WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.980 Welcome to the Deep Dive. We take stacks of source 00:00:02.980 --> 00:00:05.040 material, wade through it all, and pull out the 00:00:05.040 --> 00:00:06.919 really fascinating bits so you can get up to 00:00:06.919 --> 00:00:10.339 speed fast. Today we're tackling James Abbott 00:00:10.339 --> 00:00:14.240 McNeil Whistler. He's quite a figure. An American 00:00:14.240 --> 00:00:17.179 artist -painter, printmaker, mostly active in 00:00:17.179 --> 00:00:19.920 the UK during the Gilded Age. And the mission 00:00:19.920 --> 00:00:22.079 today, it's really about the central paradox, 00:00:22.280 --> 00:00:25.500 isn't it? His art is incredibly delicate, almost 00:00:25.500 --> 00:00:29.940 ethereal sometimes. But the man himself. shark 00:00:29.940 --> 00:00:32.420 tongue, very combative. Absolutely. That's the 00:00:32.420 --> 00:00:34.960 core tension we want to unpack. This contrast 00:00:34.960 --> 00:00:37.899 between the sort of soft focus of his paintings 00:00:37.899 --> 00:00:40.780 and the really hard edge of his public personality. 00:00:41.119 --> 00:00:43.700 We need to look at his aesthetic ideas, but also 00:00:43.700 --> 00:00:46.240 how that combative persona got tangled up with 00:00:46.240 --> 00:00:48.259 his genius. Okay, let's start right there with 00:00:48.259 --> 00:00:50.299 that duality, because Whistler himself gave us 00:00:50.299 --> 00:00:52.259 the perfect symbol for it, his signature. It 00:00:52.259 --> 00:00:54.840 started as a butterfly, right? Yes, a stylized 00:00:54.840 --> 00:00:57.200 butterfly, which sounds lovely, doesn't it? Delicate, 00:00:57.280 --> 00:00:59.520 transient beauty. Exactly. But it didn't stay 00:00:59.520 --> 00:01:02.320 that way. No, it evolved. As he got more involved 00:01:02.320 --> 00:01:04.620 in arguments, especially around the 1880s, he 00:01:04.620 --> 00:01:07.500 added a stinger. A stinger to the butterfly. 00:01:07.680 --> 00:01:09.819 Yeah. So you have the delicate art, the butterfly, 00:01:09.939 --> 00:01:13.439 and the sharp defensive personality, the stinger. 00:01:13.500 --> 00:01:15.000 It was almost like a warning label right there 00:01:15.000 --> 00:01:17.599 on the canvas. He was branding himself, the aesthetic 00:01:17.599 --> 00:01:20.420 warrior. Okay, this perfectly leads into his 00:01:20.420 --> 00:01:23.359 big idea, his philosophy. Art for art's sake. 00:01:23.540 --> 00:01:25.939 What did that actually mean in Victorian England? 00:01:26.430 --> 00:01:29.430 because it sounds quite provocative oh it's hugely 00:01:29.430 --> 00:01:31.469 provocative you have to remember the victorians 00:01:31.469 --> 00:01:33.230 generally believed art should have a purpose 00:01:33.230 --> 00:01:36.189 a moral lesson a social commentary or you know 00:01:36.189 --> 00:01:38.390 at least tell a clear story something you could 00:01:38.390 --> 00:01:40.870 easily grasp right and whistler just threw all 00:01:40.870 --> 00:01:43.069 that out no sentimentality no moral messages 00:01:43.069 --> 00:01:46.590 for him art was its own justification its job 00:01:46.590 --> 00:01:49.569 wasn't to teach or copy reality but to interpret 00:01:49.569 --> 00:01:52.450 it to create visual harmony so he was actively 00:01:52.450 --> 00:01:54.989 fighting the idea that if you paint a person 00:01:54.989 --> 00:01:57.489 it has to be a about that person's story or character. 00:01:57.849 --> 00:02:01.590 Precisely. He famously said, nature is very rarely 00:02:01.590 --> 00:02:05.030 right. Meaning, nature provides the raw materials, 00:02:05.230 --> 00:02:08.009 but the artist needs to select, arrange, improve 00:02:08.009 --> 00:02:10.409 it. The artist becomes this sort of aesthetic 00:02:10.409 --> 00:02:13.110 refiner. And he drove this home with his titles, 00:02:13.189 --> 00:02:16.199 didn't he? Calling paintings, arrangements, harmonies, 00:02:16.199 --> 00:02:19.180 nocturnes? Yes, that musical language was completely 00:02:19.180 --> 00:02:22.520 intentional. It forced the viewer, or at least 00:02:22.520 --> 00:02:25.620 tried to, to think about the painting -like music. 00:02:25.759 --> 00:02:28.419 Focusing on? On the composition, the balance 00:02:28.419 --> 00:02:30.960 of colors, the tones, the rhythm across the canvas. 00:02:31.199 --> 00:02:34.500 Not, who is this person? or what's happening 00:02:34.500 --> 00:02:38.039 here. He wanted a pure aesthetic response, stripped 00:02:38.039 --> 00:02:40.520 of all that narrative stuff the public loved. 00:02:40.680 --> 00:02:43.219 It's a clever way to try and control how people 00:02:43.219 --> 00:02:45.800 see the work, but you can immediately see why 00:02:45.800 --> 00:02:47.620 it would annoy people. He's taking away their 00:02:47.620 --> 00:02:50.389 story. Absolutely. Which brings us to the man 00:02:50.389 --> 00:02:53.729 himself. Where did this aesthetic dictator, this 00:02:53.729 --> 00:02:56.370 guy who famously hated being from Lowell, Massachusetts, 00:02:56.710 --> 00:02:59.110 actually come from? Let's look at the early years. 