Andrew Buck Paper

Andrew Buck, “A Stacked Deck:  Early Works of William Hogarth and Joshua Reynolds Held to Their Own Standards of Beauty,” BOZetto, Vol. 2, Spring 2014, 1-4.

Among British artists, the most influential theorists of the eighteenth century were undoubtedly William Hogarth and Joshua Reynolds.  The two men espoused separate views of what constituted beauty in art, particularly with regard to the imitation of nature.  But could Hogarth’s and Reynolds’ early painted works measure up to their later published standards, and does it matter if they do?  Hogarth’s The Graham Children (1742) and Reynolds’ Thomas and Martha Neate, Later Mrs. Williams, and His Tutor, Mr.Needham (1748) present an opportunity to observe the two artists’ handling of child subjects while manifesting their respective ideals of beauty.

Joshua Reynolds and Neoclassicism.  It seems only natural that a man of talent such as Joshua Reynolds, who abandoned the portrait studio of Thomas Hudson for the works of Raphael, Titian, and Michelangelo in Rome[1] would become entirely enamored of the antique style and become a crusader for Neoclassicism.  In his discourse delivered to the students of the British Royal Academy in 1771, Reynolds holds up Michelangelo as the greatest authority on painting.[2]  It is the work of the ancients that Reynolds sees as worthy to be copied and replicated in his “grand manner,” a way of integrating the ideas of the masters into one form.[3]  Reynolds sees nature as something for the student of art to observe and to improve upon.[4]  He in fact holds the artistic achievements of the ancients in a higher regard as inspiration for the art student than nature itself, placing the work of ancients above all criticism.[5]  In contrast, and showing his views toward nature, he advises his students never to draw from the same model repeatedly lest they “overlook defects and mistake deformity for beauty.”[6]  What I have observed is that Reynolds wants his students to have copied the works of classical artists so that they may take nature, which he considers in need of improvement and make it into something more graceful and reminiscent of classical forms.

Reynolds’ advice on the more mechanical and less theoretical aspects of painting is concerned with the use of color and drapery.  Reynolds advises, “the historical painter never enters into the detail of colours [sic]…[or] debases his conceptions with minute attention to the discriminations of drapery.”[7]  I believe that Reynolds found the colors of nature both difficult and unnecessary to imitate in his “language of art.”[8]   Color for Reynolds seems to hold little value as a vehicle for conveying the high ideas of his “grand manner,” especially in comparison to the importance of line.  Drapery holds a similar place in that for Reynolds the fabric itself does not convey the message, but the idealized body underneath. To summarize Reynolds’ concept of beauty, the ideal painting must be observed in nature, perfected with knowledge and technical skill earned through study of classical works, and portray a theme through the tools of drawing and composition.

Joshua Reynolds’ Theory Applied.  Most often the artist is critiqued from the standards of whatever critic or layman cares to remark on his or her work either in passing or in a more official capacity.  It would seem to be common sense that if a work of art is held to the theoretical standards set up by its creator, it should, logically, be favorably received or at least show signs of conforming to the artist’s personal aesthetic value.  Following this particular logic, I have chosen to analyze Sir Joshua Reynolds’ painting titled, Thomas and Martha Neate, Later Mrs. Williams, and His Tutor, Mr.Needham, (1748).  I have chosen this particular work for two reasons.  First, it predates Reynolds’ Discourses on Art (1770-71) by more than a decade, serving as seeds of the ideas presented there.  In fact, it was painted the year before Reynolds was taken to Rome and exposed to the great ancient and early modern masterpieces.[9]  Second, it is a portrait of well-to-do children, which will aid in a practical comparison with the approach of Hogarth to the same subject.

In terms of composition, Reynolds’ placement of two children and their tutor forms a right triangle, which seems stable and pediment-like.  Reynolds places a lamb in the foreground to distance the viewer from the subject.  The figures seem well drawn, though rigid and similar to statues in the way that they connect with the ground.  The setting is outdoors, but the presence of the building at left is felt as a very solid presence and it is interesting to note that all of the subjects have some contact with the porch of the building, which seems as if it were a stage.  Even though the scene pretends to be set in nature, we really perceive a flat backdrop that symbolizes nature instead of imitates it.  This effect is caused by the lack of the subject’s integration with the natural part of the setting; only the tutor and the lamb have their feet, or foot in the case of the tutor, in the green surroundings on the riverbank.  The colors are fairly basic, with some differentiation of materials:  the lamb’s wool, the tutor’s coat, and the silk of the children’s clothing. There is something particularly flat about the tutor’s face, which is not as shaded as the children’s.

