Prologue
“For Mr. Whistler’s own sake, no less than for the protection of the purchaser, Sir Coutts Lindsay ought not to have admitted works into the gallery in which the ill-educated conceit of the artist so nearly approached the aspect of wilful imposture. I have seen, and heard, much of cockney impudence before now; but never expected to hear a coxcomb ask two hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public’s face.”
John Ruskin.
Professor John Ruskin in Fors Clavigera, July 2, 1877.
The Action
In the Court of Exchequer Division on Monday, before Baron Huddleston and a special jury, the case of Whistler v. Ruskin Lawsuit for Libel against Mr. Ruskin Nov. 15, 1878. came on for hearing. In this action the plaintiff claimed £1000 damages.
Mr. Serjeant Parry and Mr. Petheram appeared for the plaintiff; and the Attorney-General and Mr. Bowen represented the defendant.
Mr. Serjeant Parry, in opening the case on behalf of the plaintiff, said that Mr. Whistler had followed the profession of an artist for many years, both in this and other countries. Mr. Ruskin, as would be probably known to the gentlemen of the jury, held perhaps the highest position in Europe and America as an art critic, and some of his works were, he might say, destined to immortality. He was, in fact, a gentleman of the highest reputation. In the July number of Fors Clavigera there appeared passages in which Mr. Ruskin criticised what he called “the modern school,” and then followed the paragraph of which Mr. Whistler now complained, and which was: “For Mr. Whistler’s own sake, no less than for the protection of the purchaser, Sir Coutts Lindsay ought not to have admitted works into the gallery in which the ill-educated conceit of the artist so nearly approached the aspect of wilful imposture. I have seen, and heard, much of cockney impudence before now; but never expected to hear a coxcomb ask two hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public’s face.” That passage, no doubt, had been read by thousands, and so it had gone forth to the world that Mr. Whistler was an ill-educated man, an impostor, a cockney pretender, and an impudent coxcomb.
Mr. Whistler, cross-examined by the Attorney-General, said: “I have sent pictures to the Academy which have not been received. I believe that is the experience of all artists…. The nocturne in black and gold is a night piece, and represents the fireworks at Cremorne.”
James McNeill Whistler
Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket
1875
60.2 x 46.7 cm
Oil on panel
Photo © 2004, Detroit Institute of Arts
Gift of Dexter M. Ferry, Jr.
“Not a view of Cremorne?”
“If it were called a view of Cremorne, it would certainly bring about nothing but disappointment on the part of the beholders. (Laughter.) It is an artistic arrangement. It was marked two hundred guineas.”
“Is not that what we, who are not artists, would call a stiffish price?”
“I think it very likely that that may be so.”
“But artists always give good value for their money, don’t they?”
“I am glad to hear that so well established. (A laugh.) I do not know Mr. Ruskin, or that he holds the view that a picture should only be exhibited when it is finished, when nothing can be done to improve it, but that is a correct view; the arrangement in black and gold was a finished picture, I did not intend to do anything more to it.”
“Now, Mr. Whistler. Can you tell me how long it took you to knock off that nocturne?”
… “I beg your pardon?” (Laughter.)
“Oh! I am afraid that I am using a term that applies rather perhaps to my own work. I should have said, How long did you take to paint that picture?”
“Oh, no! permit me, I am too greatly flattered to think that you apply, to work of mine, any term that you are in the habit of using with reference to your own. Let us say then how long did I take to—’knock off,’ I think that is it—to knock off that nocturne; well, as well as I remember, about a day.”
“Only a day?”
“Well, I won’t be quite positive; I may have still put a few more touches to it the next day if the painting were not dry. I had better say then, that I was two days at work on it.”
“Oh, two days! The labour of two days, then, is that for which you ask two hundred guineas!”
“No;—I ask it for the knowledge of a lifetime.” (Applause.)
“You have been told that your pictures exhibit some eccentricities?”
“Yes; often.” (Laughter.)
“You send them to the galleries to incite the admiration of the public?”
“That would be such vast absurdity on my part, that I don’t think I could.” (Laughter.)
“You know that many critics entirely disagree with your views as to these pictures?”
“It would be beyond me to agree with the critics.”
“You don’t approve of criticism then?”
James McNeill Whistler
Arrangement in Black, No. 3:
Sir Henry Irving as Philip II of Spain
1876
Oil on canvas
215.3 x 108.6 cm
© 2000–2009 The Metropolitan Museum of Art
“I should not disapprove in any way of technical criticism by a man whose whole life is passed in the practice of the science which he criticises; but for the opinion of a man whose life is not so passed I would have as little regard as you would, if he expressed an opinion on law.”
