
John Ruskin: A Prophet for Our Troubled Times - apollinaire
https://www.newstatesman.com/2019/02/%20john-ruskin-200-anniversary-to-see-clearly-book-power-seeing-exhibition-review
======
pmoriarty
Towards the end of Ruskin's life, the famous critic wrote a scathing review of
a painting by James Whistler (of "Whistler's Mother"[1] fame):

 _" For Mr. Whistler's own sake, no less than for the protection of the
purchaser, Sir Coutts Lindsay ought not to have admitted works into the
gallery in which the ill-educated conceit of the artist so nearly approached
the aspect of wilful 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, who was in dire financial straits at the time, sued Ruskin for
libel, saying that his reputation was seriously damaged and asked for 1000
pounds and court costs as compensation.

During the lawsuit, artists, most prominent among them Edward Burne-Jones (one
of the greatest artists of the Pre-Raphaelite movement, and a pupil and
benefactee of Ruskin's), were brought in to make pronouncements on the
worthiness of Whistler's art.

The lawsuit was a rare, perhaps unique, and certainly the most famous example
of a trial which hinged on the definition of art.

Ruskin stood for the more traditional view of art as representation of
reality, and Whistler for a more modern "art for art's sake" where the
artist's sensibilities were more important than how true a representation of
reality the artwork was.

Whistler, who had a wit to rival Oscar Wilde, defended his work with dignity,
humor, and clever turns of phrase which often drew applause from the audience.

In the end, Whistler won the case, but was awarded only one farthing (1/1000th
of a pound) in damages.

Whistler went bankrupt, and remained embittered against Ruskin, publishing
acidic pamphlets against art critics and a book called _The Gentle Art of
Making Enemies_ [2] which contained a retelling of this case.

Ruskin, whose mental health was already in decline (so much so that the trial
had been delayed a year because of it, and who couldn't be present at the
trial itself), suffered a nervous breakdown and resigned from his post at
Oxford, saying _" I cannot hold a Chair from which I have no power of
expressing judgment without being taxed for it by British Law"_.

More about the case can be read here: [3] [4] [5]

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistler%27s_Mother](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistler%27s_Mother)

[2] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gentle_Art_of_Making_Enemi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gentle_Art_of_Making_Enemies)

[3] -
[http://people.loyno.edu/~history/journal/Landry.htm](http://people.loyno.edu/~history/journal/Landry.htm)

[4] -
[http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/jamesh/ruskin.whistler.h...](http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/jamesh/ruskin.whistler.html)

[5] - [https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-james-
abbott-m...](https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-james-abbott-
mcneill-whistler-sued-harshest-critic-won)

