TOM ROBERTS - A GOLDEN AGE |
“Going
to Spain? That’s all right, my boy. Velazquez won’t knock you
down.” Tom Roberts traversed
Spain from late summer and into the autumn of 1883, studying its Old
Masters, Velazquez and Murillo, while on the lookout for subjects to
meet the English appetite for Moorish themes. As ever, he intended to
have a good time. Faux
Spanishness had become a fashion even before Napoleon III married a
minor Spanish aristocrat, Eugenie de Montijo, in 1853. Edouard Manet
launched his career around 1860 with images of the Spanish dance troupes
that followed her Imperial Highness to Paris. Georges Bizet expected to
cash in on the sentiment with Carmen,
which had its London premiere in 1878. A taste for Iberia had
reached Melbourne by the 1860s. Among the first acquisitions by the
National Gallery of Victoria was French Artists Taking their Siesta in a Spanish Posada (1862) by
Jules Vibert. In 1871, the Gallery obtained Edwin Long’s A Question of Propriety, in which monks watch a Spanish Gypsy
Dancer. Roberts helped to pay his way back to England in 1881 by selling
a copy of the Long. Roberts went to Spain intending to produce his
version of the Vibert. The surviving example closest to that project is
the small panel, Basking in the
Alhambra (1883). Both show somnambulant figures. From the scarcity
of works by Roberts in Spain, we can conclude that he had done likewise.
He spent his waking hours watching bullfights, learning the guitar,
carousing in taverns by night and sobering up in the Roman baths during
the day. Roberts journeyed with
a fellow art student John Peter Russell and his architect brother Percy.
Most of what we know of their experience comes from the 1933
reminiscences of the fourth member of their party, William Maloney, a
medical student and later a Labor member of parliament. Roberts traveled
on about five shillings a week, perhaps subsidised by his wealthy
companions. They entered Spain through the Basque country, in August,
moving on to Madrid, Cordoba, Seville and Malaga before reaching Granada
by 12 September. Roberts made notes about a few of the masterpieces he
saw but seems not to have attempted to copy any, then an esteemed method
of training. The Spain that Roberts
encountered was riven by civil war, its peasantry priest-ridden, its
kitchens overrun by vermin and its beds a playground for lice. Only the
hardy looked forward to venturing there. The Prado, by contrast, was
Mecca to the connoisseur, with Velázquez its Prophet. In 1882, the
National Gallery in London had paid 6,000 guineas for his full-length
portrait of Phillip IV. For practicing artists, the Alhambra at Granada
served as Medina. Precious metals from
the Americas had underwritten a Golden Age in Spanish Painting in the
seventeenth century. Two jewels in that crown were Diego Rodriquez de
Silva Velázquez (1599-1660) and Bartolome Estaban Murillo (1617-82).
Impressionist painters from Manet to Whistler claimed Velázquez as
their progenitor. By the 1870s, Murillo was one of the three most copied
artists in London’s National Gallery, admired for his “holiness and
homeliness” more than his technique. In Victoria, the Trustees of the
National Gallery had sought copies of a Velázquez and a Murillo in
1865, but acquired only one of the latter’s Virgin
with the Rosary. Fake Murillos graced mansions in Toorak and the
Western District. The triumph of the
School of Paris has overwritten the significance that Velázquez held
for the painters whose careers crossed as they took one of the paths
through the broad field of Impressionism. Roberts was not the prime
conduit for this influence back into Melbourne’s younger artists, his
contribution bobbing on a tide of adulation.[2] Velázquez developed a
technical facility which he applied to quotidian subject matter as well
as to Court portraits. He explored ways of creating spatial depth which
did not depend on geometry, deploying light to place people and objects
on different planes, with the family portrait now titled Las Meninas the best known of these achievements. The mature Velázquez
offered contradictory appeals to late nineteenth-century painters. Some
admired his presentation of a world freed from idealisations, as with
the casualness of his Aesop.
Others, looking long at his representation of fabrics, were charmed by
their rosy or silver tones, conveyed through a loose yet suave
brushwork. Landscape artists seized on his two tiny oils of the Villa
Medici as a licence to paint en
plein air. Different as Velázquez
and Murillo were, their English and French admirers found one quality in
common. Each had depicted the doings of poor folk with the eye of a
naturalist. An early Velázquez has an old woman frying eggs.
Murillo’s urchins were unwashed. Roberts took such application of
genius to the everyday as permission to venture into shearing sheds.
