Academic_Writing_files/Stippling and Aesthetics

HENRY RODERICK NEWMAN AND STIPPLING:
The “Lost” Technique of Watercolor’s Radical
Conservatives
Sarah Katherine Jorgensen
2003
For the greater part of the twentieth century, an artist named Henry Roderick Newman (18431917) was little known. Newman was a watercolorist who used a “Victorian” technique
called stippling to evoke changes in color and form.1 By placing small dabs of opaque
gouache, Chinese white,, or body color, next to each other, then cross hatching with subtle
shades of closely related colors, the lines in his paintings became seamless, evoking contours
found in nature. 2 In “transparent” watercolor technique, light penetrating layers of tinted
color is reflected back to the viewer from the white of the underlying paper. By stippling
opaque paints, such as gouache, light is reflected quite differently by being reflected off of
the thick and irregular surface. 34To Newman and his contemporaries, stippling, with its
subtle shadings and applications for detail and luminosity, was a part of a painterly ethos bent
not only on achieving highly refined images from observation, but also on bringing about
reform in art. Stippling, in combination with the natural and architectural topics Newman
chose, has not been employed in watercolors to any great extent for a century. However this
technique was part of a radical movement which, for a time, was at the core of the
developing American watercolor scene.
To make sense of the relation of Newman’s technique to Newman’s career and to the
history of watercolor, it is important to try to answer the following the following questions:
How was Newman’s technique given rise? What were the peculiarities of his “school”? What
was the general response? Why is his technique no longer practiced and why did it fall out of
favor? What was the relationship between Newman’s work and the development of
watercolors in America?
Newman’s technique and his relationship to the development of watercolors in America must
be understood in the context of developments in watercolors in the years preceding Newman.
The development of watercolor reflects, in some ways, the development of this country from
a colony of England, to a nation of an ever-diversifying population, forging its own identity.
Up until the early nineteenth century, watercolors were labor intensive to produce and
1
Mr. Newman is also referred to as Victorian. Leith, Royal W. Ruskin and His American Followers in
Tuscany: A Historical Study. Guild of Saint George Ruskin Lecture. St Albans: Betham Press for the Guild
of Saint George 1994. p. 19
Originally a technique employed in etching, the technique of stippling was predominately used in the early
nineteenth century by painters of miniatures. Alexander, David “Stippling: History” in Grove Dictionary of
Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
2
Nineteenth century texts refer to gouache as Chinese white or as body color. Earlier references are to
Chinese white. Chinese white is evident in manuals and in advertisements from the late eighteenth and
early nineteenth century. In Dow, George Francis The Arts and Crafts from New England, 1704- 1800:
Gleanings from the Boston Newspapers. Topsfield, MA: The Wayside Press, 1927. Body color is more
often used by mid nineteenth century authors such as John Ruskin. Lesson 3 in Ruskin, John. The Elements
of Drawing in Three Letters to Beginners with Illustrations Drawn by the Author New York: Wiley &
Hallstead, 1857.
3
Shelley, Marjorie. “The Craft of American Drawing: Early Eighteenth to Late Nineteenth Century” in
American Drawings and Watercolors in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York: Yale, 2002. (P 2879). P. 75 This is referred to as a “matte optical phenomenon”.
2
supplies, such as paper and pigments, were difficult to obtain. In the eighteenth century
watercolor supplies were all imported from England.5 English immigrants who were
draftsman, engravers and illustrators introduced watercolor techniques to the colonies. They
influenced American watercolor production in every aspect, from supplies, to subject matter
and topographical perspective.6 Because there were not established schools for the instruction
of art, most of the understanding of the application of watercolor also came from England.
With the wider proliferation of manuals about procurement of watercolor, the number of
artists working in watercolor in America increased. In the late eighteenth and early part of the
nineteenth century, watercolors were still considered the domain of draftsman (FIG 1), who
used watercolor “tints” to color their etchings. Procurement of artist materials was laborious
until the invention of mass-produced watercolors in the early eighteen hundreds.