00:02:59.210 --> 00:03:02.530 Okay, so born in 1834, Lowell, Mass. A fact he 00:03:02.530 --> 00:03:04.689 wasn't exactly proud of. Not remotely. You mentioned 00:03:04.689 --> 00:03:06.509 that quote from the Ruskin trial. I shall be 00:03:06.509 --> 00:03:08.469 born when and where I want, and I do not choose 00:03:08.469 --> 00:03:11.409 to be born in Lowell. Just pure arrogance, but 00:03:11.409 --> 00:03:13.889 also this desire to completely craft his own 00:03:13.889 --> 00:03:16.430 identity. And even as a kid, the signs were there. 00:03:16.550 --> 00:03:20.050 The temperament. Apparently so. Moody, prone 00:03:20.050 --> 00:03:24.090 to tantrums, not great health -wise. But his 00:03:24.090 --> 00:03:25.849 parents noticed that drawing. That was the one 00:03:25.849 --> 00:03:27.770 thing that seemed to settle him, focused him. 00:03:27.949 --> 00:03:30.509 And that focus got a serious boost from a change 00:03:30.509 --> 00:03:33.069 of scenery. Russia. Yes, a really significant 00:03:33.069 --> 00:03:36.050 period. His father, George Washington Whistler, 00:03:36.069 --> 00:03:38.830 was a major railroad engineer. Tsar Nicholas 00:03:38.830 --> 00:03:42.889 Len hired him in 1842 to build the St. Petersburg 00:03:42.889 --> 00:03:45.849 -Moscow Railway. So off the family went. That's 00:03:45.849 --> 00:03:47.889 a huge move. And he started formal art training 00:03:47.889 --> 00:03:51.330 there. He did. Private lessons. And then incredibly 00:03:51.330 --> 00:03:54.189 young, only 11, he enrolled at the Imperial Academy 00:03:54.189 --> 00:03:56.349 of Arts in St. Petersburg. So he's getting this 00:03:56.349 --> 00:03:58.830 rigorous European training early on. Did he show 00:03:58.830 --> 00:04:01.229 promise? Undeniably. There's an account from 00:04:01.229 --> 00:04:03.349 Sir William Allen, a Scottish artist who met 00:04:03.349 --> 00:04:06.449 him around 1844. He saw uncommon genius, but 00:04:06.449 --> 00:04:08.349 also warned his mother, you know, don't push 00:04:08.349 --> 00:04:10.449 him too hard. The independent streak was already 00:04:10.449 --> 00:04:13.060 visible. But that Russian period ended tragically. 00:04:13.219 --> 00:04:16.079 Yes, his father died of cholera in 1849. The 00:04:16.079 --> 00:04:18.379 family returned to America, to Connecticut. And 00:04:18.379 --> 00:04:21.079 his mother, Anna, a very pious woman, apparently 00:04:21.079 --> 00:04:23.319 hoped he might become a minister. A minister. 00:04:24.120 --> 00:04:26.379 Whistler. That's hard to picture. Couldn't be 00:04:26.379 --> 00:04:29.160 further from the path he took. But family connections 00:04:29.160 --> 00:04:32.139 led to the next rather odd chapter, West Point. 00:04:32.300 --> 00:04:35.160 The military academy? How did that happen? He 00:04:35.160 --> 00:04:37.259 seems like the least likely candidate. Well, 00:04:37.300 --> 00:04:39.779 his father had taught drawing there. So the name 00:04:39.779 --> 00:04:43.000 helped. And despite being really nearsighted 00:04:43.000 --> 00:04:46.259 and not particularly healthy, he got in in 1851. 00:04:46.579 --> 00:04:50.040 How did it go? Predictably badly. Utter disaster, 00:04:50.339 --> 00:04:52.660 pretty much. He lasted three years, hated the 00:04:52.660 --> 00:04:55.079 authority, got tons of demerits, they called 00:04:55.079 --> 00:04:57.360 him Curly, because he wouldn't cut his hair properly. 00:04:57.439 --> 00:05:00.139 He just wasn't military material. Robert E. Lee 00:05:00.139 --> 00:05:02.060 was the superintendent then, apparently tried 00:05:02.060 --> 00:05:04.300 to accommodate him, but eventually Whistler had 00:05:04.300 --> 00:05:07.569 to go. And the final straw was that famous chemistry 00:05:07.569 --> 00:05:10.449 exam moment. That's the story. Asked to describe 00:05:10.449 --> 00:05:13.029 silicon, he supposedly declared silicon is a 00:05:13.029 --> 00:05:16.509 gas. Wow. Just completely wrong, but stated with 00:05:16.509 --> 00:05:18.649 confidence. In his later joke about it, if silicon 00:05:18.649 --> 00:05:20.730 were a gas, I would have been a general one day. 00:05:20.769 --> 00:05:23.209 It's pure whistler. Wit out over substance almost. 00:05:23.529 --> 00:05:26.250 But West Point wasn't a total loss, artistically. 00:05:26.470 --> 00:05:29.009 No. The drawing and map -making instruction he 00:05:29.009 --> 00:05:31.750 got from Robert W. Weir was actually very good. 00:05:32.350 --> 00:05:35.009 He used that skill for his first job. Briefly, 00:05:35.009 --> 00:05:37.769 mapping the U .S. coast. Another job he hated. 00:05:37.990 --> 00:05:40.670 Found it incredibly boring. Apparently, he got 00:05:40.670 --> 00:05:42.629 transferred out of the main mapping work because 00:05:42.629 --> 00:05:45.889 his bosses found sea serpents and mermaids drawn 00:05:45.889 --> 00:05:48.350 in the margins of the official coastal survey 00:05:48.350 --> 00:05:51.050 maps. Classic. But he learned etching there. 00:05:51.269 --> 00:05:53.050 Yes, in the Coast Survey's etching division. 00:05:53.449 --> 00:05:55.310 Only for a couple of months, but he picked up 00:05:55.310 --> 00:05:57.329 the technique. That became really important later 00:05:57.329 --> 00:06:00.189 on, a major part of his output and income. So 00:06:00.189 --> 00:06:03.029 mapmaking wasn't for him. What next? He decided 00:06:03.029 --> 00:06:05.610 art was the only way. Got some money together, 00:06:05.829 --> 00:06:08.250 told his mother he was off to Paris to study, 00:06:08.350 --> 00:06:11.290 and basically never looked back. Left the U .S. 00:06:11.290 --> 00:06:15.189 for good. Paris, 1855. The bohemian life. Absolutely. 