CHAPTER IV.
THE ROYAL ACADEMY AND ITS INFLUENCE.
HOGARTH was the first original painter of England, and he was too original either to copy or to be copied; but he founded no school. What he did was to draw aside the curtain and show the light of nature to those who had been hitherto content to grope amid the extravagances of allegory, or the dreams of mythology. Two circumstances specially stood in the way of the progress of English art—the absence of a recognised academy, where a system of art-study could be pursued, and where rewards were offered for success; and the want of a public exhibition where painters could display their works, or learn from one another. There were no masters, properly speaking, in England, and therefore no pupils. Instead of gathering around them students on the atelier system of the Continent, painters in England had apprentices, who were employed to grind their colours, clean their brushes, and prepare their canvas. Such apprentices might become mechanical copyists of their employers. Nevertheless, such was the system under which all the pupils of all the great Italian Masters, some of whom became great masters in their turns, were trained. Several attempts to supply the want of a recognised system of art-teaching in London had been made from time to time. Sir Balthasar Gerbier had a drawing school in Whitefriars so long ago as the days of Charles I.; Van Dyck promoted studies of this kind at his house in Blackfriars; the Duke of Richmond in 1758 endeavoured to form a school at the Priory Garden, Westminster; Sir Godfrey Kneller supported an academy for drawing and painting at his house in Great Queen Street, till his death in 1723; another society existed in Greyhound Court, Arundel Street, Strand, till 1738, when the members joined the St. Martin's Lane Academy. These, like the following, were drawing and painting schools, under recognised teachers, but neither honour-bestowing, benevolent, nor representative bodies. Each pupil paid for the use of the models and premises, except those which were supplied by the Duke of Richmond to his guests. In 1724 Sir James Thornhill had opened an art academy at his house in James Street, Covent Garden; it existed till his death in 1734; he suggested to the Prime Minister, Lord Halifax, the idea of a Royal Academy. Vanderbank for a time had a school with living models in a disused Presbyterian chapel. William Shipley maintained an art academy in St. Martin's Lane for thirty years, and we know that Hogarth studied there. But none of these schools had a prescribed system of teaching. The absence of a public exhibition was felt as a great misfortune by the artists of this period. Hogarth, however, who regarded the painters of his country from a gloomy point of view, had no belief in the regenerating power of academies or paid professors.
Apart from the Exhibitions of the Society of Artists in 1760 and 1761, for which Hogarth designed the frontispiece and tailpiece to the catalogue, the first public exhibition of pictures was that of sign boards, promoted by Hogarth and B. Thornton in 1762. The impetus which Hogarth's success gave to native art, however, was soon visible; and the Society of Arts and the Dilettanti Society encouraged young painters by giving prizes, and by suggesting the formation of a guild or confraternity of artists. The first private exhibitions of pictures were held in the Foundling and St. Bartholomew's Hospitals, to which Hogarth and some of the leading painters of the day presented their works. This happened in 1746. In 1761 the Society of Artists was rent in two, and a new body, the Free Society, remained in the Adelphi. The Society of Artists removed to Spring Gardens, and in 1765 obtained a charter of incorporation: it was thenceforward called the Incorporated Society. Owing to the mismanagement and consequent dissensions in this body arose the Royal Academy of Arts, established by George III. on December 10th, 1768, though without a royal charter of incorporation. This institution, which was to exercise so marked an influence on the art of England, supplied two wants—a definite system of teaching, and an exhibition of meritorious works.
