" 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.
Ruskin's criticism was particularly severe for Whistler, as most other British critics had largely ignored his paintings, as they had not understood his style. He replied:.
"It is the most debased style of criticism I have had thrown at me .
yet"(Anderson 1994, 216).
Whistler felt that this criticism from such an influential and popular critic would dissuade potential customers from buying his paintings, damaging both his financial income and his reputation. This was the impetus in the trial against Ruskin. It was only after the trial, which Whistler won and was awarded a pithy one farthing in damages, that he claimed it a moral victory. Nevertheless, the trial was a turning point in the conflict between traditional and modern art.
The painting, "Nocturne in black and Gold", at the heart of the trial was, in fact, part of a series of paintings called "The Nocturnes", which, altogether, took Whistler over decade to complete. The painting itself took only two days to finish (a fact, which annoyed Ruskin). When asked about the painting, under cross-examination, Whistler explains what his painting was about and highlights the conventional view of art.
"The nocturne in black and gold is a night piece, and represents.
the fireworks at Cremorne.
Not a view of Cremorne? - If it were called a view of Cremorne, .
it would certainly bring about nothing but disappointment on the.
part of the beholders. It is an artistic arrangement.".
(Harrison and Wood 1998, 835/836) .
Whistler actually says that the painting is only a representation of a subject, what he was more interested in was its "artistic arrangement".