The Scratch Board

By Candlelight, work in progress. Scratchboard, 12 x 9 in. Copyright 2008, Tania Nault.

Sorry about the photograph, bad lighting. This WIP will be the start of the project based on my Joseph Wright of Derby study.

Maggie Stiefvater posted a recent challenge to join in her May artist(s) study (yes, “artists” as in more than one; unlike me, who has taken forever to get to this point, Maggie studies artists at the speed of light and has posted studies of at least four other artists on her blog in the past few weeks). The challenge was to find an artist we admire, identify his/her strengths and techniques and then blog about it. I decided joining her challenge would be a great way for me to finish my study of Wright.

Wright’s strengths:
- amazing sense of light and shadow: I think the “and shadow” part of that observation is particularly important; there’s something deep in those shadows, they aren’t simply the absence of light, they have a weight and substance of their own
- human drama: Wright’s subjects react with/to each other and their surroundings in a very evocative way
- composition: Wright used light and shadow to create form, but also to move the viewer’s eye around the painting

As I work on my own candlelight image I’m going to keep those things in mind and we’ll see where it takes me.

 Okay, I think I figured out how to do this: I’m going to look at Wright’s series of people reading letters by candlelight. Benedict Nicholson’s book has black and white reproductions for four such paintings, and I’ll use those for this post, but I’ll also include two in colour.

A Girl Reading Letter by Candlelight, with a Young Man Looking Over Her Shoulder. 1762. Oil on canvas, 27.5 x 35 in.

A Girl Reading Letter by Candlelight, with an Old Man Looking Over Her Shoulder. 1767. Oil on canvas, 28 x 36 in.

A Girl Reading Letter by Candlelight. 1772. Oil on canvas, size unknown.

Old Woman Reading Letter by Candlelight in the Company of a Young Girl. 1772. Oil on canvas, size unknown.

What are the common elements in these paintings:

1.) candlelight provides the (main/only?) light source
2.) the flame itself is hidden, obscured from view
3.) the light defines the forms, it shows us the fore- and mid-ground quite clearly, but obscures the background completely
4.) there are two figures: the reader in the foreground, the observer in the background
5.) the distance between the subject (the letter reader) and the viewer (us) is conversational, almost intimate, we’re just across a small table from them
6.) while the faces and pose of the readers are largely neutral, the second figures display an emotional response to the reader/letter (anger, sadness, joy, distress) and are in action (hand waving near face, rubbing eye, pointing up/towards own head, clasping own hands)
7.) the colour pallette is limited to dark neutrals except for the subjects faces and hands, which are warm tones
8.) with the exception of the final work, the composition is triangular

Next some sketches based on what I’ve learned…

Resources:

The title for this post, “very fine candlelight pieces” comes from a statement made about Wright’s work by James Northcote, an artist contemporary of Wright’s, quoted in W.T. Whitley’s Artists and Their Friends in England, 1700 - 1799, Vol. II.  London, 1926.

Nicholson, Benedict. Joseph Wright of Derby: Painter of Light, Vol. I and II. Hew Haven: Yale University Press, 1968. Plates 45: A Girl Reading a Letter by Candlelight, with a Young Man Looking Over Her Shoulder, 1762.

Well, if the light’s the thing, how did Wright do it? How did he use light to make engaging works? I’ve been thinking about how to do this and I believe a comparison of two of Wrights paintings, one with basic lighting and one with lighting typical of his “genre” paintings would be instructive. And I think it would be particulary helpful if the two paintings showed similar subject matter. I’ve chosen two of Wright’s cottage paintings, one in daylight and the other at night on fire*:

Image on the left:     A Cottage in Needlewood Forest. 1790. Oil on canvas, 50 x 40 in . Derby Museum and Art Gallery. Image copyright the Derby Museum.
Image on the right:  Cottage on Fire. 1793. Oil on canvas, 30 x 25 in. Derby Museum and Art Gallery. Image copyright the Derby Museum.

There are a few basic differences compositionally: the main subject in the daylight painting is located in one of the intersections created by dividing the canvas into thirds, while the cottage on fire is more precariously placed at the far edge of the canvas; the cottage in the daylight painting, protected by the hills and woods on either side, is open to the sky above, while the cottage on fire is hemmed in by woods on one side and an imposing castle and hill on the other. But the main difference is in the light.

The daylight cottage is bathed in the warm, natural light of the sun. The other cottage sits in darkness, the only natural source of light, the moon, is obscured by trees and the main light source comes from the cottage itself as it burns and is consumed by fire. In this painting the light isn’t a source of comfort but of drama. In both paintings, however the true source of light is obscured: we cannot see the rising sun in the daylight cottage painting, and although we can see the flames, the front of the night cottage is in silhoutte and we see the rim of flames and the back of the cottage prevents us from seeing the actual fire. The light from the fire, instead of illuminating the landscape, casts deep shadows, further obscuring our vision and increasing the sense of drama in the scene.

Maybe I’ve gone about this the wrong way… the pieces I’m most drawn to in Wright’s work are the interior pieces with an artificial light source: candle- or lamplight… Perhaps I need to look at this again with other examples of his work?