00:06:15.430 --> 00:06:17.709 Threw himself right into it. Studied for a while 00:06:17.709 --> 00:06:19.829 in Charles Glair's studio. It wasn't long, but 00:06:19.829 --> 00:06:22.550 Glair left a mark. In what way? Two key ideas 00:06:22.550 --> 00:06:24.829 stuck with him. First, the importance of line 00:06:24.829 --> 00:06:26.689 drawing over color. That's quite traditional, 00:06:26.870 --> 00:06:28.889 tracing back to Angra. Okay, and the second? 00:06:29.009 --> 00:06:32.379 That black is the fundamental color. the key 00:06:32.379 --> 00:06:34.639 to tonal harmony. Right, and that's interesting 00:06:34.639 --> 00:06:36.779 because it immediately sets him apart from... 00:06:36.779 --> 00:06:38.879 The Impressionists, exactly. They were coming 00:06:38.879 --> 00:06:41.620 up around then, obsessed with pure color, light, 00:06:41.740 --> 00:06:44.139 often banning black from their palettes altogether. 00:06:44.740 --> 00:06:48.480 Whistler, influenced by glare, saw black as essential, 00:06:48.720 --> 00:06:51.579 the anchor for his tonal studies. Big difference 00:06:51.579 --> 00:06:54.029 in approach. But while his technique looked back 00:06:54.029 --> 00:06:56.649 towards line and tone, his subject matter was 00:06:56.649 --> 00:06:59.290 influenced by the moderns. Yes, he fell in with 00:06:59.290 --> 00:07:02.170 Gustave Courbet, Edouard Manet, the poet Baudelaire. 00:07:02.410 --> 00:07:04.569 Baudelaire especially pushed artists to tackle 00:07:04.569 --> 00:07:06.810 modern life, you know, the reality of the city, 00:07:06.870 --> 00:07:09.670 warts and all, not just old myths. So Whistler's 00:07:09.670 --> 00:07:12.050 absorbing this modern subject matter, even while 00:07:12.050 --> 00:07:14.029 his technique focused more on atmosphere and 00:07:14.029 --> 00:07:16.670 arrangement than strict realism like Courbet's. 00:07:17.079 --> 00:07:19.019 Okay, so he's got these influences swirling. 00:07:19.120 --> 00:07:21.279 Let's follow him to London, where his signature 00:07:21.279 --> 00:07:23.540 style really starts to emerge, the white girl 00:07:23.540 --> 00:07:26.379 period. Right. He makes London his main base 00:07:26.379 --> 00:07:30.060 from about 1859, settles in Chelsea. He has an 00:07:30.060 --> 00:07:33.220 early success at the piano in 59. It's a portrait 00:07:33.220 --> 00:07:35.839 of his niece and mother, and critics noted the 00:07:35.839 --> 00:07:38.000 composition, the handling of blacks and whites, 00:07:38.139 --> 00:07:41.079 still quite controlled. But the one that really 00:07:41.079 --> 00:07:44.199 caused a stir was Symphony in White, number one, 00:07:44.300 --> 00:07:48.459 the white girl from 1862. That's the one. A portrait 00:07:48.459 --> 00:07:51.040 of Joanna Hiffernan, who was his mistress and 00:07:51.040 --> 00:07:54.240 also managed his business affairs. She's standing 00:07:54.240 --> 00:07:56.699 in a white dress against white curtains on a 00:07:56.699 --> 00:07:59.160 bare skin rug. And Whistler insisted it was purely 00:07:59.160 --> 00:08:02.089 what? A study in white. Exactly. Just an arrangement 00:08:02.089 --> 00:08:04.509 of different white tones. But nobody saw it that 00:08:04.509 --> 00:08:06.870 way. No, they immediately started reading things 00:08:06.870 --> 00:08:09.050 into it. The white dress, her expression. They 00:08:09.050 --> 00:08:12.389 saw symbolism everywhere. Lost innocence. Connections 00:08:12.389 --> 00:08:14.569 to Wilkie Collins' popular novel, The Woman in 00:08:14.569 --> 00:08:17.050 White. All things Whistler vehemently denied. 00:08:17.389 --> 00:08:19.129 It must have infuriated him. Oh, undoubtedly. 00:08:19.430 --> 00:08:21.850 And the official art world wasn't impressed either. 00:08:22.149 --> 00:08:25.009 The Royal Academy in London rejected it. Too 00:08:25.009 --> 00:08:27.310 unconventional. Maybe seemed a bit suggestive. 00:08:27.370 --> 00:08:30.610 But it got shown eventually. Yes, at the Salon 00:08:30.610 --> 00:08:34.009 des Refusés in Paris in 1863. That was the exhibition 00:08:34.009 --> 00:08:37.110 of works rejected by the official Salon. It got 00:08:37.110 --> 00:08:39.090 a lot of attention there, though Manet's Dejeuner 00:08:39.090 --> 00:08:41.590 sur l 'Arabe kind of stole the show. So even 00:08:41.590 --> 00:08:44.610 early on, we see this clash. Whistler pushing 00:08:44.610 --> 00:08:47.169 pure aesthetics, the public demanding meaning 00:08:47.169 --> 00:08:50.730 and story. Precisely. And around this time, his 00:08:50.730 --> 00:08:53.049 style also starts absorbing other influences. 00:08:53.809 --> 00:08:56.110 Japonism becomes really important. Right, the 00:08:56.110 --> 00:08:58.190 influence of Japanese art. How did that start? 00:08:58.649 --> 00:09:00.950 He was collecting blue and white Chinese porcelain, 00:09:00.950 --> 00:09:03.250 studying Japanese prints. He got fascinated by 00:09:03.250 --> 00:09:06.230 the designs, the flat perspectives, the asymmetry, 00:09:06.269 --> 00:09:09.149 and those potter's marks he studied. That's supposedly 00:09:09.149 --> 00:09:11.070 where the idea for the butterfly signature came 00:09:11.070 --> 00:09:13.450 from. Ah, interesting connection. And we see 00:09:13.450 --> 00:09:15.830 this influence in the paintings. Clearly. He 00:09:15.830 --> 00:09:18.190 painted Heffernan again in works like The Little 00:09:18.190 --> 00:09:20.389 White Girl and Lady of the Landlakes. She's wearing 00:09:20.389 --> 00:09:23.370 kimonos, holding fans, surrounded by Asian objects. 