Frederic George Stephens (1828 - 1907)
The ‘Non-Artistic’ Pre-Raphaelite
Despite his name being less well-known than the other Brothers, I think that Stephens deserves both our thanks and our attention.
Born Septimus Stephens (great name) in 1828, Frederic George Stephens joined the Royal Academy in 1844 where he hooked up with Millais and Hunt and became one of the original “Secret Seven” members of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood in 1848. Though he began as an artist in the group, he became so disappointed by his own artistic talent that he gave up painting and claimed to have destroyed all of his works. Thankfully, three paintings have known to survive (two of which are shown on the second row above.).
He then took up art criticism and modeled for the other Brothers in pictures including John Everett Millais’ Ferdinand Lured by Ariel and Ford Madox Brown’s Jesus Washing Peter’s Feet (shown above.).
So why isn’t Stephens better known? He was a loud proponent for the Brotherhood, writing for important art journals such as Athenaeum, The Art Journal and Portfolio. He wrote books on art history and monographs on contemporary artists such as Mulready and Landseer, together with large quantities of the Catalogue of Prints and Drawings for the British Museum where he was Keeper of Prints and Drawings, and when Rossetti died, Stephens co-wrote his obituary. So where did it all go wrong? Part of the blame can be laid on a spat that turned into a feud between Holman Hunt and Stephens. One of Hunt’s paintings went missing under Stephen’s watch, and when it arrived it was damaged. Add to this that Stephens then went on to give the same painting a bad review and the feud began. Hunt proceeded to attack Stephens in his Pre-Raphaelitism and the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood (1914), after Stephen’s death. I’ve always thought it’s safest to perform character assination when the victim isn’t able to respond. Anyway, this coupled with Stephen’s disconnection from art criticism later in life (he didn’t like Impressionism) shrank his importance from a Brother to A. N. Other, and in the course of time he became a footnote in the history of Pre-Raphaelitism. However, you and I know that art history is more than just pretty pictures, it’s about dynamics, pressure and the work of those behind the scenes. The genius of Fred Stephens may not have been painting, but the appreciation of others’ ability to do what he could not. References: x x x
Artistic Movements: The Bloomsbury Group [Circa 1910]
The Bloomsbury Group—or Bloomsbury Set—was an influential group of associated English writers, intellectuals, philosophers and artists, the best known members of which included Virginia Woolf, John Maynard Keynes, E. M. Forster and Lytton Strachey. This loose collective of friends and relatives lived, worked or studied together near Bloomsbury, London, during the first half of the 20th century. According to Ian Ousby, “although its members denied being a group in any formal sense, they were united by an abiding belief in the importance of the arts”.Their works and outlook deeply influenced literature, aesthetics, criticism, and economics as well as modern attitudes towards feminism, pacifism, and sexuality.
The members of Bloomsbury, or “Bloomsberries,” would more or less maintain allegiance to their mutual philosophy of an ideal society, even through a World War and three decades of tectonic shifts in the political climate. They had no codified agenda or mission. They were not political in the ordinary sense of the word. Most importantly, there was no application or initiation required to become a member. Bloomsbury was an informal hodgepodge of intellectual friends, and one either merited inclusion to that circle or one did not. No rules of order, as in a committee, governed the way in which Bloomsbury managed their interactions. Instead, they held impromptu dinners and gatherings where any number of topics was the subject of serious discussion and contemplation. These intellectual exchanges served as the main influence on later work by individual members. By no means were all members in full agreement on all subjects. Some of Bloomsbury’s most stimulating ideas and writings were borne out of internal disagreement and strife. One can safely say that each member of Bloomsbury was leftist in his or her politics, although as individuals they expressed their politics in very different ways. [x]
John Everett Millais, Effie Gray & John Ruskin:
One of the Most Epic Love Triangles of the Victorian Era
Effie Gray was born in Perth, Scotland, and lived in Bowerswell, the house where Ruskin’s grandfather had committed suicide. Her family knew Ruskin’s father, who encouraged a match between them. Ruskin wrote the fantasy novel The King of the Golden River for her in 1841, when she was twelve years old. After their marriage in 1848, they travelled to Venice where Ruskin was researching his book The Stones of Venice. However, their different temperaments soon caused problems as she was naturally outgoing and flirtatious, coming to feel oppressed by her husband’s dogmatic personality.
