What Was At Stake In The Legal Dispute Between John Ruskin And James A. M. Whistler?

Before the nineteenth century, most artists were considered the mediums through which religion could represent morality. Since many of the masses were illiterate, paintings were the most effective way of educating them. Those in positions of authority also used paintings to convey their wealth and power. Therefore, artists had a high position within society. However, with the advent of modernity during the industrial revolution, literacy and printing increased. This meant that there was less need for artists as printing was cheaper and more effective in reaching a wider audience.

By the nineteenth century, the patronage of artists had all but disappeared. This meant that only middle class or aristocratic men could afford to be educated as artists, ensuring the continuation of the traditional view that art had to be morally or spiritually edifying. Yet, many of the modern young artists saw this independence as an opportunity to use their art as a medium to express their feelings and experiences. It was against this backdrop that the trial between Whistler and Ruskin caught the public interest.

The underlying reason for the trial was a

works into the gallery in which the ill-educated conceit of the

‘For Mr Whistler’s own sake, no less than for the protection of

would the sacred poet have proffered a plan for constructing

However, it is not and easy question to answer and there are some contradictions to consider, most notably is Ruskins supposed dislike of abstract paintings. Ruskin was a life long fan of the artist, Turner and thought that Turner should be the idol of all painters. But even some of Turner’s paintings are what some critics might describe as abstract or a s one critic put it ‘ a mass of soapsuds and whitewash.’

“It is the most debased style of criticism I have had thrown at me

Ruskin was outraged that Whistler was charging a lot of money for a painting which appeared to have been created in a short space of time; in a manner in which anyone could paint or as Ruskin saw it ‘ill-educated.’ For Ruskin, a painting had inherent value if it had been worked on laboriously for months if not years, as well as imparting ‘important truths’ (Clarke 1964,134). So Ruskin thought he was justified in calling Whistler ‘a coxcomb,’ in other words, arrogant, because to him this was not art and Whistler was a charlatan in attempting to convince the public otherwise.

Some topics in this essay:
Whistler British, Harrison Wood, James Whistler, Coutts Lindsay, Attorney Generals, Anderson Koval, Matthew Arnold, Moore Moore, Pissaro Sisley, Turner Turner, trial whistler, whistlers painting, view art, traditional view art, ‘nocturne black, ruskin painting, modern art, art whistler, art critic, complete painting, complete painting days, harrison wood 1998, black gold,