00:09:23.730 --> 00:09:25.950 He's using those Japanese design principles, 00:09:26.190 --> 00:09:28.149 the flat patterns, the different sense of space, 00:09:28.350 --> 00:09:30.909 to push his art further towards decoration and 00:09:30.909 --> 00:09:33.970 harmony, away from realism. But this period also 00:09:33.970 --> 00:09:36.950 had some major personal drama. His friendship 00:09:36.950 --> 00:09:41.309 with Courbet ended. Yes, that fell apart. The 00:09:41.309 --> 00:09:43.929 story goes that Heffernan posed nude for Courbet. 00:09:44.649 --> 00:09:46.690 Some historians think she might have been the 00:09:46.690 --> 00:09:48.929 model for Corbet's really explicit paintings, 00:09:49.190 --> 00:09:52.710 like L 'Origine du Monde. Wow. That would certainly 00:09:52.710 --> 00:09:55.750 strain a friendship. To say the least. It seems 00:09:55.750 --> 00:09:58.110 it revealed an intimacy between Corbet and Heffernan 00:09:58.110 --> 00:10:00.409 that Whistler couldn't accept. The friendship 00:10:00.409 --> 00:10:03.090 was broken. And then another upheaval. His mother 00:10:03.090 --> 00:10:06.169 arrives. Yes. Anna McNeil Whistler came to London 00:10:06.169 --> 00:10:11.009 in January 1864. Very devout, very proper. Whistler 00:10:11.009 --> 00:10:13.149 had been living this bohemian life with Hiffernan. 00:10:13.350 --> 00:10:16.250 So things had to change. Radically. He wrote 00:10:16.250 --> 00:10:18.129 to a friend about the general upheaval, said 00:10:18.129 --> 00:10:21.450 he had to empty my house and purify it from cellar 00:10:21.450 --> 00:10:24.149 to eaves. Hiffernan had to move out, though she 00:10:24.149 --> 00:10:25.950 continued to model for him and help with his 00:10:25.950 --> 00:10:27.929 business. That must have been awkward. But his 00:10:27.929 --> 00:10:29.730 mother's presence actually helped him professionally 00:10:29.730 --> 00:10:32.649 in Victorian London. Ironically, yes. While it 00:10:32.649 --> 00:10:34.970 cramped his personal style, having his respectable, 00:10:35.129 --> 00:10:37.289 pious mother living with him gave him a veneer 00:10:37.289 --> 00:10:41.179 of... well, respectability. Made him seem less 00:10:41.179 --> 00:10:43.620 like a potentially scandalous bohemian artist. 00:10:43.840 --> 00:10:47.519 Exactly. Patrons felt safer. So this very traditional 00:10:47.519 --> 00:10:50.259 domestic setup actually provided the stability 00:10:50.259 --> 00:10:52.659 for him to produce some of his most aesthetically 00:10:52.659 --> 00:10:55.179 radical work. Okay, that stability sets the stage 00:10:55.179 --> 00:10:58.419 for his next big phase, the nocturnes, his portrait 00:10:58.419 --> 00:11:00.440 work, and getting deeper into his technique. 00:11:00.759 --> 00:11:03.120 The nocturnes really started with a strange trip 00:11:03.120 --> 00:11:07.759 he took in 1866 to Valparaiso, Chile. Why he 00:11:07.759 --> 00:11:10.279 went is still a bit debated. He claimed it was 00:11:10.279 --> 00:11:12.639 political, something about supporting Chile against 00:11:12.639 --> 00:11:14.899 Spain. But artistically, it was significant. 00:11:15.259 --> 00:11:17.919 Very. He painted his first night scenes there 00:11:17.919 --> 00:11:20.500 views of the harbor, mostly blues and greens, 00:11:20.700 --> 00:11:23.360 very atmospheric. He initially called them moonlights. 00:11:23.799 --> 00:11:25.860 And he brought that idea back to London. Yes, 00:11:25.960 --> 00:11:27.919 applied it to the Thames River at night and also 00:11:27.919 --> 00:11:30.059 to Cremorne Gardens, which was a popular pleasure 00:11:30.059 --> 00:11:32.679 garden famous for fireworks. These paintings 00:11:32.679 --> 00:11:35.460 owe a huge debt to Japanese prints, especially 00:11:35.460 --> 00:11:38.200 Hiroshige, in their composition and mood. How 00:11:38.200 --> 00:11:40.139 did he actually paint them? The technique sounds 00:11:40.139 --> 00:11:43.799 unusual. It was. Very thin paint, almost like 00:11:43.799 --> 00:11:46.919 watercolor, used as a base wash. Then he'd add 00:11:46.919 --> 00:11:49.559 touches of color, little flicks and dots to suggest 00:11:49.559 --> 00:11:52.960 lights on the water, boats, fireworks. It wasn't 00:11:52.960 --> 00:11:55.279 about detail at all. Just capturing the feeling, 00:11:55.399 --> 00:11:58.940 the light, the tone. Precisely. Evocation, not 00:11:58.940 --> 00:12:01.259 description. And the name Nocturne, where did 00:12:01.259 --> 00:12:03.360 that come from? That was suggested by his patron, 00:12:03.480 --> 00:12:05.639 Frederick Leyland. Leyland was an amateur musician, 00:12:05.879 --> 00:12:08.399 loved Chopin's Nocturnes. Whistler jumped on 00:12:08.399 --> 00:12:10.220 it. He liked the musical connection. Loved it. 00:12:10.299 --> 00:12:13.200 But he also loved, as he admitted, that it proves 00:12:13.200 --> 00:12:16.679 an irritation. To the critics. Ah, the stinger 00:12:16.679 --> 00:12:19.580 again. Always. He said the title does so poetically 00:12:19.580 --> 00:12:22.220 say all that I want to say and no more than I 00:12:22.220 --> 00:12:24.659 wish. It denied the critics an easy narrative 00:12:24.659 --> 00:12:27.240 hook. Which leads us perfectly to the most famous 00:12:27.240 --> 00:12:29.799 painting associated with him, which is also the 00:12:29.799 --> 00:12:31.759 most misunderstood in terms of his intention. 