DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.66024#0095
THE ROYAL ACADEMY 47
to design pretty faces and graceful attitudes, without any authority from nature
to warrant the transaction.”
“ The Earwig ” has another criticism of her work, and remarks that “ her
allegories have too much the air of basso-relievo work.” It is clear that the
careful critics of her own period were able to see how faulty she was in draughts-
manship, and to detect the over-emotional character of her historical pictures.
At the same time, they all agree about the charm of her colouring and com-
position, and the beauty and decorative effect that she was able to put into
many of her groups.
To the criticisms of Angelica’s work may be added the following, from
Peter Pindar's (Dr. Wolcot) Lyric Odes to Royal Academicians, 1782, xn, 3 :
“ Angelica my plaudits gains,
Her art so sweetly canvas stains,
Her Dames, so gracious, give me such delight:
But, were she married to such gentle Males
As figure in her painted tales
I fear she’d find a stupid wedding Mate.”
A comment in a magazine of 1808, after her death, says that her draperies
were erroneous, the folds were too numerous and too abrupt, and wholly
dissimilar to what would be produced by any species of linen; and to suppose,
it adds, that Bacchantes and wood-nymphs wore cloth and silk was pre-
posterous and absurd.
In 1780 Brandt had died, and Angelica was therefore free to marry again,
if she so desired. As a matter of fact, her marriage to Zucchi took place in
the following year. In that year she sent in six pictures to the Academy :
“ Religion,” a picture based on a book written by Dr. Fordyce, called “ The
Temple of Virtue two classical groups, one called “ Modesty embracing
virtuous love,” and the other two entitled “ A Sybil ” and “ A Vestal.” With
them she exhibited the design for a fan which it would be particularly inter-
esting to trace, and the portrait of a lady and her daughter, which it is quite
impossible to identify. With regard to the design for a fan, we have a refer-
ence to an exhibition in that year, to which Sir Joshua took “ Little Burney,”
and in her Diary she thus alludes to the visit. She says : “ I passed the whole
day at Sir Joshua Reynolds’s with Miss Palmer, who, in the morning, took me
to see some most beautiful fans painted by Poggi, from designs of Sir Joshua,
Angelica, West and Cipriani, on leather, they are more delightful than can well
be imagined, one was bespoke by the Duchess of Devonshire for a present to
some woman of rank in France. It was to cost .£30.” 1 “ Maclvor Percival,”
in her Fan Book, tells us that some of these very fans by Poggi, and the original
designs by Angelica, Bartolozzi, West and Cipriani, were sold at Christie’s
the following year, and that with them was sold an original drawing by
1 Lady Mayo has a fan that Angelica, it is said, painted herself for Miss Ann Rushout,
and which has come to her direct by bequest from the lady’s great-niece.
to design pretty faces and graceful attitudes, without any authority from nature
to warrant the transaction.”
“ The Earwig ” has another criticism of her work, and remarks that “ her
allegories have too much the air of basso-relievo work.” It is clear that the
careful critics of her own period were able to see how faulty she was in draughts-
manship, and to detect the over-emotional character of her historical pictures.
At the same time, they all agree about the charm of her colouring and com-
position, and the beauty and decorative effect that she was able to put into
many of her groups.
To the criticisms of Angelica’s work may be added the following, from
Peter Pindar's (Dr. Wolcot) Lyric Odes to Royal Academicians, 1782, xn, 3 :
“ Angelica my plaudits gains,
Her art so sweetly canvas stains,
Her Dames, so gracious, give me such delight:
But, were she married to such gentle Males
As figure in her painted tales
I fear she’d find a stupid wedding Mate.”
A comment in a magazine of 1808, after her death, says that her draperies
were erroneous, the folds were too numerous and too abrupt, and wholly
dissimilar to what would be produced by any species of linen; and to suppose,
it adds, that Bacchantes and wood-nymphs wore cloth and silk was pre-
posterous and absurd.
In 1780 Brandt had died, and Angelica was therefore free to marry again,
if she so desired. As a matter of fact, her marriage to Zucchi took place in
the following year. In that year she sent in six pictures to the Academy :
“ Religion,” a picture based on a book written by Dr. Fordyce, called “ The
Temple of Virtue two classical groups, one called “ Modesty embracing
virtuous love,” and the other two entitled “ A Sybil ” and “ A Vestal.” With
them she exhibited the design for a fan which it would be particularly inter-
esting to trace, and the portrait of a lady and her daughter, which it is quite
impossible to identify. With regard to the design for a fan, we have a refer-
ence to an exhibition in that year, to which Sir Joshua took “ Little Burney,”
and in her Diary she thus alludes to the visit. She says : “ I passed the whole
day at Sir Joshua Reynolds’s with Miss Palmer, who, in the morning, took me
to see some most beautiful fans painted by Poggi, from designs of Sir Joshua,
Angelica, West and Cipriani, on leather, they are more delightful than can well
be imagined, one was bespoke by the Duchess of Devonshire for a present to
some woman of rank in France. It was to cost .£30.” 1 “ Maclvor Percival,”
in her Fan Book, tells us that some of these very fans by Poggi, and the original
designs by Angelica, Bartolozzi, West and Cipriani, were sold at Christie’s
the following year, and that with them was sold an original drawing by
1 Lady Mayo has a fan that Angelica, it is said, painted herself for Miss Ann Rushout,
and which has come to her direct by bequest from the lady’s great-niece.