“You expect to be criticised?”
“Yes; certainly. And I do not expect to be affected by it, until it becomes a case of this kind. It is not only when criticism is inimical that I object to it, but also when it is incompetent. I hold that none but an artist can be a competent critic.”
“You put your pictures upon the garden wall, Mr. Whistler, or hang them on the clothes line, don’t you—to mellow?”
“I do not understand.”
“Do you not put your paintings out into the garden?”
“Oh! I understand now. I thought, at first, that you were perhaps again using a term that you are accustomed to yourself. Yes; I certainly do put the canvases into the garden that they may dry in the open air while I am painting, but I should be sorry to see them ‘mellowed.’”
“Why do you call Mr. Irving ‘an arrangement in black’?” (Laughter.)
Mr. Baron Huddleston: “It is the picture and not Mr. Irving that is the arrangement.”
A discussion ensued as to the inspection of the pictures, and incidentally Baron Huddleston remarked that a critic must be competent to form an opinion, and bold enough to express that opinion in strong terms if necessary.
The Attorney-General complained that no answer was given to a written application by the defendant’s solicitors for leave to inspect the pictures which the plaintiff had been called upon to produce at the trial. The Witness replied that Mr. Arthur Severn had been to his studio to inspect the paintings, on behalf of the defendant, for the purpose of passing his final judgment upon them and settling that question for ever.
Cross-examination continued: “What was the subject of the nocturne in blue and silver belonging to Mr. Grahame?”
“A moonlight effect on the river near old Battersea Bridge.”
“What has become of the nocturne in black and gold?”
“I believe it is before you.” (Laughter.)
James McNeill Whistler
Nocturne: Blue and Gold - Old Battersea Bridge
c 1872-5
Oil on canvas
922 x 760 x 83 mm
Presented by The Art Fund 1905
The picture called the nocturne in blue and silver, was now produced in Court.
“That is Mr. Grahame’s picture. It represents Battersea Bridge by moonlight.”
Baron Huddleston: “Which part of the picture is the bridge?” (Laughter.)
His Lordship earnestly rebuked those who laughed. And witness explained to his Lordship the composition of the picture.
“Do you say that this is a correct representation of Battersea Bridge?”
“I did not intend it to be a ‘correct’ portrait of the bridge. It is only a moonlight scene and the pier in the centre of the picture may not be like the piers at Battersea Bridge as you know them in broad daylight. As to what the picture represents that depends upon who looks at it. To some persons it may represent all that is intended; to others it may represent nothing.”
“The prevailing colour is blue?”
“Perhaps.”
“Are those figures on the top of the bridge intended for people?”
“They are just what you like.”
“Is that a barge beneath?”
“Yes. I am very much encouraged at your perceiving that. My whole scheme was only to bring about a certain harmony of colour.”
“What is that gold-coloured mark on the right of the picture like a cascade?”
“The ‘cascade of gold’ is a firework.”
A second nocturne in blue and silver was then produced.
Witness: “That represents another moonlight scene on the Thames looking up Battersea Reach. I completed the mass of the picture in one day.”
The Court then adjourned. During the interval the jury visited the Probate Court to view the pictures which had been collected in the Westminster Palace Hotel.
After the Court had re-assembled the “Nocturne in Black and Gold” was again produced, and Mr. Whistler was further cross-examined by the Attorney-General: “The picture represents a distant view of Cremorne with a falling rocket and other fireworks. It occupied two days, and is a finished picture. The black monogram on the frame was placed in its position with reference to the proper decorative balance of the whole.”
“You have made the study of Art your study of a lifetime. Now, do you think that anybody looking at that picture might fairly come to the conclusion that it had no peculiar beauty?”
“I have strong evidence that Mr. Ruskin did come to that conclusion.”
“Do you think it fair that Mr. Ruskin should come to that conclusion?”
“What might be fair to Mr. Ruskin I cannot answer.”
“Then you mean, Mr. Whistler, that the initiated in technical matters might have no difficulty in understanding your work. But do you think now that you could make me see the beauty of that picture?”
The witness then paused, and examining attentively the Attorney-General’s face and looking at the picture alternately, said, after apparently giving the subject much thought, while the Court waited in silence for his answer:
No! Do you know I fear it would be as hopeless as for the musician to pour his notes into the ear of a deaf man. (Laughter.)