00:12:32.720 --> 00:12:35.059 Arrangement in gray and black number one, or 00:12:35.059 --> 00:12:37.879 as everyone knows it. Whistler's Mother, painted 00:12:37.879 --> 00:12:41.500 in 1871. And the story behind it is quite practical, 00:12:41.659 --> 00:12:44.129 really. His scheduled model didn't show up. That's 00:12:44.129 --> 00:12:47.409 right. And his mother, Anna, was there. He started 00:12:47.409 --> 00:12:49.789 trying to paint her standing, but she found it 00:12:49.789 --> 00:12:52.350 too tiring. So they switched to the seated pose 00:12:52.350 --> 00:12:55.429 we all know. It took ages, dozens of sittings. 00:12:55.570 --> 00:12:57.730 And despite it being his mother, he insisted 00:12:57.730 --> 00:13:00.230 it wasn't about motherhood. He really tried to 00:13:00.230 --> 00:13:02.509 push the formal aspects, call it an arrangement. 00:13:02.610 --> 00:13:05.279 He wanted people to see the composition. The 00:13:05.279 --> 00:13:07.299 balance of the black dress against the gray wall, 00:13:07.480 --> 00:13:10.100 the geometric shapes of the curtain, and the 00:13:10.100 --> 00:13:12.639 picture frame balancing her profile. A purely 00:13:12.639 --> 00:13:16.139 aesthetic exercise. But the public and posterity 00:13:16.139 --> 00:13:19.279 just didn't buy it. Not really. Initially, it 00:13:19.279 --> 00:13:21.379 got a pretty cool reception. It was too simple, 00:13:21.440 --> 00:13:24.559 too austere for Victorian tastes. The Royal Academy 00:13:24.559 --> 00:13:26.940 rejected it at first, then hung it badly. But 00:13:26.940 --> 00:13:30.019 it survived and grew in stature. Immensely. It 00:13:30.019 --> 00:13:31.500 was eventually bought by the French government 00:13:31.500 --> 00:13:34.299 in 1891, which was a huge deal for Whistler's 00:13:34.299 --> 00:13:37.500 prestige. But its massive fame as an icon came 00:13:37.500 --> 00:13:39.419 later, especially during the Great Depression 00:13:39.419 --> 00:13:41.659 when it toured the U .S. It was billed as this 00:13:41.659 --> 00:13:44.299 priceless symbol of motherhood. Became the ultimate 00:13:44.299 --> 00:13:46.679 American icon, even though it lives in France. 00:13:47.100 --> 00:13:49.860 As Peter Sheldahl said, the most important American 00:13:49.860 --> 00:13:52.929 work residing outside the United States. And 00:13:52.929 --> 00:13:55.450 it's the ultimate irony isn't it? The painting 00:13:55.450 --> 00:13:58.830 is famous for the very sentimentality Whistler 00:13:58.830 --> 00:14:01.830 tried to reject. The public imposed the meaning 00:14:01.830 --> 00:14:04.320 he fought against his whole life. We should also 00:14:04.320 --> 00:14:06.820 touch on his working method for portraits, because 00:14:06.820 --> 00:14:09.379 that mother portrait took so long, he was famously 00:14:09.379 --> 00:14:12.679 slow. Notoriously slow. William Merritt Chase, 00:14:12.980 --> 00:14:15.320 another painter who sat for him, called him a 00:14:15.320 --> 00:14:18.159 veritable tyrant for making him pose for hours 00:14:18.159 --> 00:14:21.019 on end into the twilight. Was he just indecisive, 00:14:21.039 --> 00:14:23.340 or was there a method to the madness? Oh, there 00:14:23.340 --> 00:14:24.960 was definitely a method. We have a great description 00:14:24.960 --> 00:14:27.399 from another sitter, Arthur Eddy, from 1894. 00:14:27.700 --> 00:14:30.039 It really complains his tonal approach. How did 00:14:30.039 --> 00:14:32.279 Eddy describe it? He said Whistler worked quickly 00:14:32.279 --> 00:14:34.600 in terms of brushstrokes, but used very thin 00:14:34.600 --> 00:14:37.879 paint, building up countless layers. He'd start 00:14:37.879 --> 00:14:41.000 the whole canvas, figure, and background in muted 00:14:41.000 --> 00:14:43.539 gray -brown tones that almost merged with the 00:14:43.539 --> 00:14:46.000 canvas itself. So not painting features first? 00:14:46.379 --> 00:14:49.679 No. He'd gradually intensify the figure a little. 00:14:50.059 --> 00:14:52.039 Then the background a little, going back and 00:14:52.039 --> 00:14:54.659 forth. The whole picture emerged together. Like 00:14:54.659 --> 00:14:57.340 developing a photograph. That's exactly the analogy 00:14:57.340 --> 00:14:59.759 Eddie used. He said the portrait developed as 00:14:59.759 --> 00:15:02.600 an entirety, very much as a negative under the 00:15:02.600 --> 00:15:04.899 action of the chemicals, comes out gradually. 00:15:05.360 --> 00:15:08.039 It ensures the whole thing is unified, totally 00:15:08.039 --> 00:15:10.779 balanced from the start. That obsession with 00:15:10.779 --> 00:15:13.820 total control over the image, it seems like it 00:15:13.820 --> 00:15:16.100 extended beyond the canvas itself. Absolutely. 00:15:17.059 --> 00:15:19.419 which leads us right into the period where things 00:15:19.419 --> 00:15:22.259 got really fiery, the peak of controversy. The 00:15:22.259 --> 00:15:24.500 butterfly definitely grows its stinger now. Around 00:15:24.500 --> 00:15:26.779 1880 is when he formally adds the stinger to 00:15:26.779 --> 00:15:29.379 the signature, and he becomes obsessed with frames, 00:15:29.460 --> 00:15:31.279 how paintings are hung, the whole environment. 