What is it exactly that draws me to Wright’s work? Earlier I mentioned that I admired his use of chiaroscuro (contrast between light and dark) and the engagement of his subjects with their world. But how exactly did he accomplish these effects?
Well, according to Richard Dorment, art critic for The Daily Telegraph, “Wright exploited undervalued qualities in painting such as novelty of subject matter, striking dramatic effects and – in the genre pictures at least – sheer size to attract potential clients.” Okay, but what did Wright do, exactly? Well, let’s look a little more closely at each statement:
1.) Novel subject matter: in addition to the usual subjects such as the self-portrait, numerous portraits (actually, his portrayal of the rising middle class was rather novel for the time, but that’s a whole other post), and British landscapes (you know: lush, green, with a quaint cottage tucked in – hmmm… now we know who really influenced the modern “Painter of Light”)
A Cottage in Needlewood Forest. 1790. Oil on canvas, 50 x 40 in . Derby Museum and Art Gallery. Image copyright the Derby Museum.
Wright did choose to paint some rather unique subject matter: scientific experiments, iron forges, volcanic eruptions, and girls dressing a kitten, as well as boys playing with/fighting over a bladder.
Two Girls Dressing a Kitten by Candlelight. 1770. Oil on canvas, 28 x 36 in. Kenwood House. Image copyright Kenwood House.
“Novel” indeed. If by novel you mean “strange” then I’d have to agree with you. I can’t imagine simply breezing past this image in a gallery, “Landscape. Landscape. Landscape with cottage. Landscape. Little girls dressing a kitten?!”
2.) Striking dramatic effects: although Wright appeared to have stuck to the tried-and-true for his portrait paintings lighting wise:
Mr and Mrs Thomas Coltman, a Conversation. 1771. Oil on canvas, 40 x 50 in. The National Gallery, London. Image copyright The National Gallery, London.
He certainly pushed the upper and lower ranges of lighting for his more unique subject matter:
Two Boys Blowing a Bladder by Candlelight. 1770. Oil on canvas, 28 x 36 in. The Henry E. Huntington Library, Art Collections and Botanical Gardens, San Marino. Image copyright The Huntington Library.
Compared to the portrait above with it’s mid-key lighting (nothing too bright or too dark) the painting of the two boys is much more low-key (light limited to the main highlight areas with everything else in shadow). It definitely increases the dramatic feeling and mood in the work. (I get the feeling that there’s a lot more going on here than meets the eye, and I think my next post on Wright will deal specifically with how he lit his subjects, but let’s get back to the task at hand…)
3.) Sheer size: Dorment qualifies this assertion by stating that Wright made “the genre pictures” bigger than his other work to attract clients, who would presumably then commission him to paint their portrait. For some time I wasn’t sure how I could go about dis/proving this statement, but in the back of Volume One of Nicholson’s text is a “Catalogue Raisonné” for Wright’s work, including which were independently driven by Wright himself and which of his paintings were commissioned works. I’ve selected several paintings which appear on the exhibition list of the Incorporated Society of Artists of Great Britian, as well as several commissioned paintings from that time and have calculated the size in square inches for each below:
|
|
Title, year exhibited. | Size |
| 1.) | Three Persons Viewing the Gladiator by Candlelight, 1765 | 1920 |
| 2.) | A Philosopher giving a lecture on the Orrey, in which a lamp is put in place of the Sun, 1766 | 4640 |
| 3.) | An Academy by Lamplight, 1769 | 2000 |
| 4.) | A Blacksmith’s Shop, 1771 | 2050 |
| 5.) | An history, Miravan, a young noble of Ingria, 1772 | 2000 |
| 6.) | An Iron Forge, viewed from without, 1773 | 2255 |
| 7.) | Romeo and Juliet. The Tomb Scene, 1791 | 6650 |
| Title, year painted | ||
| 1.) | James Shuttleworth, his Wife and Daughter, 1764 | 4032 |
| 2.) | Mrs Gwillym of Atherton, 1766 | 2000 |
| 3.) | Mrs John Ashton, 1769 | 2000 |
| 4.) | Mr and Mrs Thomas Coltman, a conversation, 1771 | 2000 |
| 5.) | Colonel Edward Sacheverell Pole, 1772 | 1080 |
| 6.) | Self Portrait, 1773 | 672 |
| 7.) | Three Children of Richard Arkwright with a Kite, 1791 | 4620 |
While the average size of the genre paintings are some 700 square inches larger than the average of the commissioned works, the median isn’t that far off in either category and there are three paintings in each group almost identical in size. Also, it’s been my experience that the size of commissioned works is usually more an indicator of the size of the commissioner’s pocket book than of any artistic concerns and I doubt this was any different in Wright’s time. So I’m not entirely sure I agree with Dorment on this point.
What have I learned from this? I’m not really sure… all I know is next time we’re going to be looking at what Wright did with light.
Resources:
Dorment, Richard. “Joseph Wright – and then there was light.” The Daily Telegraph. 08 January 2008. Accessed on 21 April 2008. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/01/08/bawright108.xml
“Mr and Mrs Thomas Coltman.” The National Gallery, London. Accessed 23 April 2008. http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa/wa/work?workNumber=NG6496
Nicholson, Benedict. “Joseph Wright’s early Subject Pictures.” The Burlington Magazine. Vol. 96, No. 612 (Mar., 1954), pp. 72-80 http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0007-6287(195403)96%3A612%3C72%3AJWESP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H
Nicholson, Benedict. Joseph Wright of Derby: Painter of Light, Vol. I and II. Hew Haven: Yale University Press, 1968.
