Table of contents
Reviews are Everything
Reviews are everything in today's society. A bad product, poor service, or a lack-lustre experience can be instantly added online and no doubt can cause a significant amount of harm to a business's or an individual's livelihood.
It was perhaps no different in Victorian London, although you'd have to believe that news wouldn't have travelled quite as quickly as it does now, but I could be wrong on that!
The question is, should that business or individual fight back or should they accept the review, smile and move on from it? See if your answer to that will change after you've read the following case.
Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket
Whistler exhibited the work in the Grosvenor Gallery, an alternative to the Royal Academy exhibition, alongside works by Edward Burne-Jones and other artists.
Ruskin, who had been a champion of the Pre-Raphaelites and J.M.W. Turner, reviewed Whistler's work in his publication Fors Clavigera on 2nd July 1877.
Ruskin praised Burne-Jones, while he attacked Whistler:-
"For Mr. Whistler's own sake, no less than for the protection of the purchaser, Sir Coutts Lindsay [founder of the Grosvenor Gallery] ought not to have admitted works into the gallery in which the ill-educated conceit of the artist so nearly approached the aspect of willful 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."
A coxcomb is an archaic term for a vain and conceited man.
Whistler's Response
Whistler, seeing the attack in the newspaper, replied to his friend George Boughton, "It is the most debased style of criticism I have had thrown at me yet". He then went to his solicitor and drew up a writ for libel, which was served on Ruskin. Whistler hoped to recover £1,000 plus the costs of the action. The case came to trial the following year after delays caused by Ruskin's bouts of mental illness, while Whistler's financial condition continued to deteriorate. It was heard in the Exchequer Division of the High Court in November 1878, before Baron Huddleston and a special jury.
Cross Examination
Counsel for John Ruskin, Attorney General Sir John Holker, cross-examined Whistler:
Holker: "What is the subject of Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket?"
Whistler: "It is a night piece and represents the fireworks at Cremorne Gardens."
Holker: "Not a view of Cremorne?"
Whistler: "If it were A View of Cremorne it would certainly bring about nothing but disappointment on the part of the beholders. It is an artistic arrangement. That is why I call it a nocturne."
Holker: "Did it take you much time to paint the Nocturne in Black and Gold? How soon did you knock it off?"
Whistler: "Oh, I 'knock one off' possibly in a couple of days – one day to do the work and another to finish it." [the painting measures 24 3/4 x 18 3/8 inches]
Holker: "The labour of two days is that for which you ask two hundred guineas?"
Whistler: "No, I ask it for the knowledge I have gained in the work of a lifetime."
The Verdict
Whistler had counted on many artists to take his side as witnesses, but they refused, fearing damage to their reputations. The other witnesses for him were unconvincing and the jury's reaction to the work was derisive. With Ruskin's witnesses more impressive, including Edward Burne-Jones, and with Ruskin absent for medical reasons, Whistler's counterattack was ineffective. Nonetheless, the jury reached a verdict in favour of Whistler, but awarded a mere farthing in nominal damages, and the court costs were split. The cost of the case, together with huge debts from building his residence ("The White House" in Tite Street, Chelsea, bankrupted him by May 1879, resulting in an auction of his work, collections, and house.
Whistler published his account of the trial in the pamphlet Whistler v. Ruskin: Art and Art Critics, included in his later The Gentle Art of Making Enemies (1890), in December 1878, soon after the trial. Whistler's grand hope that the publicity of the trial would rescue his career was dashed as he lost rather than gained popularity among patrons because of it.
Conclusion
This was a case where both sides were tested, both financially and mentally. There wasn't really a winner, both men suffered; money spent, friends lost, reputations tarnished.
I can't help thinking that Whistler might have done better if he'd left well alone.
Our Whistler 80 High Resolution Image collection (including Nocturne in Black & Gold) is now available.