00:15:31.419 --> 00:15:33.960 The aesthetic experience didn't stop at the edge 00:15:33.960 --> 00:15:36.159 of the canvas for him. And this desire for total 00:15:36.159 --> 00:15:39.360 control blew up spectacularly with the Peacock 00:15:39.360 --> 00:15:42.759 Room project. Oh, the Peacock Room. 1876 -77. 00:15:43.279 --> 00:15:45.600 commissioned by Frederick Leyland, the same patron 00:15:45.600 --> 00:15:47.960 who suggested Nocturne. The one with the big 00:15:47.960 --> 00:15:50.960 porcelain collection. Right. Leyland just wanted 00:15:50.960 --> 00:15:52.820 Whistler to make some minor adjustments to his 00:15:52.820 --> 00:15:55.639 dining room to better show off the china. The 00:15:55.639 --> 00:15:57.799 room itself was already designed by someone else, 00:15:57.960 --> 00:16:00.779 Thomas Jekyll. But Whistler saw an opportunity 00:16:00.779 --> 00:16:04.580 for more than minor changes. He saw a canvas, 00:16:04.799 --> 00:16:07.440 Leyland went away, Whistler got started, and 00:16:07.440 --> 00:16:11.850 just took over. He painted the entire room, walls, 00:16:12.110 --> 00:16:14.549 shutters, ceiling, and these incredible intense 00:16:14.549 --> 00:16:18.490 blue greens with gold leaf peacock motifs. It 00:16:18.490 --> 00:16:21.429 became this immersive total work of art. In the 00:16:21.429 --> 00:16:23.929 process. In the process, as he put it, he forgot 00:16:23.929 --> 00:16:26.509 everything in my joy of it, including the fact 00:16:26.509 --> 00:16:29.830 that he painted over very expensive 16th century 00:16:29.830 --> 00:16:32.129 Cordoba leather wall hangings that Leyland had 00:16:32.129 --> 00:16:33.830 paid a fortune for, about a thousand pounds. 00:16:34.009 --> 00:16:35.990 Leyland must have been furious when he got back. 00:16:36.330 --> 00:16:38.360 Apopleptic. Not just about the leather, but the 00:16:38.360 --> 00:16:40.879 massive cost overruns. They had a huge, bitter 00:16:40.879 --> 00:16:43.299 argument. And Whistler, being Whistler, responded 00:16:43.299 --> 00:16:46.019 how? By painting a savage caricature of Leyland 00:16:46.019 --> 00:16:48.539 as a greedy peacock covered in gold coins playing 00:16:48.539 --> 00:16:51.519 a piano. He titled it the gold scab. Eruption 00:16:51.519 --> 00:16:54.039 and filthy lucre. Frilty being a nasty pun on 00:16:54.039 --> 00:16:56.759 Leyland's frilly shirts and filthy lucre. Wow. 00:16:57.559 --> 00:16:59.820 Torpedoing his relationship with his main patron 00:16:59.820 --> 00:17:02.360 after destroying his dining room. That takes 00:17:02.360 --> 00:17:05.259 nerve. Or just an absolute conviction in his 00:17:05.259 --> 00:17:08.740 own artistic rightness, above all else. The irony, 00:17:08.759 --> 00:17:11.359 of course, is that the Peacock Room is now seen 00:17:11.359 --> 00:17:14.700 as a masterpiece. Charles Lang Freer bought the 00:17:14.700 --> 00:17:17.019 whole thing later, and it's installed at the 00:17:17.019 --> 00:17:20.519 Smithsonian. A treasure. But the immediate result 00:17:20.519 --> 00:17:23.160 was financial trouble for Whistler, which set 00:17:23.160 --> 00:17:25.500 up the even bigger conflict, the Ruskin trial. 00:17:25.759 --> 00:17:28.720 Exactly. The Peacock Room cost him dearly. And 00:17:28.720 --> 00:17:30.839 then came the confrontation with John Ruskin. 00:17:31.160 --> 00:17:33.160 the most powerful art critic in England at the 00:17:33.160 --> 00:17:36.559 time. 1877. What sparked it? Whistler exhibited 00:17:36.559 --> 00:17:39.579 one of his nocturnes, Nocturne in Black and Gold, 00:17:39.740 --> 00:17:42.680 The Falling Rocket, a firework scene at the Grosvenor 00:17:42.680 --> 00:17:45.059 Gallery, which was a more progressive alternative 00:17:45.059 --> 00:17:48.019 to the Royal Academy. Ruskin, who championed 00:17:48.019 --> 00:17:51.140 detailed, morally uplifting art, saw it and was 00:17:51.140 --> 00:17:53.660 absolutely scathing. He didn't just dislike it, 00:17:53.700 --> 00:17:56.240 he attacked Whistler personally. Viciously. He 00:17:56.240 --> 00:17:58.599 wrote that He never expected to hear a coxcomb 00:17:58.599 --> 00:18:00.900 as 200 guineas for flinging a pot of paint in 00:18:00.900 --> 00:18:02.980 the public's face. Flinging a pot of paint. That's 00:18:02.980 --> 00:18:05.359 basically calling him a con artist. Precisely. 00:18:05.579 --> 00:18:08.559 An attack on his skill, his integrity, his price. 00:18:09.819 --> 00:18:12.599 Whistler, predictably, sued Ruskin for libel. 00:18:12.980 --> 00:18:15.779 He wanted a thousand pounds in damages. And the 00:18:15.779 --> 00:18:18.000 trial became famous for Whistler's defense of 00:18:18.000 --> 00:18:20.480 his prices. Yes. When Ruskin's lawyer pressed 00:18:20.480 --> 00:18:22.700 him about charging 200 guineas for a painting 00:18:22.700 --> 00:18:24.940 that only took him maybe two days to paint, Whistler 00:18:24.940 --> 00:18:27.359 gave that legendary reply. What was it again? 00:18:27.819 --> 00:18:30.859 The lawyer asked, The labor of two days is that 00:18:30.859 --> 00:18:33.519 for which you ask 200 guineas. And Whistler said, 00:18:33.680 --> 00:18:36.420 No, I ask it for the knowledge I have gained 00:18:36.420 --> 00:18:38.460 in the work of a lifetime. Perfect encapsulation 00:18:38.460 --> 00:18:41.200 of his belief. The value isn't the hours, it's 00:18:41.200 --> 00:18:43.420 the expertise. A brilliant defense of artistic 00:18:43.420 --> 00:18:46.180 value, but it didn't quite work out financially. 