Watercolors changed profoundly in this period (from the late 1700’s to early 1800’s) because
of developments in the packaging of paints, the invention of watercolor apparatus and the
dissemination of manuals about watercolor technique.7 As watercolor materials diversified,
the need for artist manuals detailing their procurement lessened, and a new form a artist
manual began to emerge which signaled the development of art theory for watercolor 8
Just as materials had originally been imported from England, so had the pedagogy of art
practice. One of these manuals, Elements of Drawing, first published in 1847 by John Ruskin
5
Vanderhoof, Ann Artists and Supplies in Eighteenth Century America. Master’s Thesis, University of
Delaware, 1977. p44-55 Vanderhoof details not only affect of taxation policies on materials, but also on
the difficulty and complex chemical preparation of watercolor supplies. Advertisements from the notices in
the New York Evening Post for June, 12, 1769 show materials that require preparation. Also in Dow,
George Francis The Arts and Crafts from New England, 1704- 1775: Gleanings from the Boston
Newspapers. Topsfield, MA: The Wayside Press, 1927, page 243.
6
In England, and consequently, the United States, topographical views were popular in the first half of the
nineteenth century. Miniaturist Archibald Robertson (1765-1835) was among a group of principal artists
such as engravers John Hill (1770-1850) (FIG 1) and designer Benjamin Henry Latrobe (1764-1820) who
introduced the British topographical watercolor tradition into art in America. Howat, John. American
Watercolors from the Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York: Abrams, 1991, p.6. Robertson also
established the first school of art in America. Shelley, 60. American artists, before there were schools in
America, trained in England. Artists such as Benjamin West (1738-1820), John Singleton Copley (17381815) and Thomas Sully (1783-1872) had had gone to England to receive training in earlier years. Shelley,
45.
7
By 1823 plein-air watercolor work was facilitated by a whole area of tools , including knapsacks, a palate
which fit into the open hand, and collapsible easels, which were adaptations from oil paraphernalia,
SHELLEY, 65.
8
There was a shift from manuals dedicated to the procurement of materials to books about art theory. The
arrival of ready made color and materials “coincided with aesthetic theories that signaled the decline of the
tinted drawing as well as the emergence of painterly watercolor and its not too distant recognition as an
independent art form” SHELLEY, 69.
3
(1819-1900) was as much a philosophical treatise as it was a manual for the beginning artist.
9
Ruskin’s technical advice, which was informed by his strong philosophic and moral
theories, was to have a profound impact on the American artists with whom Newman trained
and on Newman himself.10 It is believed that after reading Ruskin’s Modern Painters,
Newman, a medical student from rural Washington County, New York, was convinced to end
his medical studies and pursue painting.1112
Profoundly influential in Newman’s art, Ruskin believed that greatness in art was to be
located in the faithful representation of the natural world. He looked to the artists before
Raphael, whom he regarded as the harbinger of idealization, and therefore the bastardization
of “truth” in art. His writings illustrate specific methods to bring about, or reclaim, this truth.
These include the use of a limited palate, fastidious rendering and attention to detail and the
employment of the miniaturist technique of stippling.13 Stippling allowed the artist to avoid
harsh lines, which are not found in nature. To Ruskin, this application of color was similar to
that of the sixteenth century Fresco artists, whose “quiet way of blending colors” was
9
Ruskin, ELEMENTS,
Ruskin’s directions to artists have moral undertones, as well as advice for lifestyle. Ruskin states that
“simplicity of life will make [the artist] sensitive to the refinement of modesty and scenery”, thus the
artists’ compositions will be more “truthful”, ELEMENT, p333.
11
Ruskin, John Modern Painters London, Smith, Elder, and co.1862, 3 volumes. The first volume
published in 1846, the second volume originally published in 1851 and the final volume was published in
1860.
12
This is cited in Leith, Royal W. A Quiet Devotion: The Life and Work of Henry Roderick Newman.
New York: The Jordan-Volpe Gallery, 1996 p. 9 and in Forman, Harry Buxton “An American Studio in
Florence,” The Manhattan, III. (June 1884: 526-528) where the author states that when one of Newman’s
friends “had the hardihood to deny him the right to an opinion on matters of art, on the ground that he was a
doctor, and that he should ‘keep to his anatomy.’” Newman, symbolically, flung “to the other end of the
room Bell’s ‘Anatomy’” and declared that “thenceforth art would be his sole aim and end in life.” (p. 526).
Another source declares that his father’s death in 1861 that permitted him to pursue the study of art.