“I offer the picture, which I have conscientiously painted, as being worth two hundred guineas. I have known unbiassed people express the opinion that it represents fireworks in a night-scene. I would not complain of any person who might simply take a different view.”
The Court then adjourned.
The Attorney-General, in resuming his address on behalf of the defendant on Tuesday, said he hoped to convince the jury, before his case closed, that Mr. Ruskin’s criticism upon the plaintiff’s pictures was perfectly fair and bonâ fide;[1] and that, however severe it might be, there was nothing that could reasonably be complained of…. Let them examine the nocturne in blue and silver, said to represent Battersea Bridge. What was that structure in the middle? Was it a telescope or a fire-escape? Was it like Battersea Bridge? What were the figures at the top of the bridge? And if they were horses and carts, how in the name of fortune were they to get off? Now, about these pictures, if the plaintiff’s argument was to avail, they must not venture publicly to express an opinion, or they would have brought against them an action for damages.
After all, Critics had their uses.[2] He should like to know what would become of Poetry, of Politics, of Painting, if Critics were to be extinguished? Every Painter struggled to obtain fame.
No Artist could obtain fame, except through criticism.[3]
[1] “Enter now the great room with the Veronese at the end of it, for which the painter (quite rightly) was summoned before the Inquisition of State.”—Prof. John Ruskin: Guide to Principal Pictures, Academy of Fine Arts, Venice. [ Feast in the House of Levi ]
[2] “I have now given up ten years of my life to the single purpose of enabling myself to judge rightly of art … earnestly desiring to ascertain, and to be able to teach, the truth respecting art; also knowing that this truth was by time and labour definitely ascertainable.”—Prof. Ruskin: Modern Painters, Vol. III.
“Thirdly, that TRUTHS OF COLOUR ARE THE LEAST IMPORTANT OF ALL TRUTHS.”—Mr. Ruskin, Prof, of Art: Modern Painters, Vol. I. Chap. V.
“And that colour is indeed a most unimportant characteristic of objects, would be further evident on the slightest consideration. The colour of plants is constantly changing with the season … but the nature and essence of the thing are independent of these changes. An oak is an oak, whether green with spring, or red with winter; a dahlia is a dahlia, whether it be yellow or crimson; and if some monster hunting florist should ever frighten the flower blue, still it will be a dahlia; but not so if the same arbitrary changes could be effected in its form. Let the roughness of the bark and the angles of the boughs be smoothed or diminished, and the oak ceases to be an oak; but let it retain its universal structure and outward form, and though its leaves grow white, or pink, or blue, or tri-colour, it would be a white oak, or a pink oak, or a republican oak, but an oak still.”—John Ruskin, Esq., M.A., Teacher and Slade Prof. of Fine Arts: Modern Painters.
REFLECTION:
“In conduct and in conversation,
It did a sinner good to hear
Him deal in ratiocination!”
[3] “Canaletto, had he been a great painter, might have cast his reflections wherever he chose … but he is a little and a bad painter.”—Mr. Ruskin, Art Critic.
“I repeat there is nothing but the work of Prout which is true, living, or right in its general impression, and nothing, therefore, so inexhaustively agreeable” (sic).—J. Ruskin, Art Professor: Modern Painters.
… As to these pictures, they could only come to the conclusion that they were strange fantastical conceits, not worthy to be called works of Art.
… Coming to the libel, the Attorney-General said it had been contended that Mr. Ruskin was not justified in interfering with a man’s livelihood. But why not? Then it was said, “Oh! you have ridiculed Mr. Whistler’s pictures.” If Mr. Whistler disliked ridicule, he should not have subjected himself to it by exhibiting publicly such productions. If a man thought a picture was a daub [4] he had a right to say so, without subjecting himself to a risk of an action.
He would not be able to call Mr. Ruskin, as he was far too ill to attend; but, if he had been able to appear, he would have given his opinion of Mr. Whistler’s work in the witness-box.
He had the highest appreciation for completed pictures;[5] and he required from an Artist that he should possess something more than a few flashes of genius![6]
[4] “Now it is evident that in Rembrandt’s system, while the contrasts are not more right than with Veronese, the colours are all wrong from beginning to end.”—John Ruskin, Art Authority. he had a right to say so, without subjecting himself to a risk of an action.
[5] “I was pleased by a little unpretending modern German picture at Dusseldorf, by Bosch, representing a boy carving a model of his sheep dog in wood.”—J. Ruskin: Modern Painters.
