DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.66024#0028
2
ANGELICA KAUFFMANN
Kauffmann has remained fixed, and it is possible that now there are a greater
number of persons who have heard of her work than at any previous period
since she was born, because any ceiling decoration in her manner is attributed
to her, furniture painted in her style is invariably said to be by Angelica Kauff-
mann herself, and there are numberless reproductions of her classical scenes
readily available, all of which tend to keep her name before the public eye.
Her fame probably exceeds even that of any living woman artist; and although
the works of Rosa Bonheur will always be of high value, and will be recognised
as of importance, it is hardly likely that a hundred years after their death
she will be as well remembered as is Angelica Kauffmann in the present day.
The other women artists, as we say, have occupied high positions in the
world of fashion of their time, and have been practically forgotten. Angelica is
remembered. It is impossible that a fame such as this, so enduring, should
have been acquired without merit, and merit, moreover, of a rare—perhaps
even of an unique—order. It may be well, therefore, in presenting a new book
to the public on Angelica Kauffmann, to try to find out in what her particular
merit consisted, and to value it at its proper worth.
It has been suggested that one of the reasons for the popularity of Angelica’s
work was that she more completely represented the artistic spirit of her age
than did any other artist at the time. Her period was that of Reynolds, Gains-
borough, Hoppner, Romney and Wilson. They were the greatest English
painters of the period. ( They had followed closely upon the heels of Hogarth,
and their work had replaced the fashionable portraiture associated with the
work of Lely, Kneller and Dahl, and the severely classical treatment of land-
scape which we associate with Salvator and with Claude. These five painters
struck out a fresh line. Their pictures, whether dealing with portraiture or
with landscape, are a more faithful interpretation of what actually existed than
anything that had occurred in the pictures produced in England during the
preceding century, but the realistic spirit which they endeavoured to introduce
failed, it must be confessed, in gaining the support of the fashionable taste of
the age. Hogarth had been looked down upon as an artist who was only
applauded so far as he was a moralist and a satirist. Wilson was almost wholly
neglected by his contemporaries, and lived in penury, while many a landscape
artist of quite indifferent skill, who more nearly conformed to the taste of the
day, was successful. Reynolds, Gainsborough, Romney and Hoppner did
command success, but largely because they were capable of flattery, and were
able to flatter more skilfully than any of their less capable rivals. The taste
of the period was not actually for realism. It was for neo-classicism, and
Reynolds had to conform, in many of his most successful pictures, to the
spirit that was abroad, painting his sitters as Muses, as Medea, as Circe, and
only quite seldom indulging in that art which he so thoroughly understood of
downright, straightforward, realistic portraiture. It was the time of the
Society of Dilettanti. It was the period in which classical allusions, stories
from the classics, decorations derived direct from the Greek, were all in vogue,
ANGELICA KAUFFMANN
Kauffmann has remained fixed, and it is possible that now there are a greater
number of persons who have heard of her work than at any previous period
since she was born, because any ceiling decoration in her manner is attributed
to her, furniture painted in her style is invariably said to be by Angelica Kauff-
mann herself, and there are numberless reproductions of her classical scenes
readily available, all of which tend to keep her name before the public eye.
Her fame probably exceeds even that of any living woman artist; and although
the works of Rosa Bonheur will always be of high value, and will be recognised
as of importance, it is hardly likely that a hundred years after their death
she will be as well remembered as is Angelica Kauffmann in the present day.
The other women artists, as we say, have occupied high positions in the
world of fashion of their time, and have been practically forgotten. Angelica is
remembered. It is impossible that a fame such as this, so enduring, should
have been acquired without merit, and merit, moreover, of a rare—perhaps
even of an unique—order. It may be well, therefore, in presenting a new book
to the public on Angelica Kauffmann, to try to find out in what her particular
merit consisted, and to value it at its proper worth.
It has been suggested that one of the reasons for the popularity of Angelica’s
work was that she more completely represented the artistic spirit of her age
than did any other artist at the time. Her period was that of Reynolds, Gains-
borough, Hoppner, Romney and Wilson. They were the greatest English
painters of the period. ( They had followed closely upon the heels of Hogarth,
and their work had replaced the fashionable portraiture associated with the
work of Lely, Kneller and Dahl, and the severely classical treatment of land-
scape which we associate with Salvator and with Claude. These five painters
struck out a fresh line. Their pictures, whether dealing with portraiture or
with landscape, are a more faithful interpretation of what actually existed than
anything that had occurred in the pictures produced in England during the
preceding century, but the realistic spirit which they endeavoured to introduce
failed, it must be confessed, in gaining the support of the fashionable taste of
the age. Hogarth had been looked down upon as an artist who was only
applauded so far as he was a moralist and a satirist. Wilson was almost wholly
neglected by his contemporaries, and lived in penury, while many a landscape
artist of quite indifferent skill, who more nearly conformed to the taste of the
day, was successful. Reynolds, Gainsborough, Romney and Hoppner did
command success, but largely because they were capable of flattery, and were
able to flatter more skilfully than any of their less capable rivals. The taste
of the period was not actually for realism. It was for neo-classicism, and
Reynolds had to conform, in many of his most successful pictures, to the
spirit that was abroad, painting his sitters as Muses, as Medea, as Circe, and
only quite seldom indulging in that art which he so thoroughly understood of
downright, straightforward, realistic portraiture. It was the time of the
Society of Dilettanti. It was the period in which classical allusions, stories
from the classics, decorations derived direct from the Greek, were all in vogue,