Comparing and Contrasting Ruskin vs. Whistler and Stuart's Controversy
In the first two articles discussed in class, two significant events relating to art were addressed. The first regarded an infamous libel trial between James Abbott McNeill Whistler and art critic John Ruskin while the second involved a disagreement about the authenticity of Stuart's portrait of George Washington. Both readings detailed controversy where the two sides had significant evidence and supporters. However, the two conflicts happened in two different times and involved very different issues.
A great art critic in the mid 19th century, John Ruskin, dismissed Whistler as a fraud because of the critic's rejection of modern art. Although Ruskin understood modern art, he refused to recognize it as art because of his definition of art. Ruskin's dismissal of Whistler resulted in a libel trial which is very relatable to modern day conflicts about the definition of art as a genre. Today, people have various definitions of art, ranging from as broad as a "solution to any problem" to a narrow as "a realistic portrayal of a form". Whistler redefined the public's opinion of art through his work, which clashed with Ruskin's view on the art world. Ruskin's words, "[I] never expected to hear a coxcomb ask two hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public's face" clearly portrays his view on Ruskin's work.
The second reading detailed the controversy surrounding the "Lansdowne" portrait of George Washington in the White House. The painting, done by Gilbert Stuart, was "disowned" by the artist and no one is sure of the reason behind his words. While the former National Portrait Gallery director Marvin Sadik said that the painting was not by Gilbert Stuart, the former White House art curator, Clement Conger, disagreed. Two conservators agreed with Conger in that the painting was an authentic Stuart, but Sadik stood firm in his belief. A curator, Ms. Miles, states that the painting now hanging in the White House came from Stuart's studio, but no one is completely sure who painted it. Here, Sadik has no real evidence that Stuart did not paint it; on the other hand, Conger has evidence that the painting atleast came from Stuart's studio. Although Conger has more evidence, there is no proof that Stuart did, in fact, paint the piece because of his denial. This conflict raises the issue of whether it is ethical for an audience to attribute a piece of work to an artist after he "disowned" it.
Both, Whistler vs. Ruskin and Stuart's conflict were significant art controversies that raised questions about the definition of art or the ethics of art. Both sides of the controversies had some evidence, though one side was outweighed by the other in terms of significant proof.
A great art critic in the mid 19th century, John Ruskin, dismissed Whistler as a fraud because of the critic's rejection of modern art. Although Ruskin understood modern art, he refused to recognize it as art because of his definition of art. Ruskin's dismissal of Whistler resulted in a libel trial which is very relatable to modern day conflicts about the definition of art as a genre. Today, people have various definitions of art, ranging from as broad as a "solution to any problem" to a narrow as "a realistic portrayal of a form". Whistler redefined the public's opinion of art through his work, which clashed with Ruskin's view on the art world. Ruskin's words, "[I] never expected to hear a coxcomb ask two hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public's face" clearly portrays his view on Ruskin's work.
The second reading detailed the controversy surrounding the "Lansdowne" portrait of George Washington in the White House. The painting, done by Gilbert Stuart, was "disowned" by the artist and no one is sure of the reason behind his words. While the former National Portrait Gallery director Marvin Sadik said that the painting was not by Gilbert Stuart, the former White House art curator, Clement Conger, disagreed. Two conservators agreed with Conger in that the painting was an authentic Stuart, but Sadik stood firm in his belief. A curator, Ms. Miles, states that the painting now hanging in the White House came from Stuart's studio, but no one is completely sure who painted it. Here, Sadik has no real evidence that Stuart did not paint it; on the other hand, Conger has evidence that the painting atleast came from Stuart's studio. Although Conger has more evidence, there is no proof that Stuart did, in fact, paint the piece because of his denial. This conflict raises the issue of whether it is ethical for an audience to attribute a piece of work to an artist after he "disowned" it.
Both, Whistler vs. Ruskin and Stuart's conflict were significant art controversies that raised questions about the definition of art or the ethics of art. Both sides of the controversies had some evidence, though one side was outweighed by the other in terms of significant proof.
whistler_vs._ruskin.pdf |
stuarts_controversy.pdf |