00:18:46.460 --> 00:18:49.079 He won the case, technically. He won, but the 00:18:49.079 --> 00:18:51.420 jury awarded him only one farthing in damages. 00:18:51.700 --> 00:18:55.220 The smallest coin imaginable. A symbolic victory. 00:18:55.630 --> 00:18:57.990 but a financial disaster. He had to split the 00:18:57.990 --> 00:19:00.609 court costs, and that, on top of the debts from 00:19:00.609 --> 00:19:02.789 building his fancy new house, bankrupted him 00:19:02.789 --> 00:19:06.829 by May 1879. He lost everything. House, art collection, 00:19:06.910 --> 00:19:09.490 possessions all auctioned off. The stinger proved 00:19:09.490 --> 00:19:12.690 costly. But even in failure, he controlled the 00:19:12.690 --> 00:19:15.529 narrative. He published his own witty, biased 00:19:15.529 --> 00:19:18.730 account of the trial, Whistler v. Ruskin, Art 00:19:18.730 --> 00:19:21.650 and Art Critics. That later became the centerpiece 00:19:21.650 --> 00:19:24.210 of his book, The Gentle Art of Making Enemies. 00:19:24.730 --> 00:19:27.609 turning defeat into publicity. He was relentlessly 00:19:27.609 --> 00:19:30.069 resilient. Which brings us to the final phase, 00:19:30.369 --> 00:19:33.769 recovery, more wit, and his lasting impact. He 00:19:33.769 --> 00:19:36.130 didn't just fade away after bankruptcy. Not at 00:19:36.130 --> 00:19:38.609 all. He immediately got a commission to do a 00:19:38.609 --> 00:19:41.470 set of 12 etchings in Venice, left almost right 00:19:41.470 --> 00:19:44.269 away in 1879. A fresh start. How long was he 00:19:44.269 --> 00:19:46.230 there? Supposed to be three months. Ended up 00:19:46.230 --> 00:19:48.309 staying for 14. He was incredibly productive. 00:19:48.630 --> 00:19:52.140 What did he produce? Over 50 etchings. more nocturne 00:19:52.140 --> 00:19:55.579 paintings, and over 100 pastels. And crucially, 00:19:55.579 --> 00:19:57.839 he focused on a different Venice. Not the grand 00:19:57.839 --> 00:20:00.299 landmarks, but the back canals, the little workshops, 00:20:00.500 --> 00:20:02.339 the everyday life. Finding his own view again. 00:20:02.559 --> 00:20:05.119 Exactly. He wrote about finding a Venice in Venice 00:20:05.119 --> 00:20:06.859 that the others never seemed to have perceived. 00:20:07.640 --> 00:20:10.539 It was, again, about his unique artistic interpretation 00:20:10.539 --> 00:20:13.619 being superior. And this Venetian work was well 00:20:13.619 --> 00:20:17.059 -received. Yes. The etchings and pastels sold 00:20:17.059 --> 00:20:19.059 well, helped him get back on his feet financially, 00:20:19.240 --> 00:20:22.500 and they were hugely influential on younger American 00:20:22.500 --> 00:20:24.539 artists who were in Venice at the time, like 00:20:24.539 --> 00:20:27.000 Frank Duveneck and Robert Blum. They saw his 00:20:27.000 --> 00:20:29.819 atmospheric approach and were inspired. So he 00:20:29.819 --> 00:20:32.740 returns to London with his reputation somewhat 00:20:32.740 --> 00:20:34.940 restored, maybe even enhanced among the younger 00:20:34.940 --> 00:20:37.799 generation. Yes. And he capitalized on that by 00:20:37.799 --> 00:20:40.259 delivering his big lecture, the 10 o 'clock lecture, 00:20:40.400 --> 00:20:43.920 in 1885. This was his manifesto. Pretty much. 00:20:44.400 --> 00:20:47.000 His polished public defense of art for art's 00:20:47.000 --> 00:20:49.539 sake. He laid out his whole philosophy. Art is 00:20:49.539 --> 00:20:51.160 separate from life. It doesn't need a moral. 00:20:51.339 --> 00:20:54.460 The artist is an interpreter, not a copier. Nature 00:20:54.460 --> 00:20:57.059 needs improving by the artist's vision. All his 00:20:57.059 --> 00:20:59.500 key ideas. And this lecture led to another famous 00:20:59.500 --> 00:21:02.119 feud. Yes, with Oscar Wilde. Wilde initially 00:21:02.119 --> 00:21:03.940 praised the lecture, called it a masterpiece. 00:21:04.220 --> 00:21:06.740 But Wilde being Wilde, he couldn't resist also 00:21:06.740 --> 00:21:09.299 making fun of Whistler's massive ego. Two great 00:21:09.299 --> 00:21:11.720 wits colliding. It became a legendary public 00:21:11.720 --> 00:21:15.299 spat. Trading barbs in the press. Wilde said 00:21:15.299 --> 00:21:17.539 something like, Whistler has the highest opinion 00:21:17.539 --> 00:21:21.519 of himself, and I entirely concur. Whistler shot 00:21:21.519 --> 00:21:24.299 back, asking what Wilde had to do with art besides 00:21:24.299 --> 00:21:27.279 dining with artists and being laughed at. Brutal. 00:21:27.279 --> 00:21:29.799 They're French and completely dissolved. Totally. 00:21:30.200 --> 00:21:32.859 It got so bitter that Wilde later seemed to get 00:21:32.859 --> 00:21:36.079 revenge in the picture of Dorian Gray. The doomed 00:21:36.079 --> 00:21:39.769 artist character Basil Hallward, is widely seen 00:21:39.769 --> 00:21:42.329 as being, based on Whistler, the sensitive artist 00:21:42.329 --> 00:21:45.049 ultimately destroyed. Throughout all this, Whistler 00:21:45.049 --> 00:21:47.450 cultivated a very specific public image, didn't 00:21:47.450 --> 00:21:49.329 he? Oh, absolutely. He was actually a small man, 00:21:49.470 --> 00:21:52.230 physically quite slight. But he dressed like 00:21:52.230 --> 00:21:54.970 a dandy monocle, distinctive clothes, and his 00:21:54.970 --> 00:21:56.589 way of speaking was apparently very studied. 