When she met Millais five years later, she was still a virgin, as Ruskin had persistently put off consummating the marriage. His reasons are unclear, but they involved disgust with some aspect of her body. As she later wrote to her father, “He alleged various reasons, hatred to children, religious motives, a desire to preserve my beauty, and, finally this last year he told me his true reason… that he had imagined women were quite different to what he saw I was, and that the reason he did not make me his Wife was because he was disgusted with my person the first evening 10th April.” Ruskin confirmed this in his statement to his lawyer during the annulment proceedings: “It may be thought strange that I could abstain from a woman who to most people was so attractive. But though her face was beautiful, her person was not formed to excite passion. On the contrary, there were certain circumstances in her person which completely checked it." The reason for Ruskin’s disgust with "circumstances in her person” is unknown.
While married to Ruskin, she modelled for Millais’ painting The Order of Release, in which she was depicted as the loyal wife of a Scottish rebel who has secured his release from prison. She then became close to Millais when he accompanied the couple on a trip to Scotland in order to paint Ruskin’s portrait according to the critic’s artistic principles. During this time, spent in Brig o’ Turk in the Trossachs, they fell in love. She left Ruskin and, with the support of her family and a number of influential friends, filed for an annulment, causing a major public scandal; their marriage was annulled in 1854.
After his marriage, Millais began to paint in a broader style, which Ruskin condemned as a “catastrophe”. Marriage had given him a large family to support, and it is claimed that his wife encouraged him to churn out popular works for financial gain and to maintain her busy social life. However, there is no evidence that she consciously pressured him to do so, though she was an effective manager of his career and often collaborated with him in choosing subjects. Her journal indicates her high regard for her husband’s art, and his works are still recognisably Pre-Raphaelite in style several years after his marriage.
In 1855, she married John Millais and eventually bore him eight children: Everett, born in 1856; George, born in 1857; Effie, born in 1858; Mary, born in 1860; Alice, born in 1862; Geoffroy, born in 1863; John in 1865; and Sophie in 1868. Their youngest son John Guille Millais was a notable bird artist and gardener. She also modelled for a number of her husband’s works, notably Peace Concluded (1856), which idealises her as an icon of beauty and fertility.
When Ruskin later sought to become engaged to a teenage girl, Rose La Touche, Rose’s parents were concerned. They wrote to Gray to ask about the marriage; she replied by describing Ruskin as an oppressive husband. The engagement was broken off. [x]
Camera obscura
The camera obscura (Latin; camera for “vaulted chamber/room", obscura for “dark", together “darkened chamber/room"; plural: camera obscuras or camerae obscurae) is an optical device that projects an image of its surroundings on a screen. It is used in drawing and for entertainment, and was one of the inventions that led to photography and the camera. The device consists of a box or room with a hole in one side. Light from an external scene passes through the hole and strikes a surface inside, where it is reproduced, upside-down, but with color and perspective preserved. The image can be projected onto paper, and can then be traced to produce a highly accurate representation.The largest camera obscura in the world is on Constitution Hill in Aberystwyth, Wales.
Using mirrors, as in the 18th-century overhead version, it is possible to project a right-side-up image. Another more portable type is a box with an angled mirror projecting onto tracing paper placed on the glass top, the image being upright as viewed from the back.
As the pinhole is made smaller, the image gets sharper, but the projected image becomes dimmer. With too small a pinhole, however, the sharpness worsens, due to diffraction. Some practical camera obscuras use a lens rather than a pinhole because it allows a larger aperture, giving a usable brightness while maintaining focus. (See pinhole camera for construction information.)
The camera obscura has been known to scholars since the time of Mozi and Aristotle. The first surviving mention of the principles behind the pinhole camera or camera obscura belongs to Mozi (Mo-Ti) (470 to 390 BCE), a Chinese philosopher and the founder of Mohism. Mozi referred to this device as a “collecting plate" or “locked treasure room.“
In 13th-century England, Roger Bacon described the use of a camera obscura for the safe observation of solar eclipses. Its potential as a drawing aid may have been familiar to artists by as early as the 15th century; Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519 AD) described the camera obscura in Codex Atlanticus. Johann Zahn’s “Oculus Artificialis Teledioptricus Sive Telescopium, which was published in 1685, contains many descriptions and diagrams, illustrations and sketches of both the camera obscura and of the magic lantern.
Giambattista della Porta is said to have perfected camera obscura. He described it as having a convex lens in later editions of his Magia Naturalis (1558-1589), the popularity of which helped spread knowledge of it. He compared the shape of the human eye to the lens in his camera obscura, and provided an easily understandable example of how light could bring images into the eye. One chapter in the Conte Algarotti’s Saggio sopra Pittura (1764) is dedicated to the use of a camera ottica ("optic chamber”) in painting.
4 drawings by Canaletto, representing Campo San Giovanni e Paolo in Venice, obtained with a Camera obscura. (Venice, Gallerie dell’Accademia)