[6]“I have just said that every class of rock, earth and cloud must be known by the painter with geologic and meteorologic accuracy.”—Slade Prof. Ruskin: Modern Painters.
Mr. Ruskin entertaining those views, it was not wonderful that his attention should be attracted to Mr. Whistler’s pictures. He subjected the pictures, if they chose, [7] to ridicule and contempt. Then Mr. Ruskin spoke of “the ill-educated [8] conceit of the artist, so nearly approaching the action of imposture.” If his pictures were mere extravagances, how could it redound to the credit of Mr. Whistler to send them to the Grosvenor Gallery to be exhibited? Some artistic gentleman from Manchester, Leeds, or Sheffield might perhaps be induced to buy one of the pictures because it was a Whistler, and what Mr. Ruskin meant was that he might better have remained in Manchester, Sheffield, or Leeds, with his money in his pocket. It was said that the term “ill-educated conceit” ought never to have been applied to Mr. Whistler, who had devoted the whole of his life to educating himself in Art; [9] but Mr. Ruskin’s views [10] as to his success did not accord with those of Mr. Whistler. The libel complained of said also, “I never expected to hear a coxcomb ask two hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public’s face.” What was a coxcomb? He had looked the word up, and found that it came from the old idea of the licensed jester who wore a cap and bells with a cock’s comb in it, who went about making jests for the amusement of his master and family. If that were the true definition, then Mr. Whistler should not complain, because his pictures had afforded a most amusing jest! He did not know when so much amusement had been afforded to the [11] British Public as by Mr. Whistler’s pictures. He had now finished. Mr. Ruskin had lived a long life without being attacked, and no one had attempted to control his pen through the medium of a jury. Mr. Ruskin said, through him, as his counsel, that he did not retract one syllable of his criticism, believing it was right. Of course, if they found a verdict against Mr. Ruskin, he would have to cease writing, [12] but it would be an evil day for Art, in this country, when Mr. Ruskin would be prevented from indulging in legitimate and proper criticism, by pointing out what was beautiful and what was not. [13]
[7] “Vulgarity, dulness, or impiety will indeed always express themselves through art, in brown and gray, as in Rembrandt.”—Prof. John Ruskin: Modern Painters.
[8 ]“It is physically impossible, for instance, rightly to draw certain forms of the upper clouds with a brush; nothing will do it but the palette knife with loaded white after the blue ground is prepared.”—John Ruskin, Prof. of Painting.
[9] “And thus we are guided, almost forced, by the laws of nature, to do right in art. Had granite been white and marble speckled (and why should this not have been, but by the definite Divine appointment for the good of man?), the huge figures of the Egyptian would have been as oppressive to the sight as cliffs of snow, and the Venus de Medicis would have looked like some exquisitely graceful species of frog.”—Slade Professor John Ruskin.
[10] “The principal object in the foreground of Turner’s ‘Building of Carthage’ is a group of children sailing toy boats. The exquisite choice of this incident … is quite as appreciable when it is told, as when it is seen—it has nothing to do with the technicalities of painting; … such a thought as this is something far above all art.”—John Ruskin, Art Professor: Modern Painters.
REFLECTION:
“Be not righteous overmuch, neither make thyself overwise; why shouldest thou destroy thyself!”
[11] “It is especially to be remembered that drawings of this simple character [Prout's and W. Hunt's] were made for these same middle classes, exclusively; and even for the second order of middle classes, more accurately expressed by the term ‘bourgeoisie.’ They gave an unquestionable tone of liberal-mindedness to a suburban villa, and were the cheerfullest possible decorations for a moderate sized breakfast parlour, opening on a nicely mown lawn.”—John Ruskin, Art Professor: Notes on S. Prout and W. Hunt.
[12] “It seems to me, and seemed always probable, that I might have done much more good in some other way.”—Prof. John Ruskin, Art Teacher: Modern Painters, Vol. V.
[13] “Give thorough examination to the wonderful painting, as such, in the great Veronese … and then, for contrast with its reckless power, and for final image to be remembered of sweet Italian art in its earnestness … the Beata Catherine Vigri’s St. Ursula, … I will only say in closing, as I said of the Vicar’s picture in beginning, that it would be well if any of us could do such things nowadays—and more especially if our vicars and young ladies could.”—John Ruskin, Prof. of Fine Art: Guide to Principal Pictures, Academy of Fine Arts, Venice.