Before noticing the three eminent painters who mark a new era in English painting, and who became members of the new Academy, we must speak of others who were not without their influence on the world of art. Allan Ramsay (1713—1784) was considered one of the best portrait painters of his time. He was the son of Allan Ramsay, the poet, and was born at Edinburgh. After studying in Italy he came to London and established himself there, frequently visiting Edinburgh. Walpole specially praises his portraits of women, even preferring some of them to those of Reynolds. In 1767 Ramsay was made painter to George III., and his portraits of the King and Queen Charlotte are still at Kensington. As a man of literary tastes and great accomplishments, Allan Ramsay received the praises of Dr. Johnson and Sir Joshua Reynolds. In the Exhibition of 1862 was exhibited a portrait of the Duke of Argyll, by Ramsay. Portrait painting was still the popular branch of art in England, and the influence of Hogarth had produced no advance towards the study of landscape. Among those, however, who attempted it was GEORGE LAMBERT (1710—1765), a scene-painter, and founder of the "Beefsteak Club." This latter distinction makes him remembered, whilst his landscapes, after the manner of Poussin, are forgotten. William Smith (1707—1764), GEORGE SMITH (1714—1776), JOHN SMITH (1717—1764), usually known as the Smiths of Chichester, were very popular in their day. They painted landscapes from the scenery round Chichester, but gave it a foreign and unnatural air by copying Claude and Poussin. Though they exercised considerable influence on English landscape-painting, we cannot wonder at the popularity of these painters when we remember how utterly barren this branch of art still remained in England. Peter Monamy(1670?—1749) was a marine painter of the school of the Van de Veldes, whose pupil he may have been. A Sea piece by him at Hampton Court (No. 915) shows that he was an artist of a high order. Portraits of Monamy and his patron are in a picture by Hogarth at Knowsley. Samuel Scott (1710?—1772) was a friend of Hogarth, and a marine painter after the mode of the Van de Veldes. Walpole considered him "the first painter of his age, one whose works will charm in any age." They have, however, ceased to do so in this. Another marine painter was CHARLES BROOKING (1723—1759), one of whose productions is at Hampton Court. He occasionally worked in concert with DOMINIC SERRES (1722—1793), a Royal Academician (a native of Gascony), whose four large pictures of The Naval Review at Portsmouth, painted for George III., are likewise at Hampton Court. The works of Dominic Serres have been confounded with those of his son, JOHN THOMAS SERRES (1759—1825), who was a far superior painter to his father.
We pass on to speak of three celebrated painters, who when already famous became members of the Royal Academy—Wilson, Reynolds, and Gainsborough. The story of RICHARD WILSON (1713—1782) is the story of a disappointed man. Born at Pinegas, Montgomeryshire, the son of the parson of that place. Wilson's early taste for drawing attracted the attention of Sir George Wynne, by whom he was introduced to one Wright, a portrait painter in London. Following the popular branch of art in his day, Wilson in due course became a portrait painter, and although nothing remarkable is known of his portraits, he managed to make a living. In 1749 he visited Italy, and whilst waiting for an interview with the landscape painter Zuccarelli he is said to have sketched the view through the open window. The Italian advised the Englishman to devote himself henceforth to landscapes, and Wilson followed his advice. After six years' stay in Italy, during which period he became imbued with the beauties of that country, Wilson returned to England in 1755, and found Zuccarelli worshipped, whilst he himself was neglected. His Niobe, one version of which is in the National Gallery, was exhibited with the Society of Artists' Collection, in Spring Gardens, 1760, and made a great impression, but, in general, his pictures, infinitely superior to the mere decorations of the Italian, were criticised, and compared unfavourably with those of Zuccarelli, and it was not till long after Wilson's death that he was thoroughly appreciated. He was often compelled to sell his pictures to pawnbrokers, who, so it is said, could not sell them again. Poverty and neglect soured the painter's temper, and made him irritable and reckless. He had many enemies, and even Sir Joshua Reynolds treated him with injustice. Wilson was one of the original thirty-six members of the Royal Academy, and in 1776 applied for and obtained the post of Librarian to that body, the small salary helping the struggling man to live. The last years of his life were brightened by better fortune. A brother left him a legacy, and in 1780 Wilson retired to a pleasant home at Llanberis, Carnarvon, where he died two years later. Mr. Redgrave says of him: "There is this praise due to our countryman—that our landscape art, which had heretofore been derived from the meaner school of Holland, following his great example, looked thenceforth to Italy for its inspiration; that he proved the power of native art to compete on this ground also with the art of the foreigner, and prepared the way for the coming men, who, embracing Nature as their mistress, were prepared to leave all and follow her." Wilson frequently repeated his more successful pictures. The Ruins of the Villa of Mæcenas, at Tivoli (National Gallery), was painted five times by him. In the same Gallery are The Destruction of Niobe's Children, A Landscape with Figures, three Views in Italy, Lake Avernus with the Bay of Naples in the distance, &c. In the Duke of Westminster's collection are Apollo and the Seasons and The River Dee. Wilson, like many another man of genius, lived before his time, and was forced one day to ask Barry, the Royal Academician, if he knew any one mad enough to employ a landscape painter, and if so, whether he would recommend him.