Inserting the Classical device of figura
serpentina for the boyish wool-carrier on the left of Shearing
the Rams (1890), Roberts could claim the authority of the Velázquez
who had peopled his mythopoeia with the peasants of his own time. Younger artists came to
view Velázquez as stylist through the prism of Manet (Vibert’s
brother-in-law) who got around to visiting the Prado in 1865. He modeled
his Le Fifre (1866) after the
Velázquez portrait of the actor Pablo de Valladolid which Manet
considered as “perhaps the
most astonishing piece of painting ever created … The background
disappears; it is air which surrounds the fellow.”[3] In 1885, James
McNeill Whistler praised Velázquez for having made “his people live
within their frames, and stand upon their legs.”[4]
He had put those words into practice with his 1884 portrait of the
Spanish violin virtuoso, Pablo de Sarasate, which Roberts called “the
finest painting he had seen by any living man.”[5]
Roberts followed suit during the 1890s with a suite of panel portraits,
including one of the violinist, Johann Secundus Kruse.[6] A less strenuous path
to Velazquez wound through the Paris atelier of Charles Carolus-Duran
(1838-1917) who had made himself into a gentleman through his painting,
as did Roberts. Ramon Casas y Carbos (1866-1932) left his native
Barcelona to study with Carolus-Duran. Early in 1883, this
teenager made a name for himself in Paris by a Self-portrait
with Andalusian costume. Nothing in that work suggested either
proto-Impressionism or Velázquez. Its brushwork was as taut as the
costume around the boy’s buttocks. Next, Casas spent four months in
the Prado studying Velázquez, Goya and Tintoretto. Shortly afterward,
in the company of another young Catalan painter, Laureano Barrau, he
went to Granada where they ran into Roberts whose portrait Casas
painted. The contrast with his self-portrait and its free-flowing
strokes could not be greater. Commentators have been
eager to explain a drift in Roberts’s art-making towards the School of
Paris by latching onto this encounter. Had that meeting never happened,
the difference in the course of Roberts’s art practice would not be
noticeable. Barrau studied under
Jean-Leon Gerome (1824-1904) who told his classes to paint a direct
sketch everyday, yet denounced the Impressionists. For the 9x5 catalogue
in 1889, Roberts quoted a remark by Gerome: “When drawing, the
important thing is form; but in painting the first thing to look for is
the general impression of colour.” He might have heard Barrau
regurgitate that precept in 1883. He could have read it in the February
issue of the U.S. Century Magazine, popular in the city’s art circles. Traveling light
constrained the size of any works that Roberts attempted in Spain. The
surviving pieces include A Moorish
Doorway (1883), Una Muchacha
(1883), A water carrier (1883), and A
seated Arab (1883). Also, Roberts was a studio worker, meticulous,
not someone to set up his easel anywhere. Perhaps even the works known
to have been started around Granada received finishing touches in
London. A Spanish Beauty (1883-84) epitomises such uncertainty. The title
and the physiognomy encourage the belief that it was done in Spain,
though it is undated. Was this work of an English lady in fancy dress?
Casas had portrayed himself in a regional costume remote from his
Catalonian heritage. The social columns were replete with accounts of
costume Balls when the leaders of Society reveled in Spanishness. In the
Catalogue Raisonne, the item
following A Spanish Beauty is
a crayon of a girl in Elizabethan dress.[7]
In 1893, Roberts painted Lena Brasch as An
Eastern Princess. Without documentation, we can decide the
authenticity neither of the location nor the model.[8]
To accept that Roberts
made A Spanish Beauty in Spain
is to raise a question mark over the sitter. To what class of woman
would a penniless artist have gained access? Maloney recalled
Roberts’s flirtations with women in the inns. When he exhibited the
portrait at the Australian Art Association early in 1887, one critic
offered to “give five years of his life to arrange the folds of her
lace mantilla.”[9]
It is possible that men had done a deal more for much less. Streeton
never forgot the impression that this small portrait had made on their
artistic circle. When Roberts decorated
his Grosvenor studio in 1888, he repeated the eclecticism to which he
resorted on canvas. He juxtaposed exotica - Japanoiserie,
Arabic rugs, and gum-tips in an Ali Baba jar. He greeted callers with
“Entre usti”. “Diego”
became Fred McCubbin’s nickname for Roberts. The lessons in
self-promotion that Roberts drew from Duran and Whistler fed into the
publicity around the 9x5 Exhibition during the winter of 1889. The most enduring
influence on Roberts from his encounter with the Moorish imagination was
a self-destructive determination to depict an incident from The Arabian
Nights, an unexpurgated translation appearing 1883. On and off for
nearly thirty years, Roberts returned to the theme of The
Sleeper Awakened, with its bevy of Oriental dancing girls. The Royal
Academy twice rejected versions before accepting the work – now lost
– in 1913. The effort fettered Roberts in his fifties, revealing how
remote he was from the contemporary currents in painting. The subject he