00:21:56.730 --> 00:21:59.009 Lots of pauses, like he was sketching with words. 00:21:59.049 --> 00:22:00.690 It was all part of the performance. What about 00:22:00.690 --> 00:22:03.569 his personal life in these later years? Well, 00:22:03.609 --> 00:22:05.450 through the 70s and 80s, he lived with Maude 00:22:05.450 --> 00:22:07.930 Franklin. She was his model, his mistress. They 00:22:07.930 --> 00:22:10.289 had two children together. Her patience during 00:22:10.289 --> 00:22:12.630 those endless sittings was really crucial for 00:22:12.630 --> 00:22:14.630 his portrait work. But he eventually married. 00:22:14.890 --> 00:22:18.170 Yes. In 1888, he married Beatrice Godwin Trixie. 00:22:18.430 --> 00:22:21.210 She was the widow of E .W. Godwin, an architect 00:22:21.210 --> 00:22:23.529 friend. By all accounts, it was a happy marriage, 00:22:23.650 --> 00:22:26.150 brought him stability. But it ended sadly. Very 00:22:26.150 --> 00:22:29.150 sadly. Trixie developed cancer and died in 1896. 00:22:30.079 --> 00:22:32.660 It hit him extremely hard. He said himself he 00:22:32.660 --> 00:22:34.700 never really got over her death. Professionally, 00:22:34.700 --> 00:22:36.900 though, did he achieve the recognition he craved? 00:22:37.099 --> 00:22:39.640 He did, in important ways. His book, The Gentle 00:22:39.640 --> 00:22:42.640 Art of Making Enemies, came out in 1890 and kept 00:22:42.640 --> 00:22:45.119 him in the public eye, cemented his reputation 00:22:45.119 --> 00:22:48.299 as this witty provocateur. And the big one, the 00:22:48.299 --> 00:22:50.259 French government buying Whistler's mother. That 00:22:50.259 --> 00:22:53.660 was huge for him. 1891. The price wasn't astronomical, 00:22:54.000 --> 00:22:56.140 but the prestige being acquired by the French 00:22:56.140 --> 00:22:58.420 state, housed in the Luxembourg Museum, that 00:22:58.420 --> 00:23:00.769 meant more to him than money. It validated his 00:23:00.769 --> 00:23:02.950 European artistic identity over his American 00:23:02.950 --> 00:23:05.910 roots. And his artistic style, tonalism, had 00:23:05.910 --> 00:23:08.450 a real impact. Definitely. Especially in America. 00:23:08.690 --> 00:23:10.990 Artists like John Singer Sargent, William Merritt 00:23:10.990 --> 00:23:13.190 Chase, many others were influenced by his focus 00:23:13.190 --> 00:23:16.329 on mood, atmosphere, subtle color harmony, soft 00:23:16.329 --> 00:23:19.130 edges. The tonalist movement owed a huge debt 00:23:19.130 --> 00:23:22.950 to him. He died in London in 1903. Looking back, 00:23:23.130 --> 00:23:25.750 how do we sum him up? It really comes back to 00:23:25.750 --> 00:23:28.349 that core contradiction. The butterfly and the 00:23:28.349 --> 00:23:31.599 stinger. He was a genuine innovator in painting 00:23:31.599 --> 00:23:34.799 etching pastel. He fundamentally changed how 00:23:34.799 --> 00:23:37.539 people thought about art's purpose, pushing aesthetics 00:23:37.539 --> 00:23:40.160 over narrative. And he did it all while being 00:23:40.160 --> 00:23:42.779 this incredibly sharp, often difficult public 00:23:42.779 --> 00:23:46.579 figure, using his wit as another tool. Exactly. 00:23:46.619 --> 00:23:49.759 So the key takeaways, that relentless focus on 00:23:49.759 --> 00:23:52.569 tonalism, art for art's sake. The surprising 00:23:52.569 --> 00:23:54.609 origin of the butterfly signature from Asian 00:23:54.609 --> 00:23:57.430 ceramics. And the very real cost of his artistic 00:23:57.430 --> 00:23:59.730 battles, the bankruptcy after the Ruskin trial, 00:23:59.849 --> 00:24:01.970 being the prime example. But the biggest takeaway 00:24:01.970 --> 00:24:04.450 might be that ultimate irony we discussed with 00:24:04.450 --> 00:24:06.849 Whistler's mother. Yeah. He fights his whole 00:24:06.849 --> 00:24:09.769 life for his work to be seen as pure form, pure 00:24:09.769 --> 00:24:12.329 arrangement. rejecting sentiment. And his most 00:24:12.329 --> 00:24:15.170 famous painting becomes a global icon because 00:24:15.170 --> 00:24:17.690 of its perceived sentiment, celebrated as the 00:24:17.690 --> 00:24:19.690 ultimate symbol of motherhood, especially in 00:24:19.690 --> 00:24:21.450 America, the country he tried to distance himself 00:24:21.450 --> 00:24:24.509 from. His intention got completely overridden. 00:24:24.650 --> 00:24:26.609 Which leaves us with a final thought for you, 00:24:26.710 --> 00:24:29.309 the listener. Whistler proved an artist could 00:24:29.309 --> 00:24:32.349 fight ferociously for their vision, control their 00:24:32.349 --> 00:24:35.049 narrative, battle critics, risk everything for 00:24:35.049 --> 00:24:37.549 their aesthetic principles. But in the end... 00:24:38.000 --> 00:24:40.160 Does the meaning the public finds in an artwork 00:24:40.160 --> 00:24:42.319 eventually eclipse whatever the artist originally 00:24:42.319 --> 00:24:45.559 intended, no matter how hard they fought? Something 00:24:45.559 --> 00:24:47.680 to think about. Thanks for joining us for the 00:24:47.680 --> 00:24:49.019 Deep Dive. We'll see you next time.