“20th May, 1791.
“To John Leigh Philips,
“My Dear Sir,
“Your Account of the base situation of my friend Tate’s pictures in the R.A. hurts me much, tho’ from repeated instances of this sort of behaviour both to myself and Pupil I am not much surprised. ’Tis their duty to form the best exhibition in their power, by giving every picture the place its merit claims, but partiality pervades the whole, and I have frequently seen pictures unworthy of public exhibition possessing the most advantageous places. Who it is that misconducts this matter, I know not, but I have heard Farrington has much sway in the Academy.
“As you have given up the concern which Tate mentioned to me sometime ago, I must also give up the flattering idea which I had entertained of having my picture engraved by Heath. Martin & he wished again to see them. Have you heard anything from Heath about them, because the time of closing will be drawing nigh and I must determine what to do with ’em. I think they will be the last pictures I shall exhibit.
“I am happy you like your pictures, and am obliged to you for the remittance of £31. 10. 0. I could have wished for the ease of my own feelings to have excused the payment (for I stand much indebted to you) but I durst not offer it you, for fear of wounding yours at this time. However, anon, I will place a center picture between the two, to show how sincerely I think myself,
“Dr Sir, your obliged Friend,
“JOSH WRIGHT.
“St Ellens,
“May 20, 1791.”
In a biography of Wright, I am compelled to notice the unwarrantable attack made by the Messrs. Redgrave, in their “Century of Painters,” upon the reputation of Wright as a painter. Whether this arose from Wright’s seceding from the Academy, and so committing an unpardonable offence in the eyes of the Messrs. Redgrave, or from the fact that they judged Wright by unimportant works, as I shall presently show, or from both combined, I must leave the reader to decide.
Messrs. Redgrave state:—“Having made a journey into the County especially to see some of the works of this Derbyshire artist, we were shown many, both portraits, landscapes, and figure subjects, reported to be amongst his best, but always disappointing to our expectations.” Soon after the publication of the “Century of Painters,” I was at the trouble to make enquiries as to what pictures had been seen by the Messrs. Redgrave on the occasion of this visit, and found that they had not seen his best pictures at all, but only a few which were either left unfinished at his death or had been tampered with by others, together with some unimportant works. They did not see “The Orrery,” “The Gladiator,” “The Alchymist,” nor any of his important portraits or “conversation” pictures. The “Air Pump” picture was apparently not seen by them until later, when a portion of their criticisms had been written, and it then received encomium from them, which I now place in juxtaposition with what they had written a few pages before. The italics are mine.
Messrs. REDGRAVE v. Messrs. REDGRAVE.
JOS. WRIGHT, OF DERBY.
“As a portrait painter, judged by his best works, he was merely respectable. There is a painful solidity of execution, a want of quality and texture both in the flesh and draperies, so that when placed beside the works of Reynolds or Gainsboro’ his portraits remind us of the labours of the house painter; they show little variety of handling; flesh, drapery, sky, trees, all being executed in the same painty manner.”—“Century of Painters,” vol. 1, p. 258.
CRITICISMS ON THE PICTURE CALLED “AN EXPERIMENT WITH AN AIR PUMP.”
“We certainly should have placed Wright of Derby much lower as an artist had we not seen this very clever work.... The drawing and composition is satisfactory, and there is a great contrast in the expression and the varied attitudes of the several heads. The flesh of the faces is good in colour, and most carefully modelled; indeed the young woman on the right, in blue, and the lad drawing down a curtain to shut out the moonlight on the left, are worth special observation for this quality. The draperies are all carefully painted from nature (a merit apparent also in most of Wright’s portraits), and are in this respect very different from the sloppy negligence of some of the followers of Reynolds. There is a pretty little incident rendered with feeling and true expression, in the group of two young girls touched with childish sorrow and dread of what they are told is to be the result of ‘the experiment’—the death of the bird confined in the glass receiver of the machine.
“The colour of the whole is pleasant, the execution firm and solid, and the brown shadows, although dark, are sufficiently rich and luminous, the picture very agreeable in general tone.”—“Century of Painters,” vol. 1, p. 264.
Mr. R. Redgrave, R.A., in a letter to the writer, dated Nov. 30, 1861, wrote:—“I have seen on my journey and since, very many fine Wrights, and have reported to the Commissioners (International Exhibition) on six or eight, which they intend to ask or have asked for.” It is a difficult task to reconcile this statement with the “house painter” theory. Yet the “Century of Painters” was not published until 1866.