Ahrens, Kent “Pioneer Abroad, Henry R. Newman (1843-1947): Watercolorist and Friend of Ruskin” The
American art Journal. November 1976: 85-98. p.85 .Newman had been torn between the pursuit of art,
which was encouraged by his mother, and his father’s desire for him to follow his own profession of
medicine. Either way, his future ability for depicting the natural world was augmented by his interest in
nature and trips with his mother to Vermont. And it could be presumed that he inherited his meticulous eye
from his physician father. His early history is documented in Forman, Harry Buxton “An American Studio
in Florence,” The Manhattan, III. (June 1884: 526-538) p. 527-529, also in Ahrens and Leith, Quiet,
10
13
“[Apply paint by] breaking one color in small points through or over another. This is the most important
of all processes in good modern oil and watercolor painting. But you need not hope to attain it. To do it
well is very laborious and requires such skill and delicacy of hand as can only be acquired by unceasing
practice” Ruskin, ELEMENTS, p. 226.
4
“perfectly right”.14 He felt that, in light of the popular artists of the nineteenth century, he was
advocating for something radical and modern in the use of stippling for thoughtful
representation of subtleties of color.15 Through the technique of stippling he was staking
claim for a way of seeing: “everything presents itself to your eyes only as an arrangement of
patches, of different colors variously shaded”16
Ruskin’s writings lay claim ‘to a right way’ to perceive and represent light in watercolors.
Ruskin was adamant about retaining a purity in watercolor technique, writing passionately
against muddling of colors and the use of extracting and correction techniques.17 Ruskin
elaborated on the use of gauche and encouraged the mixing of white with the pigments over
the use of transparent washes. This admixture allowed for the paints to be handled more like
oils, with greater control, which aided in the truthful detail he thought important to render. In
addition the effect of luminosity achieved by transparent watercolors was less noble than the
luminosity achieved through the stippling of opaque paints.18 When it came to finish, he
advocated for the matte painting (referred to as “dead paint”) of the fresco artists.19 He was
quick to distinguish translucency and luster, claiming that “translucency, in its place, is
beautiful, but shininess is always a defect.”20 .
Ruskin’s followers in America were as much influenced by Ruskin’s writings on technique
as they were on his writings on subject matter. Ruskin was an impassioned proponent of
14
Ruskin, ELEMENTS, p.231 note: Elements and Modern Painters also have discussions of drawing,
composition, contrast and harmony which relate, but do not have direct bearing to this particular
discussion of Ruskin’s teaching.
15
Ruskin, ELEMENTS p.226 “I say modern because Titian's quiet way of blending colors which is the
perfectly right one, is not understood now by any artist. The best we got is by stippling.” Whereas in
Caracchi, Bronzino, Morillo, Poussin, Domenchichur, “everything is bad…a universality of
reprobation”p.337
16
Ruskin, “Lesson 1” ELEMENTS p. 5. These patches of color could also convey texture such as fur or
thread. “The whole art of painting consists merely of perceiving the shape and depth of these patches of
colour and putting the patches of the same size, shape and depth on canvas” p. 7
17
“You might as well hope to catch a rifle in your hand and put it straight when it was going wrong, as to
recover a tint once it spoils.” Ruskin, ELEMENTS p.204
18
“If you hear it said that the body colour looks chalky or opaque… be assured that certain affects of glow
and transparencies of gloom are not always reached without transparent colour, and those glows and
glooms are not the noblest aims in art.” Elements, 203.
