collection that bears
the date 1859 and is painted in a slightly more fluid
manner. Since the second of the pictures in the Prew
Savoy Collection, a table piece, shows even more
vived in a faded photograph shows a few apples on a
barrel; another shows three pears between grapes (fig.
61). This small picture is painted in a broad and direct
technique, which reflects the influence of S. —
Morse, with whom Hardy studied after preliminary
training under a local Boston artist, for Morse had
achieved a considerable degree of pictorial freedom
in his portraits.
After 1850, photography began to compete seriously
with portrait painting. As a consequence, many Por-
trait painters took up still-life painting on the side;
more often than not still lifes signed by well-known
portrait painters date from the second half of the nine-
teenth century.
The Long Island master of homespun genre scenes,
William Sidney Mount (1807-68), left us a few flower
studies; one of them is illustrated here (fig. 52). It
shows a loosely bound bunch of blackeyed Susans,
daisies, roses, and other spring flowers. It is distin-
guished by an engaging directness and vividness, and
it convincingly conveys the feeling a sensitive observer
experiences on a beautiful May day, as he looks at
the humble flowers he has picked on a walk through
the fields. In all its realism this modest sketch has the
romantic fragrance of a Lied by Schubert.
It has been mentioned above that Philadelphia pro-
duced the most important school of still-life painters.
The folk art of the Pennsylvania Germans created a
favorable atmosphere for still-life painters. It stimu-
lated the sense of design; it inspired interest in decora-
tion. Boston, the second of the two oldest centers of
cultural life, patronized the art of the English upper
classes. This art was refined and individualistic and its
dominant interest was the portrait. It is significant that
the Peales settled in Philadelphia, not in Boston. The
activity of the Peales encouraged other painters to take
up stilllife painting and since their time the tradition
has not died.
Among the portrait painters of Philadelphia who en-
joyed a reputation as ‘fruit painters’ as well was Joseph
Biays Ord (1805-65), son of an ornithologist. He must
have been interested in still life as such at an early
date, for in 1840 he painted his Déjeuner & la four-
chette: a work that has nothing in common with the
decorative taste of the people who bought fruit pieces
for their dining rooms (fig. 53). On a plain table are
two oysters, some lemons, biscuits, and a knife, grouped
around a decanter and a full wine glass. The light
comes from the upper left hand corner, and the back-
ground shows a diagonal division into a bright and a
dark area. The fruit and flower paintings of the Peales
showed a similar division, but it was a conventional
pattern with them. In Ord’s still life the division log-
ically results from the prevailing distribution of light.
The whole picture is done in chiaroscuro and a subtle
harmony of warm tones prevails. The texture of the
objects is illustrated convincingly by purely technical
means, the brush strokes being left in their first, vigor-
ous state, in contrast to the smooth and glassy texture
of the Peales paintings. The composition, too, is less
regular than those of the previous generation, and al-
though well balanced, its effect is informal. All these
characteristics can be summed up in the term ‘pic-
turesque.” The painting is realistic, but its realism is
fundamentally different from objectivism, for it does
not present isolated objects to direct contemplation
under the best possible visual conditions. Rather it
tends to poetize them by means of suitable lighting
and by fusing them into a wellintegrated whole in
which associations and overtones play an important
part. Ord’s type of still life is ‘one of mood,” to adopt
a term from the history of landscape painting, and as
such it belongs to the sphere of romantic realism. Its
ancestors are the Dutch breakfast pieces of the eight-
eenth century and the kitchen still lifes of Chardin.
The next step in the stylistic development is repre-
sented by the work of a man who, after he had been
practically forgotten for more than half a century, was
recently called ‘perhaps the best stilllife painter be-
tween the Peales and Harnett, Chase, and Carlsen.
He was Pennsylvania-born John F. Francis (1810-85).
From the meager sources available we learn that he
lived in Philadelphia and Harrisburg alternately be-
tween 1840 and 1855, and afterwards stayed in Wil
mington, Delaware. He was known as a portrait and
stilllife painter. Many of his fruit pieces were sold
from the exhibition rooms of the Art Union between
1844 and 1850, but the dates of his still lifes indicate
that he continued to paint them in the ’sixties. There
is no reason to believe that he was less successful later,
even though records of his sales exist only for six years.
The still lifes that he painted as early as the middle
of the eighteen fifties show his style fully developed-
a style which, seen in the perspective of history, gives
Francis a place among the most advanced painters of
his period. Two of his important early paintings are
[23]
One of them is signed and dated 1854, but the other
lacks a date. The first shows a basket with apples and
chestnuts, a porcelain pitcher, glasses, and a dish with
apples (fig. 56)—objects repeated almost piece by
piece in a painting of the Karolik Collection that bears
the date 1859 and is painted in a slightly more fluid
manner. Since the second of the pictures in the Prew
Savoy Collection, a table piece, shows even more