Here is the scene for this week’s blog post! Imagine you are an expatriate painter and printmaker living in London in the latter decades of the 19th century. You were recently inspired by watching fireworks along the Thames River in London’s Cremorne Gardens. Your inspiration drove you to paint a response, to record a memory of the visual event you had witnessed with the fireworks display along the Thames River! You spend two days painting the “memory” and finally realize your effort is “finished”. So you put your brushes down, you clean your palette and put it neatly away, and begin to contemplate the composition you had just finished. Your thoughts include naming this painting. After some thought, you choose Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket. The year is 1875.
England’s top art critic at this juncture of time is John Ruskin! He was at the top of his skills offering insights into the emerging Modernist movement at the fin de sickle! Your painting of the fireworks, your effort to fix the spectacle into visible form, had recently been exhibited in London and had been purchased by Sir Coutts Lindsay, founder of the Grosvenor Gallery, London where Whistler exhibited and enjoyed having Sir Lindsay as a solid patron.
When John Ruskin saw Whistler’s Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket in the Grosvenor Gallery exhibition, the famed critic lost it. Ruskin wrote a scathing review of the Whistler painting in Flors Clavigera, and accused in writing that all Whistler did was to “fling a pot of paint onto the canvas”! Whistler read the review and was incensed! Many of Ruskin’s patrons were angry as well.
Whistler decided to sue Ruskin for libel. Whistler’s libel suit trial was held in the Old Bailey, the Central Criminal Court of England and Wales on November 25 and 26, 1878. Ruskin’s attorney was Sir John Holker. During the trial, Holker asked Whistler to describe his view of Cremorne Gardens. Whistler said this wasn’t a landscape painting of Cremorne Gardens but an impression of the fireworks as an event. Holker eventually asked the supreme question, which has become iconic for artists ever since late November, 1878! Holker asked: “For two days labour, you ask two hundred guineas?” Whistler thought for a brief moment, then responded with THE ultimate definition of an artist’s worth: “No, I ask it for the knowledge of a lifetime.”
Unfortunately, the court rewarded Whistler only a ‘farthing’ for the defamation of his name as an artist! The sum was so small that Whistler had to sell off all his belongings to cover the costs he incurred for the trial and he was bankrupt for a few years. Whistler recovered and went on to some success financially and his reputation was restored. Today, Whistler’s Nocturne Series in London are highly prized and sought after by collectors and Art Museums!
What are your thoughts on an artist finding himself in court having to defend his work and his worth in a law suit against a prominent art critic? And what are your thoughts on critics in general?
Lizbeth Ramirez | Art 474
People need to have an open mind to appreciate art. I’ve heard the saying “anything can be art” and although that may be true it is up to the viewer to decide whether they’re able to find a deeper meaning or just see it as blobs of paint on a canvas. Whether you’re a critic or not people tend to be biased based on their perspective, beliefs, likes, etc. Not everyone is going to like you or your work, but it’s up to you to know your worth. So having an artist defend his work in court is his way of knowing his worth and proving that he’s as much of an artist as anyone else. Art is more than just what the artist is presenting visually, there is an intention and process behind it that helps make art, art. Critics aren’t always going to say what we want to hear, but it’s up to us to decide whether we want to take that criticism as an influence or simply let it go.
The idea of art critics is a very interesting one to me, for precisely this reason. Who was Ruskin to claim he could place a judgement on a painting he knew nothing about and have everyone believe Whistler was untalented and a liar? Critics, while I can see where they would be beneficial, can also come off as people downplaying both the thought and effort that go into pieces of art, especially since they had nothing to do with the process themselves. They often believe that they can judge an artist by one piece and with one glance as opposed to taking the time to learn about the artist as a person, their thought process, etc., before making any claims about them to others. I believe Whistler was right in taking this as a case of libel to court, but I also believe most times artists just have to learn to live with the negative criticisms of those that think they know everything. The art world is a complicated one, and in the end, it is down to each individual involved to decide how they will handle something like self-proclaimed critics.
It’s very unfortunate for an artist going to court to have defend their OWN art which I feel shouldn’t happen. Unless the subject is something that could be controversial or harmful/hate towards specific groups which shouldn’t happen at all then that’s probably when it’d be most appropriate for one. Artists already struggle enough to make a face for themselves to be seen/acknowledged by people to look at their art after their hard work. It’s such a good feeling to know other people admire it and want to see more works created by you especially if it has taken you hours, days, months, or even over a year to create a piece. For Whistler to try and speak about his worth in this law suit is kind of sad but also very inspiring to say in a court where others can hear. He deserves to be seen like any other artist for his long hours of work to create such an amazing piece. It may be “simple” to others with techniques but it also takes skill to try and imagine it the way you want and make is as flawless as you can than just splatter random paint blotches without care. There is much more feeling to creating work than someone thinking it wasn’t made with effort or care.