19
“The greatest things in art are to be done in dead color… the noblest oil pictures of Tintoreto and
Vernoese are those [done in dead color] which are likest frescoes” Ruskin, ELEMENTS p.204
20
Ruskin, ELEMENTS p.203 “whatever may be the pride of a young beauty in the knowledge that her
eyes shine, she would be sorry if her cheeks did; and which of us would wish to polish a rose?” p. 203
5
focusing on simple, isolated forms. “Now, if you can draw a stone, you can draw anything”.21
And certainly, Ruskin’s A Fragment of the Alps (FIG 2) was a watercolor that resounded to
those artists who had read his works.22 It traveled the east coast in 1857 as a part of a
controversial exhibition of English Pre-Raphaelites and watercolorists.23 While Elements of
Drawing, published the same year as the exhibition, proposed a way of completely
understanding landscapes without the use of oils, the exhibition was a visual manifestation
of the possibilities of watercolor landscapes. Ruskin’s emphatic technical teachings
combined with the shows’ visual impact would affect not only the practice of art, but also the
public’s familiarity with watercolor. During the next few years, auction sales and loan
exhibitions continued to bring watercolors to the fore, “gradually earning the medium a new
familiarity, if not the complete respect of artists, collectors, dealers and critics.”24
Although Newman probably did not visit the exhibition, his later friends and cohorts in the
Association for the Advancement of Truth in Art must have. Referred to as American PreRaphaelites, they differed from the pre Raphaelite brotherhood which Ruskin supported in
England. The American artists painted almost exclusively in watercolor and did not paint
historical or mythological subjects. Instead their subject matter was mainly still lives and
landscapes. Their unidealized renderings of nature recall Ruskin’s Fragment of Alps. In
uncensored depictions of nature, the American Pre-Raphaelites differed radically from their
predecessors working in landscape in America. To sympathetic critics, these artists, although
receiving inspiration from English artists such as Turner and Hogarth, heralded the beginning
of a truly American school. They represented a “truer order of artists” who exposed the
“fallacies and pretences artists, who, of the Bierdstadt class, almost persuaded the public for
a time that their scenic, shallow, compositions were a likeness of nature”.25
21
ELEMENTS, 93
John Ruskin (1819-1900).Fragment of Alps, 1854-1854. Watercolor and gouache over graphite on
cream wove paper. 13.x 19. Harvard University Art Museums (Fogg Art Museum), Gift of Samuel Sachs
(date of gift not available).
23
Reviews of the exhibition, along with details of the English pre-Raphaelite works exhibited can be read
about in “Sketchings. An Exhibition of English Art” The Crayon, no.4 (August 1957) p. 251
“Foreign Art: The Exhibition of British and French Paintings in New York” New York Times November 7,
1857 p.2
24
Foster, Kathleen A The Makers of the American Watercolor Movement 1880-1890 Ph.D. Thesis. New
Haven, Yale University, 1982. p. 23
25
Jarves, James Jackson “Our Painters in Europe. Have we an American School of Painting?” Art Review.
CHICAGO: vol 1, no. 5, 1871. p. 6-7. Jarves is characterized by Leith in Quiet and “Ruskins and His
American Followers” as being a “foe” of the pre-Raphaelites. However, this article shows that he was
22
6
When Newman began painting in 1861, he secluded himself in Stockbridge, Massachusetts
and later in Factory Point, Vermont, to pursue the Ruskinian method the study of nature.26 It
is perhaps at that time he became acquainted with the burgeoning American Pre-Raphaelite
movement through its journal, The New Path. The Journal grew from the efforts of Thomas
Charles Farrer (1840-1891), an émigré from England who had studied with Ruskin. 27 He
was a teacher of painting at the Cooper Institute School of Design for Women which taught
drawing in a method that could easily be called Ruskinian.28 In his apartment at 5 Waverly
Place, he assembled a group of fellow Ruskin disciples including his brother Henry Farrer
(1844 – 1903), Charles Herbert Moore (1840 – 1930), John Henry Hill (1770-1850),
John William Hill (1812-1879), William Trost Richards (1833-1905), Russell Sturgis (1836–
1909) and the critic Clarence Cook (1822-1900). 29 The group included architects, critics,
geologists and lawyers. It should not be of a surprise that most of the artists in the group were
English by birth or had English parents nor that members had previously been instrumental in
bringing English etching tradition to America.30 Together, they formed the Society for
Advancement for Truth in Art (1863-1865), guided by John Ruskin’s teachings. The
association viewed themselves as reformists of art and architecture, espousing programs of
study and principles of truth.31 Their New Path published articles expanding on Ruskinian
initially supportive of the Pre Raphaelites, in particularly Newman, and was hopeful for the development
of two different landscape traditions in America, with George Inness (1825-1894) on one side, and
Newman on the other.
26
Ruskin, towards the end of Elements of Drawing, tells his students to travel and roam the countryside, to
live simply and to study minuteness of nature. Elements p. 320-335.
27
Ahrens, 86 and Leith, Quiet, 9-10.