How well does this, admittedly early, painting of Reynolds hold up to his own later standards of beauty?  There is a certain amount of classicism in the solid and grounded nature of the figures.  The stage is shallow enough to meet the standards of a history painting, even though it takes place outdoors.  In judging this piece according to Reynolds’ theory of beauty, I would say that although there are certain elements in place, such as an emphasis on line at the expense of color, the portrait lacks the core component of his “grand manner,” a sign of a hand that has spent long hours copying the works of classical times, that can take the natural forms and make them something more.

Hogarth and the “Serpentine Line.”  William Hogarth’s views are in some ways opposite those of Reynolds.  Hogarth began his career as an engraver[10] and as such was very sensitive to the power of line to give not only shape to a subject, but motion and depth as well.  He admired Leonardo and Michelangelo as the greatest painters and found them to be as good as the classical artists since they had—without systemizing it in the way Hogarth would—happened upon the components of beauty in the serpentine line, pyramidal construction, and the dancing flame. [11] He discusses the mechanical proficiencies of painting in the areas of composition, line, and color at length while always returning to the “Line of Beauty” even in his discussion of skin tones.[12] Hogarth was fascinated with nature and saw the work of the classical masters not as a way to improve on nature as Reynolds did, but as an attempt to capture the beauty in nature that he saw primarily as stemming from efficiency of motion, particularly in the dancing human form.[13]

Hogarth’s Theory of Beauty Applied.  Although Hogarth was primarily known as a maker of print series,[14] he was also an adept portraitist in his use of color and topical detail. His painting of The Graham Children (1742) is an example of how he brought his theory of beauty in motion into the smallest parts of his paintings, even if he was not able to combine them into a historical work that was a critical success.  The composition of the portrait consists of two overlapping triangles delineated by the chain of the birdcage on the right and the grouping of the three daughters at right and center.  This is in keeping with his admiration of pyramidal construction.  The subjects are placed against a plain but dignified background of a marble wall. The viewer’s eye tends to wander following the sightlines of the cat, the son, and the baby to a point just above the head of the middle child where the drama of the cat and bird unfolds. Hogarth’s use of line in this painting shows his love of the S-curve as the viewer could clearly circumscribe this “line of beauty” onto the portion of the oldest child’s dress that is held up to keep the cherries out of reach of the youngest.  His use of color is subtle and masterful as he represents the different fabrics of the children’s clothes in naturalistic details.  Though his colors are subdued, textures are made effective and enticing through shading and gradients, an unsurprising talent for a man known for his engravings.  The distinguishing feature of Hogarth’s work is the motion and liveliness in almost every detail of his work.  Unfortunately, all of this attention to detail distracts from the subjects themselves.  Hogarth tries to imbue every detail of his work with the motion of dancers, which is effective at capturing the gaiety of children, but becomes distracting when applied to objects such as the fruit basket in the lower left.

Conclusion.  It may seem that examining a painting by an artist that predates by over a decade his major contributions to art theory may be a futile pursuit in ascertaining whether the artist was able to manifest his theories in his own work.  However, when I look at these works of Joshua Reynolds and William Hogarth, I see the seeds of ideas that they would later expound upon.  For example, one can compare details of clothing from Hogarth’s painting and Reynolds’ painting to see the bases of their different approaches.  Hogarth embellishes with flowing lines and gradients the motion that is implied in the fabric of the middle Graham child’s dress.  He takes every inch of the surface to emphasize that which he sees as the most beautiful aspect:  the subject’s motion and natural vitality.  Reynolds in contrast treats his subjects’ clothing as drapery, preferring the garment to function more intellectually as it hangs from the true subject, a rational, idealized figure.  He sees the intellectualization of the painting as primary, even before his exposure to Rome.  It seems then, after examining the early, less celebrated works of two great art theorists, that one can still see the concepts and inspiration that would lead to their written theories of art.  It is my opinion that both of them were able to live up to their own standards because those standards were already a major part of their individual styles long before they became articulated as standards for other British artists to follow. Thus, theories of art tell us less about beauty and more about the methods by which particular bodies of work are justified as beauty.