Singularly unlike Wilson in his fortunes was a painter of the same school, named GEORGE BARRET (1728?—1784), an Irishman, who began life by colouring prints for a Dublin publisher, and became the popular landscape painter of the day, receiving vast sums for his pictures, whilst Wilson could hardly buy bread. Patronised by Burke, who gained him the appointment of Master-Painter to Chelsea Hospital, and receiving for his works £2,000 a year, Barret died poor, and his pictures, once so prized, are neglected, whilst the works of Wilson are now valued as they deserve. Another artist who derived his inspiration from Wilson was JULIUS CÆSAR IBBETSON (1759—1817), who painted landscapes with cattle and figures and rustic incidents with much success.
JOSHUA REYNOLDS (1723—1792) was born at Plympton, Devon, the son of a clergyman who was a master in the grammar school. His father had intended him for a doctor, but nature decided that Joshua Reynolds should be a painter. He preferred to read Richardson's "Treatise on Painting" to any other book, and when his taste for art became manifest he was sent to London to study with Hudson, the popular portrait painter of the day. Before this time, however, the young Reynolds had studied "The Jesuit's Perspective" with such success that he astonished his father by drawing Plympton school. There is at Plymouth a portrait of the Rev. Thomas Smart, tutor in Lord Edgcumbe's household, which is said to have been painted by Reynolds when twelve years old. It was in 1741 that Joshua Reynolds began his studies with Hudson, and as that worthy could teach him little or nothing, it is fortunate for art that the connection only lasted two years. On leaving Hudson's studio Reynolds returned to Devonshire, but we know little about his life there till the year 1746, when his father died, and the painter was established at Plymouth Dock, now Devonport, and was painting portraits. Many of these earlier works betray the stiffness and want of nature which their author had probably learnt from Hudson. Having visited London, and stayed for a time in St. Martin's Lane, the artists' quarter, Reynolds was enabled, in 1749, to realise his great wish, and go abroad. His friend Commodore Keppel carried him to Italy, and Reynolds, unfettered and unspoilt by the mechanical arts of his countrymen, studied the treasures of Italy, chiefly in Rome, and without becoming a copyist, was imbued with the beauties of the Italian school. Michelangelo was the object of his chief adoration, and his name was the most frequently on his lips, and the last in his addresses to the Royal Academy. A love of colour was the characteristic of Reynolds, and his use of brilliant and fugitive pigments accounts for the decay of many of his best works; he used to say jestingly that "he came off with flying colours." Doubtless the wish to rival the colouring of the Venetians led Reynolds to make numerous experiments which were often fatal to the preservation of his pictures. It has been said of him that "he loved his colours as other men love their children." In 1752 Reynolds returned to England, and settled in London, first in St. Martin's Lane, then in Newport Street, and finally in a grand house in Leicester Fields. His course was one of brilliant success. At his house, wit and wisdom met together, and the ponderous learning of Dr. Johnson, the eloquence of Burke, and the fancy of Goldsmith, combined to do honour to the courteous, gentle painter, whom all men loved, and of whom Goldsmith wrote:—
"His pencil was striking, resistless, and grand;
His manners were gentle, complying, and bland.
Still, born to improve us in every part—
His pencil our faces, his manners our heart."