pursued had been losing favour when he took it up in the early 1880s. The Sleeper Awakened was not the only backward-looking obsession
that Roberts took away from Europe. The allegories of the English
portraitist, George Frederick Watts(1817-1904), whose “Hall of Fame”
and “Hall of Life” sequences exercised a fascination over Roberts,
which we now strain to credit. Of course, Watts had a reputation as a
portrait painter. Face-making was a chore, yet it was a way to earn
one’s living while mixing with the class of persons most likely to buy
one’s other work. Velázquez also underwrote portraiture as art of the
first rank. Roberts never lost
sight of Velázquez.[10]
Struggling with the compositional difficulties he faced in The Sleeper Awakened, he went on successive Thursdays in 1909 to the
National Gallery to copy what was then believed to be a Velázquez
portrait bust of Phillip IV, but is now known to be a fine copy by a
pupil. Roberts’s attempt to regain his eye dispirited him. Each week
when he returned, he recognised that his effort lacked both “the
subtlety” of his model “and “the way the pigments have been
floated & flickered on … no cleverness!”[11]
Despite a lifetime of
wandering, Roberts never revisited Spain although, in 1925, he
remembered it as the best time he had ever had in travel. As he penned
that line he could see the “brilliant sketch head by Leon Casas full
of life and not dating.” [12] More telling is that he never shook off
the belief that inspiration depended on hunting down subjects in antique
lands. Four years in Europe
left Roberts with the confidence and authority to stare down artists and
critics in Australia. He clinched his arguments by reminding opponents
that he had been there, had seen the Old Masters, and had heard the
leaders of today for himself. In
pondering the importance that a few weeks in Spain had on Roberts and,
through him, on Australian Impressionism, we should not forget that
Whistler never set foot in the country. His showmanship convinced buyers
that he had absorbed the lessons of Velázquez at their source. [1]
W. Gaunt, Victorian Olympus,
Cardinal, London, 1975, p. 164; Millais was mistaken since Holl died
a few weeks after returning from Madrid, aged 46. [2]
Alfred Daplyn had brought back the good news of Velázquez through
his studies with Carolus-Duran, earning the epithet
“impressionist” (Argus,
25 March 1882, p. 13); in Sydney, he taught Conder. With the arrival
of L. Bernard Hall in 1892 as Director of the National Gallery of
Victoria and of its art schools, Velázquez acquired his most
powerful champion. At once, the Gallery purchased the copy by E.
Phillips Fox of Velázquez’s Las
Borachios. Fox had
also exhibited a copy of Hilanderas;
Hall described the
original as “a picture within a picture, and shows how deeply the
artist was interested in optical pictorial problems, for the
management of the light is not less admirable than the unstudied
arrangement of the various figures introduced.”
He thanked Fox “for having brought out two such careful
copies of pictures which are regarded as priceless.” (Argus,
6.12.92: 7, cf 23 June 1906: 4 for Hall’s response to the Rokeby
“Venus”.) Making a Velasquez copy became an unstated codicil to
the National Gallery of Victoria’s Traveling Scholarship. John
Longstaff sent his Aesop
(1890). (Australian Critic,
December 1890, p. 75) James Quinn presented Portrait
of the Infanta Marguerita in 1895 and Constance Jenkins
forwarded her copy of Admiral
Puledo Parija in 1910. Hugh Ramsay bought a copy of R. A. M.
Stevenson’s Velázquez in Paris in 1901. George Coates, George Lambert, Lionel
Lindsay, Charles Wheeler and Jock Frater paid homage. In the early
1900s, the Trustees of the
Art Gallery of New South Wales placed the name of Velázquez
alongside Murillo’s around their new building. Max Meldrum founded
a school of tonalism, worshipping Velázquez as fervently as he
denied ties to Impressionism. The sole dissenter was Norman Lindsay
who recognised the influence of Velázquez as much as he deplored
how “the coldest, most static and lifeless of artists” had
“devastated modern art”. (Home,
December 1921: 94) Australian
Decorator and Painter editorialised that Velázquez should be
the exemplar for interior design, in opposition to art
nouveau, which lacked “the elements of permanency”. (October
1923: 1 & 22) The Sydney lawyer, A. B. Piddington, published two
articles on Velázquez after his 1912 travels in Spanish
Sketches, Milford, London, 1915, pp. 26-44. During the 1930s and
1940s, the leading commercial gallery in Melbourne was called Velázquez.
[3] From Madrid, Manet wrote to Henri Fantin-Latour: “C’est le peintre des peintres. Il ne m’a pas etonne, mais m’a ravi … Le morceau le plus etonnant de cet oeuvre splendide, et peut-etre le plus etonnant morceau de peinture qu’on ait jamais fait, c’est le tableau indique au catalogue: portrait d’un actor celebre au temps de Philippe IV. Le fond disparait: c’est de l’air qui entoure le bonhomme, tout habille de noir et vivant.” quoted in Manet, 1832-1883, Editions de la Reunion des musees nationaux, Paris, 1983, p. 244. [4] J. A. McN.
Whistler, The Gentle Art of
Making Enemies, William Heinemann, London, 1890, p. 158. [9]
Australian Life (Tit-Bits),
3 March 1887, p. 14. |