DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.66024#0031
INTRODUCTION 3
and we have evidence in the designs which Flaxman made for Wedgwood, in
the work of the Brothers Adam, of Hepplewhite, and Sheraton in furniture,
in the buildings by Adam and by Chambers, and in almost all the sculpture of
the day, that not only did painting take upon itself this tinge of neo-classicism,
but the applied arts of the period were sustained upon exactly the same ideas.
Surely one of the reasons why Gainsborough was not appreciated at his proper
value was because he so seldom deferred to the prevailing taste; and yet
nowadays we realise that the classical works of Reynolds, his “ Infant
Hercules,” for example, were amongst his least successful labours, and we
ignore the classical spirit and search for the effort to represent the portrait
in truthful manner, when we look at his picture of “ Mrs. Siddons as the
Tragic Muse,” and at the “ Graces decorating the figure of Hymen,” knowing
that, in the composition of these pictures, Reynolds was but accepting the
pseudo-classical manner of the day, and that which was great in his art was
the very part that was unpopular in his time, the realistic element.
Romney, as has been well said, was much more penetrated with the classical
spirit than was his great rival. In his groups and in his classical portraits he
clad his sitters in classical costumes, the draperies of nearly all his female
figures impressing the spectator with a vague resemblance to Grecian art, and
probably it was this close response to the taste of the day that enabled him
to command a success. Nowadays, however, we understand that he lives as
a portrait painter, and not as a representative of pseudo-classicism, and his
Shakespearean and classical cartoons are of small value against his far more
simple and straightforward portraits.
The vein of neo-classicism descended to those who followed Gainsborough,
Reynolds and Romney, but, in the hands of such men as West and Barry it
became dull, formal and unconvincing, while the engravers of the day,
who were full of the classical spirit that was abroad, are now largely remem-
bered by reason of the translations they made of the designs and scenes for
which Angelica Kauffmann was so largely responsible. Of the artists who
belonged in complete fashion to the classical school of painting, when classical
art was most popular in England, surely Angelica Kauffmann is almost the
only one who is really remembered. In several other instances, where the
painters of the day ventured into those wide fields of classical and Biblical
story, we realise that the results were unsatisfactory, and we now record as
their greatest works those which had the least intimate contact with the ideas
of the classical school.
There were other and less important people who in Angelica’s time were
equally well known; and at one moment almost equally appreciated, but now
the work of Cipriani, for example, highly accomplished and charming in its
way, is regarded as pretty and trivial, and exactly the same thing has occurred
concerning the designs of Lady Diana Beauclerk, Pergolesi or Leverton, or
the sculpture of Mrs. Darner. Fuseli has dropped out of sight altogether. His
work was too eccentric and grotesque to appeal to the popular taste. Hamilton
and we have evidence in the designs which Flaxman made for Wedgwood, in
the work of the Brothers Adam, of Hepplewhite, and Sheraton in furniture,
in the buildings by Adam and by Chambers, and in almost all the sculpture of
the day, that not only did painting take upon itself this tinge of neo-classicism,
but the applied arts of the period were sustained upon exactly the same ideas.
Surely one of the reasons why Gainsborough was not appreciated at his proper
value was because he so seldom deferred to the prevailing taste; and yet
nowadays we realise that the classical works of Reynolds, his “ Infant
Hercules,” for example, were amongst his least successful labours, and we
ignore the classical spirit and search for the effort to represent the portrait
in truthful manner, when we look at his picture of “ Mrs. Siddons as the
Tragic Muse,” and at the “ Graces decorating the figure of Hymen,” knowing
that, in the composition of these pictures, Reynolds was but accepting the
pseudo-classical manner of the day, and that which was great in his art was
the very part that was unpopular in his time, the realistic element.
Romney, as has been well said, was much more penetrated with the classical
spirit than was his great rival. In his groups and in his classical portraits he
clad his sitters in classical costumes, the draperies of nearly all his female
figures impressing the spectator with a vague resemblance to Grecian art, and
probably it was this close response to the taste of the day that enabled him
to command a success. Nowadays, however, we understand that he lives as
a portrait painter, and not as a representative of pseudo-classicism, and his
Shakespearean and classical cartoons are of small value against his far more
simple and straightforward portraits.
The vein of neo-classicism descended to those who followed Gainsborough,
Reynolds and Romney, but, in the hands of such men as West and Barry it
became dull, formal and unconvincing, while the engravers of the day,
who were full of the classical spirit that was abroad, are now largely remem-
bered by reason of the translations they made of the designs and scenes for
which Angelica Kauffmann was so largely responsible. Of the artists who
belonged in complete fashion to the classical school of painting, when classical
art was most popular in England, surely Angelica Kauffmann is almost the
only one who is really remembered. In several other instances, where the
painters of the day ventured into those wide fields of classical and Biblical
story, we realise that the results were unsatisfactory, and we now record as
their greatest works those which had the least intimate contact with the ideas
of the classical school.
There were other and less important people who in Angelica’s time were
equally well known; and at one moment almost equally appreciated, but now
the work of Cipriani, for example, highly accomplished and charming in its
way, is regarded as pretty and trivial, and exactly the same thing has occurred
concerning the designs of Lady Diana Beauclerk, Pergolesi or Leverton, or
the sculpture of Mrs. Darner. Fuseli has dropped out of sight altogether. His
work was too eccentric and grotesque to appeal to the popular taste. Hamilton