Notes:

* In November 2007 at the Wright of Derby Symposium organised by the University of Liverpool and the Walker Art Gallery, Stephen Daniels, Professor of Human Geography at the University of Nottingham, delivered a presentation titled, “Cottages on Fire” in which he explored Wright’s series of burning cottage paintings and used one other cottage painting for comparison. I’m not sure if Daniels compared these exact paintings, but based on my reading of the abstract of his presentation: http://www.uolevents.org/programmedocs/WrightofDerby_Programme_Speakers.doc he was exploring the image in context of war and illustration of wartime atrocities and panic. Not Wright’s use of light, so I believe I’m safe here taking the same tact to illustrate what I think.

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:

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.

Hmm… here we are, over half way through April and I haven’t written a word about my artist study.  *eek*

Never having done this before, I thought I might break it down into parts: an overview of the artist, his process, what I’ve learned, and then a scratchboard based on what I’ve learned. I thought I’d start with one of the “safely dead” on my list: British painter Joseph Wright of Derby.

Wright was born in Derbyshire in 1734 and was the son of a respected attorney. In his teens he was sent to London to apprentice with portrait artist Thomas Hudson. On his return, Wright began painting portraits for wealthy landowners and upper-middle class families. Although his work was best known locally (thus the “of Derby” title) his portrait commissions soon included the gentry of Liverpool and Bath.

His success allowed him to explore his own artistic subject matter: painting in low light and scientific and industrial subjects. His first London showing was in 1765 when he entered Three Persons Viewing the Gladiator by Candlelight in the Society of Artists show.

Three Persons Viewing the Gladiator by Candlelight. 1765. Oil on canvas, 48 X 40 in. Private Collection. (Please ignore the watermark - I haven’t figured out how to turn it off for individual images… yet.)

Wright’s interpretation of the famous Borghese Gladiator sculpture was the first in his series of candlelight or lamplight images and would set the tone for much of his later work; these paintings are probably those for which he is best known:

A Philosopher giving a Lecture on the Orrery in which a lamp is put in place of the Sun. 1766. Oil on canvas, 58 x 80 in. Derby Museum and Art Gallery. Image copyright the Derby Museum.

An Orrey is a type of planetarium and was used to illustrate the movement of the planets in relationship to the sun. Wright painted during the period of the British Enlightenment, a period of ideological change, when it was thought that the use of logic and reason could result in positive, progressive advances in science, politics, culture and society. The light shining on the faces of the observers depicts both the light of the lamp used to simulate the light from the sun and as a symbol of the knowledge flooding over the group.

An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump. 1768 Oil on canvas, 72 x 94.5 in. National Gallery, London. Image copyright the National Gallery, London.

Air pumps were a common scientific device in Wright’s time and were used in public displays to illustrate effects of the atmosphere in particular and the scientific process in general. However, Wright’s painting isn’t so much about science as it is about human drama. The light illuminates the faces of the observers and their individual reactions to the experiment: the ignorance of the lovers on the left, the horror of the young girls on the right, the curiosity of the boys on the left, the reflective contemplation of the older man on the right, while the scientist and boy taking down the cage both look out at the viewer.

The Alchemist in Search of the Philospher’s Stone discovers Phosphorus. 1771. Oil on canvas, 50 x 40 in. Derby Museum and Art Gallery. Image copyright the Derby Museum.

Alchemy was a pre-scientific practice that combined elements from chemistry, metallurgy, medicine, astrology and religion. The most well-known goal of alchemy was transmutation (turning one physical element into another, i.e. lead into gold) the source of which was believed to be a legendary element known as the “Philosopher’s Stone”. What is less well-known is that many alchemists made valid scientific discoveries during the course of their work. In Wright’s painting, the light coming from the glass flask lights up the alchemist’s face both as a physical and spiritual discovery.

As was customary for artists at that time, Wright visited Italy from 1773 - 1775 where he applied his ideas of light to subjects out-of-doors. For example, he painted at least 30 paintings of the eruption of Mount Vesuvius (however, it’s unlikely he actually witnessed this himself: although Vesuvius erupted several times during the 18th century, the nearest eruptions to Wright’s Italian visit were in 1767 and 1779) and these paintings have very much the same feeling of light and shadow as his earlier interior works:

Vesuvius in Eruption, with a View over the Islands in the Bay of Naples. 1776. Oil on canvas, 70 x 48 in. Tate Gallery. Image copyright the Tate Gallery.

 Next time: Wright’s process: how he worked.

Resources:

British Enlightenment Research Network. “About BERN.” Accessed on 16 April 2008. http://www.utas.edu.au/history_classics/bern/about.html 

Derby City Council. “Art Treasures - Joseph Wright Gallery.” Accessed 10 April 2008. http://www.derby.gov.uk/LeisureCulture/MuseumsGalleries/ArtTreasuresJosephWrightGallery.htm 

Derbyshire UK: Guide to Derbyshire & the Peak District. “Famous Derbyshire People: Joseph Wright.” Accessed 13 April 2008.  http://www.derbyshireuk.net/wright.html

National Gallery, London. “An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump.” Accessed 10 April 2008. http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa/wa/work?workNumber=NG725

Wikipedia. “Mount Vesuvius.” Accessesed 20 April 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesuvius

Wright of Derby. Accessed 13 April 2008. http://www.mezzo-mondo.com/arts/mm/wright/wright.html