Critics in general can be either a good or bad thing depending how an artist will take it. It’s very great when you get positive feedback or even considerable feedback to help improve your art. Then there are those like in Whistler’s case trying to belittle what he has done which is unfair and shouldn’t have to be going through that.
I think defending one’s own worth in the court of law is probably something many artist’s don’t think of as a possibility since it seems like so much effort for something seemingly petty, but defending one’s worth is fairly commonplace now that I think about it. As an artist we are “selling” ourselves and our experience just as much as we are selling the physical pieces we’ve made, so we have a certain amount of pride that we carry within ourselves. That pride is likely what lead to this court case and from the artist’s point of view it is a fairly practical choice to make. As for critics themselves, I think they are a very necessary part of the art world, even if one doesn’t agree with them. They allow for different critical views to be heard, and while not all of them will please the artist, they are nonetheless part of a larger dialogue that I believe is much better than an echo chamber.
It seems crazy for someone to end up in court for such innocuous looking art, though the idea of an artist going to court to defend their name or reputation doesn’t seem too far fetched. There are a lot of controversial subjects addressed in contemporary art, so I can see the scenario playing out – I love the quoted punchline to this all and can imagine Andres Serrano giving the “knowledge of a lifetime” answer in court while defending Piss Christ. There would have probably been a different outcome to the trial in such a scenario, but my point is that the disputed art seems to have been villainized by this critic simply for being different than what he had seen before, not because of some moral outrage or other idea that was widely supported. Still in general, I think that critics play an important role in art – they aren’t telling people what to like, but a good critic will know the ins and outs of art history, so will pick up on references and subtleties that the lay person might not, making their review valuable. Opinions aren’t facts but when coming from a prominent critic they can be taken that way by the public.
I can understand why Whistler felt the need to sue—no artist would every truly appreciate a scathing review of a piece reflecting a memory that they spent time on—however I personally would never see the need to file a lawsuit against an art critic for libel. This is possibly due to the way I feel about art I create myself which I’m positive is different compared to how Whistler (or any other artist) sees their own work. I personally would never see the need for a lawsuit unless it’s regarding someone stealing and replicating your art for profit. To me, if people change their opinion on your artwork simply because of something an art critic says, they were never a true fan of your work. While art critics provide detailed opinions on work, that’s honestly all I see it as: opinions. People will always have different opinions on art, and you should never take one bad take to heart so much that you go broke from a lawsuit. That being said, however, I still respect Whistler’s decision to sue; all artists are allowed to take critique however they wish, even if you choose a lawsuit.
I do believe it is unfair for artists to both lose their reputation and be both insulted and rejected based on misinterpretation of their artworks. Also, it is understandable for artists to confront challenges, such as art critics and direct attacks towards their reputation, to both learn from their mistakes and prevent any further problems. However, I believe it is a little eccentric for artists to file a lawsuit against art critics over a review. A review against both artists and their artworks, regardless of whether or not it is slander, is not an illegalized act or crime. It is an posted document concerning an opinion towards both artists and their artwork. Regardless of whether or not the review was slander, art critics should not be arrested and/or punished for stating their opinion. It is understandable as to why Whistler did not receive much credibility in filing a lawsuit against Ruskin. Ruskin did not commit any illegalized actions against Whistler in his review. He had every right and reason to write his review as it was. Artists need to accept art critics’ opinions about their artworks. Artists should not file lawsuits to both threaten and force critics to change both their opinion and review for their personal benefit.
It’s understandable for art critics to reject artworks. Everyone has the right to both their own opinion and perspective of both art and how they interpret the world. Art critics have their own reasons, such as artistic talent and cultural interpretation, as to why they like or dislike certain artworks created by different people. Also, it can be understandable that certain artworks can be interpreted as offensive to art critics. The artwork could be offensive based on personal belief; art history and value; sexual, racial, and/or cultural discrimination; and visual design. Not everyone can share the same perspective as the artist. Some people can agree with their methods, while others can reject them. Everyone has both the right and freedom to their own opinion.
While it may seem extreme at first glance, Whistler’s need to take legal action against Ruskin was somewhat understandable. One typically puts their heart and soul into their work, taking great amounts of effort to depict the subject in the way they interpret it. As a result, an artist can sometimes develop an extreme sense of pride in said work. This is most likely what led Whistler to sue Ruskin in the first place. However, Whistler’s decision to sue Ruskin was also unjustified because all Ruskin did was give his professional opinion on Whistler’s work. Criticism, whether positive or negative, is ultimately an opinion. Whistler could have either taken this criticism in a constructive way and try to incorporate Ruskin’s advice into his next piece or simply have ignored Ruskin’s opinion. An artist is always allowed to handle criticism of their work in any way they choose, but Whistler chose to sue because of pride. Ruskin most likely interpreted Whistler’s piece in a different way than Whistler did.