Evidence was then called on behalf of the defendant. Witnesses for the defendant, Messrs. Edward Burne-Jones, Frith, and Tom Taylor.
Edward Burne-Jones
‘The Beguiling of Merlin’
1872-7
Oil on canvas
186 x 111cm
www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/ladylever/
Mr. Edward Burne-Jones called.
Mr. Bowen, by way of presenting him properly to the consideration of the Court, proceeded to read extracts of eulogistic appreciation of this artist from the defendant’s own writings.
The examination of witness then commenced; and in answer to Mr. Bowen, Mr. Jones said: “I am a painter, and have devoted about twenty years to the study. I have painted various works, including the ‘Days of Creation’ and ‘Venus’s Mirror,’ both of which were exhibited at the Grosvenor Gallery in 1877. I have also exhibited ‘Deferentia,’ ‘Fides,’ ‘St. George,’ and ‘Sybil.’ I have one work, ‘Merlin and Vivian,’ now being exhibited in Paris. In my opinion complete finish ought to be the object of all artists. A picture ought not to fall short of what has been for ages considered complete finish.”
Mr. Bowen: “Do you see any art quality in that nocturne, Mr. Jones?”
Mr. Jones: “Yes … I must speak the truth, you know”…. (Emotion.)
Mr. Bowen: … “Yes. Well, Mr. Jones, what quality do you see in it?”
Mr. Jones: “Colour. It has fine colour, and atmosphere.”
Mr. Bowen: “Ah. Well, do you consider detail and composition essential to a work of Art?”
Mr. Jones: “Most certainly I do.”
Mr. Bowen: “Then what detail and composition do you find in this nocturne?”
Mr. Jones: “Absolutely none.”[14]
[13] “Of the estimate which shall be formed of Mr. Jones’s own work….
“His work, first, is simply the only art-work at present produced in England which will be received by the future as ‘classic’ in its kind—the best that has been or could be.”—Prof. Ruskin: Fors Clavigera, July 2, 1877.
“The action of imagination of the highest power in Burne Jones, under the conditions of scholarship, of social beauty, and of social distress, which necessarily aid, thwart, and colour it in the nineteenth century, are alone in art,—unrivalled in their kind; and I know that these will be immortal, as the best things the mid-nineteenth century in England could do, in such true relations as it had, through all confusion, retained with the paternal and everlasting Art of the world.”—John Ruskin, LL.D.: Fors Clavigera, July 2, 1877.
[14] REFLECTION:
There is a cunning condition of mind that requires to know. On the Stock Exchange this insures safe investment. In the painting trade this would induce certain picture-makers to cross the river at noon, in a boat, before negotiating a Nocturne, in order to make sure of detail on the bank, that honestly the purchaser might exact, and out of which he might have been tricked by the Night!
Mr. Bowen: “Do you think two hundred guineas a large price for that picture?”
Mr. Jones: “Yes. When you think of the amount of earnest work done for a smaller sum.”
Examination continued: “Does it show the finish of a complete work of art?”
“Not in any sense whatever. The picture representing a night scene on Battersea Bridge, is good in colour, but bewildering in form; and it has no composition and detail. A day or a day and a half seems a reasonable time within which to paint it. It shows no finish—it is simply a sketch. The nocturne in black and gold has not the merit of the other two pictures, and it would be impossible to call it a serious work of art. Mr. Whistler’s picture is only one of the thousand failures to paint night. The picture is not worth two hundred guineas.”
Mr. Bowen here proposed to ask the witness to look at a picture of Titian,[15] in order to show what finish was.[16]
Mr. Serjeant Parry objected.
Mr. Baron Huddleston: “You will have to prove that it is a Titian.”
Mr. Bowen: “I shall be able to do that.”
Mr. Baron Huddleston: “That can only be by repute. I do not want to raise a laugh, but there is a well-known case of ‘an undoubted’ Titian being purchased with a view to enabling students and others to find out how to produce his wonderful colours. With that object the picture was rubbed down, and they found a red surface, beneath which they thought was the secret, but on continuing the rubbing they discovered a full length portrait of George III. in uniform!”
The witness was then asked to look at the picture, and he said: “It is a portrait of Doge Andrea Gritti, and I believe it is a real Titian. It shows finish. It is a very perfect sample of the highest finish of ancient art.[17] The flesh is perfect, the modelling of the face is round and good. That is an ‘arrangement in flesh and blood!’”