28
The teaching regime advised that students, while studying such objects as twigs, fruit and leaves, “cannot
be too rigorous in the pursuit of truth” “Art. The Cooper Institute ‘School of Design’ for Women”.
Roundtable. 14 October
1865, 93.
29
Not all members are listed. Information on dates of birth and death compiled from various resources
including Avery, Kevin American Drawings and Watercolors in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. New
York: Yale, 2002 (for the Hills) Note, Russell Sturgis graduated City College, class of 1857. Information
on Moore comes from Leith, QUIET. p 32-34
30
The occupations of the members are found in The Association for the Advancement of Truth in Art,
Minutes, Ryerson Library, and The Art Institute of Chicago. Page3 quoted in Ferber, Linda “’The
Determined Realists’ the American Pre Raphaelites and the Association for the Advancement for Truth in
Art”. The New Path: Ruskin and the American Pre-Raphaelites. Brooklyn, NY: Brooklyn Museum, 1985.”
The Farrers, The Hills and Charles Moore were all émigrés. John Henry Hill, Henry Farrer and Charles
Herbert Moore were instrumental in the development of etching in America. Gerdts, William H. “Through
a Glass Brightly: The American Pre Raphaelites and Their Lives and Nature Studies”. The New Path:
Ruskin and the American Pre-Raphaelites. Brooklyn, NY: Brooklyn Museum, 1985 p. 41.
31
“What Has Been Done and What Can Be Done” The New Path New York: Society for the Advancement
of Truth in Art. (May 1863) introduction to the first issue. p.1
7
principles through reviews of architecture, exhibitions, each other’s works, and critiques on
what they perceived to be evidence of falseness and vulgarity in the art of their more popular
contemporaries, such as the Hudson River School’s composite and generalized depictions of
nature.32
Newman, from his room in a Vermont farmhouse, struck up a correspondence with Thomas
Farrer. Farrer in turn took Newman as a mentee, having the young artist send his work to him
for review, providing him with a teaching position at the Cooper Institute and eventually
inducting him into the Society for the Advancement of Truth in Art.33 It is in these Vermont
letters, that Newman appears to be earnestly at work following Ruskin’s advice to go to
nature “rejecting nothing”, leaving no stone unobserved.34 This close study of botany and of
geology would resonate throughout Newman’s career. He may have been thinking of
Ruskin’s words, or his Fragmant of the Alps when he wrote Farrer “ I have been trying to get
acquainted with a fragment of flint rock [in watercolor]”.35
Newman began showing with the American Pre Raphaelites (the ex members of the short
lived Society for the Advancement of Truth in Art), who attracted some support mixed with
extreme confusion and negative reviews. Yet, the American Pre Raphaelites persisted. They
were instrumental in the formation of the American Watercolor Society. The founders of the
American Watercolor Society in 1866 included ex-members of the Society for Advancement
of Truth in Art Charles Moore, Henry Farrer, Thomas Farrer and John La Farge (1835-1920).
32
“Notices of Recent Pictures” in The New Path New York: Society for the Advancement of Truth in Art.
October, 1863 p 160. The anonymous writer takes aim at the “pomp” and unrealistic renderings of
mountains in Bierdstadt and Church’s paintings and contrasts them with the truth of John Henry Hill’s and
similar critiques are found throughout the New Path, particularly in Farrer, Henry “The Fallacies of the
Present School” in The New Path New York: Society for the Advancement of Truth in Art. October,
1863p. 150. However, the New Path did publish articles debating fidelity to detail and “truth” as well as
political writings questioning such things as fads in art and why artists were not addressing the slavery
issue in their art. See “The Perspective of Nature” 13 September p. 50-51 and “A Letter to A Subscriber”,
October 1863 page 115.
33
Letters from Henry Roderick Newman to Thomas Charles Farrer, October 13, 1863, October 22, 1863,
October 30, 1863, November 11, 1864 and November 20, 1864 The Gordon Ford Papers, The New York
Public Library He writes from a “farmhouse” in Factory Point, Vermont to Thomas Charles Farrer at 5
Waverly Place.
34
Ruskin, MODERN volume I, page 123.