Critique in general is a double-edged sword. On one hand, an artist can feel amazing when their work is praised or when they receive constructive, genuine feedback that will help them improve in the future. On the other hand, there are also negative critics who simply tear down artwork for the sake of doing so, not fully understanding the time and effort artists devote to their work. In addition, artists can also lack the emotional maturity to respond to such criticism in a dignified way. In the end, it all comes down to interpretation and how one chooses to process what they are given and act accordingly.
I feel like it would be incredibly disheartening and difficult to have to defend your work in the court of law. Art is all personal interpretation and visualizing, and having to sit there and defend your work and its intention would be harsh. I find Whistler’s decision to go to court extremely admirable, as he wanted to fight for his vision in the world. To have someone disagree with your work and try to publicly shame you for it and then go against them is very brave. I think critics in regards to all media can be unnecessary. There will be individuals who don’t appreciate your work as much as others and just because they are “professionals” doesn’t mean their words carry more weight. For example, there are a lot of movies that scored low with critics, but fans loved it and rated it highly. Are either one of them wrong? No, but these are two different groups comparing it.
It is upsetting to see that the opinion of one critic could have far-reaching consequences for the career and reputation of Whistler and artists like him. The critic responded out of his own feelings and judgments about a piece of work he did not know the story or artistic process of. Some critics express their opinions as absolute. They believe that what they have to say about an artist and their work is justified and deserved based solely on the critic’s own subjective understanding of the piece. When critics respond as Ruskin did, they are not held accountable for their potentially career-ending reviews. Whistler wanted to ensure that this one man’s opinion did not define the future of his career. People’s opinions matter, with others often looking to people with some level of expertise in a field, such as a critic, to shape their own ideas about a subject or artwork. As such, critiques of artwork should be explicitly identified as a subjective response of an individual and not the reflection of a community standpoint on the piece or artist.
I think it is ridiculous to have to go to court to defend your artwork and worth, unless you did something blatantly problematic like plagiarism, especially considering how diverse art can be in terms of creation and interpretation. The main focus of this issue in my opinion is the concept of an art critic and critique in general. Art interpretation can vary from person to person; one person’s view might wildly differ from that of another. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I do believe that criticism from various viewpoints can be a good thing, but I believe that Ruskin’s writing that all Whistler did was to “fling a pot of paint onto the canvas!” is less criticism and more opinion. Ruskin, being in his position as a prominent art critic, can heavily influence people’s opinion on Whistler’s work without giving them a chance to soak it in themselves or giving Whistler a chance to defend himself, so I can kind of understand why Whistler would take the actions he did. It is also evident throughout history that art that differs from the standard is more likely to get heavily criticized or even rejected. In general, I believe this also goes for everything in life, whether it is in politics, religion, entertainment, etc., which is something to keep in mind moving forward.
I think that society has a tendency to devalue artwork. Maybe in bigger cities where art is taught to be appreciated there is less of that, but even in Vegas we are slowly starting to appreciate art. You can make something quickly but the amount of time it takes to learn and perfect a craft is thousands of hours. Thousands of hours that generally go unpaid. Now to have to battle with an art critic about that seems demoralizing, an art critic should be someone who can find the good in any artwork while still being critical. Critics I think play an important role, but have to go through lots of scrutiny because they are the ones setting a bar for what kind of art is acceptable. Well, more that they stand in a position where they say what is good and what is not.
Whistler could have just disregarded Ruskins critic and probably gone on with his life, but it is very commendable that he followed through with a lawsuit to keep respect to his name. The action of suing can be viewed as almost an act of protest by an artist that says many things. One of those things can be saying, “don’t state something as fact that you know nothing about”. Ruskin knew nothing of the work and time that went into Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket. He also wasn’t aware that this was an interpretation of an event, not a historical landmark.
It can be frustrating as an artist when someone belittles your work, because if they have such a strong opinion about it then why don’t they go out and make something better themselves? Whistler’s lawsuit was a statement saying to critics they cannot mess with the livelihood of artist for the sake of an over-opinionated review.
First off, the creation is an absolute stunner. As for the libel, I am half and half on this subject. America is based on the ability of free speech and all opinions should be taken into consideration; however, if someone is going beyond to ruin your name then the libel is fully valid. Art is apart of someone’s character, so written libel can really harm someone’s image and revenue. I think people should follow a social contract when it comes to critiques. Not any side should take it to a level that is extreme.
Sorry I attached the wrong email to my entry. This comment should have my school email. Sorry.
I think that an artist having to defend himself and his piece of art in court of all places against an art critic is something commendable for Whistler. Honestly, I think he should have just blown off the insult from Ruskin though. Sometimes no matter what you do, there will be people that are going to criticize you, even for the most mundane of things. Although Whistler managed to win his case, the stress and money that was needed for the trial threw him into bankruptcy for a couple years which in my opinion is not worth it. At least he managed to regain his footing after the bankruptcy though and restored his reputation as an artist. I think that critics are needed in a way for growth as an individual. The problem is though that many critics are often incredibly negative individuals that would rather shine a darker light on mistakes rather than be someone that criticizes something for the individual’s betterment.