Q. Which painting occasioned the legal action brought by James Abbott McNeill Whistler against John Ruskin in 1878 after the latter had accused him, in Fors Clavigera, of “flinging a pot of paint in the public’s face”?
A. “Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket” (1875)
Witty, arrogant, and fiery, James Abbott NcNeill Whistler (1834-1903) was known for painting scenes, people, and objects that other painters would turn away from and was ever ready to get into battle to defend a cause.
Whistler was fascinated with dock activities on the Thames River and the men who worked there. In 1875 he created “ Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket.” This lovely night scene, with free brush strokes showing fireworks bursting, rising, and falling above the shadows of London’s former Cremorne Pleasure Gardens by the side of the Thames, was meant to suggest the nature and excitement of the fireworks. The painting was a product of Whistler's philosophy of making art for art's sake and was never meant to be – in Whistler’s words – "the portrait of a particular place, but only an artistic impression."
However, to critic John Ruskin this painting appeared to be unfinished. In 1878, three years after the creation of “Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket,” Ruskin condemned the painting, writing in one of his Fors Clavigera pamphlets:
- For Mr. Whistler's own sake, no less than for the protection of the purchaser, Sir Coutts Lindsay 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.
Whistler sued Ruskin for libel in a risky and notorious case. Whistler saw the trial as an opportunity to assert the supremacy of art over the increasingly powerful arena of art criticism.
At the trial, Ruskin's lawyer asked Whistler, "Mr. Whistler, tell me, how long did it take you to paint ‘Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket’?” "Half a day," replied Whistler. "So," queried the lawyer, "you are charging two hundred guineas for half a day's work?" "No," wittily replied Whistler, "For the experience of a lifetime."
Though he sued for one thousand pounds plus costs, Whistler was awarded only a farthing (a quarter-penny) and was ordered to pay court costs. The cost of the case, together with huge loans incurred from building his home, "The White House" in Chelsea, bankrupted him. Despite this defeat, Whistler succeeded in dealing a blow to criticism and to the arrogance of its disdain toward new or radical ideas like those of Whistler's. He particularly dealt a blow to Ruskin, who had enjoyed a rising popularity and influence in British art circles until the time of this suit. Many say the lawsuit served Whistler’s intended purpose: to elevate ideals of artistic vision – that is, the freedom of the artist to create art unfettered by the strictures of the critic.
After the Ruskin trial, everything Whistler stated or wrote about his work became an effort to dissociate himself from any formalized school of painting. He endeavored to lose any relationships he had with the enemies he had made among the Royal Academicians and the artists to whom he had been close during the 1860s.
When Whistler died in London in 1903, still embittered against the English establishment, he left instructions that his works should never go on permanent display in England. Today the famous “Nocturne” painting hangs at the Institute of Art, Detroit.
Sources:
Bailey, Colin J. The Art Quiz Book: 2000+ Questions on Painters and Paintings. Station Press: Scotland, 1995.
Grove Dictionary of Art. Oxford University Press, 2008.
Suzanne Hill - Suzanne Moniea Hill studied art history and studio art and has been passionate about art all her life. She believes that people should ...
Join the Conversation