35
Letter from Henry Roderick Newman to Thomas Charles Farrer, October 22, 1863. The Gordon Ford
Papers, The New York Public Library
8
Newman was inducted into the American Watercolor Society later the same year.36 In 1867,
Newman showed his work Hilly Landscape with Factories on a River Bend (FIG 3)in their
first show at the National Academy of Design.3738 It is a panoramic view of the Mount
Everett area with the Green River in the foreground. His descriptions of the area show he had
studied his subject matter with scientific curiosity and an artist’s eye: “It is marble Country,
high hills and narrow valleys, maple is the principle wood, but the tops of the mountains are
covered with spruces…The colors this past fall were more brilliant than I saw before, but
very transient.”39The crystalline atmosphere, detailed stippling and clear geologic features in
this view show Newman’s synthesis of Ruskinian tenets. It is an objective, un-romanticised
landscape. His vivid colors and meticulous brushwork serve to shape the trunks of the birch
trees and color the needles of the evergreens as much as they delineate the sides of the
factory on the banks of the Green River. If he had preferred a painting without signs of
human presence, he still would not have omitted the factory. It was important to Newman
and the Pre-Raphaelites to show things as they were, and the effect of mankind was a part of
that.40
36
Papers of the American Watercolor Society, Archives of American Art- Smithsonian Institution, roll
N68, frame 427. “H.R. Newman” was elected as a “special meeting convened on May 21 at James Smilie
studio.
37
“Annual Exhibition”. American Watercolor Society. National Academy of Design. Microform. NYPL.
Vol 1, 1867.
38
Hilly Landscape with Factories on a River Bend , or, as it was later referred to, Mt Everett from
Monument Mt. In April. Watercolor on Paper .10 3/8 x 13 3/4. Inscribed in lower left center “HR
Newman 67”. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, gift of Mrs. Harriet Ropes Cabot,1950.
39
Newman to Farrer, October 30, 1863. The Gordon Ford Papers, The New York Public Library
40
See FIG 1 and FIG 5
9
Factory Point, 1867 (FIG 3)
Newman, with the support of Farrer, began selling and showing his work. It has been noted
that he was never good at criticism, however he continued to paint in a genre, which,
although having some fervent supporters, was forever being criticized or ignored.41
As Newman’s confidence grew as an artist, he was able to consider the source of the
criticisms. Even though he confronted the criticisms initially, he remained sensitive to them
throughout his life. When a prospective buyer from New York who was considering his work
concluded that Newman’s work was pre-Raphaelite and that he drew inspiration from
Ruskin, Newman wrote “I did not think long enough to quarrel with her. She is one of those
half way amateurs, very good looking and disagreeable…. I find that the Pre Raphaelites are
not fashionable here- ‘they are so ultra’.”42
Although by the late 1860’s Pre Raphaelitism had, according to various art historians such as
Kathleen Foster and William Gerdts, passed its prime, American Pre Raphaelites
41
Newman’s early letters show that he was aware of his shortcomings as a beginning painter. “I fear you
may not be pleased with my pencil studies”, he wrote to Farrer on October 22, 1863. The Gordon Ford
Papers, The New York Public Library, and on the 30th of October he wrote “there is a saying- nothing
ventured, nothing have, if I did not believe it, I strongly would not send such things, because I know t hem
to be full of faults, they also have some truth in them. I tried hard to paint what I saw and that I think was
right.”
42
Newman to Farrer, November 11, 1864. for an elaboration of Newman and public criticism, see Leith,
Quiet and Leith, “Ruskins’Followers”
10
persevered.43 They were instrumental in the growth and support of art in America. Members
of the American Pre Raphaelites formed new art societies, continued showing, although less
frequently, with the newly formed American Watercolor Society, and established modes of
Ruskinian instruction within institutions. 44 The American pre Raphaelites, ex members and
those associated with the Association for the Advancement of Truth in Art, were, like their
name suggested, determined to banish what they deemed to be falsehood in art. Their work
was often either misunderstood or disliked.45
One of Newman’s art works also received such reviews. His landscape, entitled the Elm (FIG
4) laboriously created in plein air with meticulous stippling and cross hatching over a careful
pencil drawing remains a record of a summer’s afternoon.46 Its vivid colors evoke the strong
mid summer shadow and sun. One reviewer found The Elm’s “extreme unpleasantness” of
The Elm’s raw color releaved only by its “good drawing” which saved it from “utter
43
Various art historians have shown that in the 1860’s the American Pre Raphaelites, were organizing a
good ten and fifteen years after the Pre Raphaelite Brotherhood in England. The AATA disbanded in
1865 – “radical Ruskinian, [was] already a belated cause at the time of the Association’s start” Foster,
Kathleen The Makers of the American Watercolor Movement p. 110. The “belated” nature of the Pre
Raphaelites in America is mentioned in other works, including Gerdts, “Through a Glass Brightly”, p. 41. I
feel it is important, however, to mention that what the Americans were painting differed greatly from the
English brotherhood, and although influenced by the detail and observation of nature as represented in
English Pre Raphaelite work, it is the Ruskinian ethos and literature that they were most radically
pursuing, Their decline is due in part to their strict adherence to Ruskinian ethos.