The witness having pointed out the excellences of that portrait, said: “I think Mr. Whistler had great powers at first, which he has not since justified. He has evaded the difficulties of his art, because the difficulty of an artist increases every day of his professional life.”
Cross-examined: “What is the value of this picture of Titian?”—”That is a mere accident of the saleroom.”
“Is it worth one thousand guineas?”—”It would be worth many thousands to me.”
[15] “I believe the world may see another Titian, and another Raffaelle, before it sees another Rubens.”—Mr. Ruskin.
[16] … “The Butcher’s Dog, in the corner of Mr. Mulready’s ‘Butt,’ displays, perhaps, the most wonderful, because the most dignified, finish … and assuredly the most perfect unity of drawing and colour which the entire range of ancient and modern art can exhibit. Albert Durer is, indeed, the only rival who might be suggested.”—John Ruskin Slade Professor of Art: Modern Painters.
[17] … “I feel entitled to point out that the picture by Titian, produced in the case of Whistler v. Ruskin, is an early specimen of that master, and does not represent adequately the style and qualities which have obtained for him his great reputation—one obvious point of difference between this and his more mature work being the far greater amount of finish—I do not say completeness—exhibited in it … and as the picture was brought forward with a view to inform the jury as to the nature of the work of the greatest painter, and more especially as to the high finish introduced in it, it is evident that it was calculated to produce an erroneous impression on their minds, if indeed any one present at the inquiry can hold that those gentlemen were in any way fitted to understand the issues raised therein.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
A. MOORE.
“Nov. 28.”
Extract of a letter to the Editor of the Echo.
William Powell Frith
The Derby Day
1856-8
Oil on canvas
1405 x 2640 x 140 mm painting
The Tate Collection
Mr. Frith was then examined: “I am an R.A.; and have devoted my life to painting. I am a member of the Academies of various countries. I am the author of the ‘Railway Station,’ ‘Derby Day,’ and ‘Rake’s Progress.’ I have seen Mr. Whistler’s pictures, and in my opinion they are not serious works of art.
The nocturne in black and gold is not a serious work to me. I cannot see anything of the true representation of water and atmosphere in the painting of ‘Battersea Bridge.’ There is a pretty colour which pleases the eye, but there is nothing more. To my thinking, the description of moonlight is not true. The picture is not worth two hundred guineas. Composition and detail are most important matters in a picture. In our profession men of equal merit differ as to the character of a picture. One may blame, while another praises, a work. I have not exhibited at the Grosvenor Gallery. I have read Mr. Ruskin’s works.”
Mr. Frith here got down.
“It was just a toss up whether I became an Artist or an Auctioneer.”
W. P. Frith, R.A.
REFLECTION:
He must have tossed up.
REFLECTION:
A decidedly honest man—I have not heard of him since.
Mr. Tom Taylor—Poor Law Commissioner, Editor of Punch, and so forth—and so forth:—”I am an art critic of long standing. I have been engaged in this capacity by the Times, and other journals, for the last twenty years. I edited the ‘Life of Reynolds,’ and ‘Haydon.’ I have always studied art. I have seen these pictures of Mr. Whistler’s when they were exhibited at the Dudley and the Grosvenor Galleries. The ‘Nocturne’ in black and gold I do not think a serious work of art.” The witness here took from the pockets of his overcoat copies of the Times, and with the permission of the Court, read again with unction his own criticism, to every word of which he said he still adhered. “All Mr. Whistler’s work is unfinished. It is sketchy. He, no doubt, possesses artistic qualities, and he has got appreciation of qualities of tone, but he is not complete, and all his works are in the nature of sketching. I have expressed, and still adhere to the opinion, that these pictures only come ‘one step nearer pictures than a delicately tinted wall-paper.’”
REFLECTION:
To perceive in Ruskin’s army Tom Taylor, his champion—whose opinion he prizes—Mr. Frith, his ideal—was gratifying. But to sit and look at Mr. Burne Jones, in common cause with Tom Taylor—whom he esteems, and Mr. Frith—whom he respects—conscientiously appraising the work of a confrère—was a privilege!!
This ended the case for the defendant.
Verdict for plaintiff.
Damages one farthing.
![Autoportrait Location: Barcelona Date: Winter/1899 [~1900] Medium: Charcoal on paper Dimension: 22,5 x 16,5 cm Collection: Museu Picasso, Barcelona](http://janineflynn.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/picasso-self-portrait-18991.jpg "picasso-self-portrait-18991")