44
The Watercolor Society, which the Pre-Raphaelites were instrumental in forming, spawned various art
societies such as the Salmagundi Club, the Society of American Artists and the Etching society. Fabri,
Ralph. History of the American Watercolor Society; The First Hundred Years.
New York, American Watercolor Society, 1969. Charles Moore developed an Art program at Harvard
based on Ruskin principles, (Leith, Quiet page 13 and Ferber “DETERMINED”, 25) and Thomas Farrer
continued to teach at the Cooper Institute School of Design for Women (Leith, Quiet),
45
Early on reviewers did not know what to make of the subject matter of the pre-Raphaelites. Robert
Brandegee (1849-1922) picture of a dead bird in the snow, an honest testimony to the passage of life, was
regarded as “ghastly” by an anonymous review, “Paletta” in, “Art Matters: The American Society of
Painters in Watercolors.” American Art Journal 6, no. 24 (6 April 1867), pp. 374-375 , and done in the
“peculiar style of the pre Raphaelites” on page 58 of Conant, Stillman S. “The Exhibition of Watercolors”
Galaxy (1 January 1867) pp.53-59.
46
The Elm 1866. Watercolor on paper. 16 3/4 x 19 1/8. Inscribed lower right, “HR Newman /66” Museum
of Fine Arts, Boston. Bequest of Maxim Karlik, 1973. It is possible that Newman had one of Thomas
Charles Farrer’s articlse in New Path in mind when he created this painting: “The critics and art public,
who are used to course , bad work, deadened forms [and idealized images]… can you tell looking at their
pictures whether it is an Oak, an Elm, or a Pine, and painting of rocks with such ‘painful fidelity’ that you
can actually see the difference between Trap Granite and red Sandstone.” Farrer, Thomas Charles “A Few
Questions Answered” The New Path New York: Society for the Advancement of Truth in Art. New York.
V.1, no.2 (June 1863) pp. 13-36. p. 13 Farrer’s article emphasized the importance of looking at nature,
distinguishing pre-Raphaelite works from illustrations , and condemning the public which did not
appreciate the artists ability to represent and instruct about truth in art
11
condemnation.” 47The attention to detail in such works as The Elm was deemed, even by
friendlier critics, as “severe, limited in range” or “hard, crude”. 48
The Elm, 1866 (FIG. 4)
Despite the criticisms, the attention to detail and to faithful representation of nature in
American Pre Raphaelite work was considerably respected.49 As the Pre Raphaelites drew
converts of artists from the Hudson River School, they drew more attention for their intensity
as much as their technical proficiency. The American Pre Raphaelites were “the principles in
the native watercolor school”, their works “offered instructive exemplars, not without their
inspiring as well as controversial insistence.”50 51 One critic noted that their exhibitions
“awakened an interest in water color painting”.52 Their work demonstrated the possibility to
47
“Paletta” in, “Art Matters: The American Society of Painters in Watercolors.” American Art Journal 6,
no. 24 (6 April 1867), pp. 374-375 , also see FIG 5
48
“Art Matters: The Artist Fund Exhibition- Watercolor Room.” American Art Journal 6, no. 6 (6 April
1866). P.87 and Conant “The Exhibition of Watercolors” (1867) p. 55
49
Cook, Clarence “National Academy of Design: Forty Second Annual” New York Daily Tribune. July 3,
1867, p. 2
50
“Despite the declining influence of Ruskin and the increasing criticism of their unimaginative
“photographic” manner, the American Pre Raphaelites found themselves principles of the native
watercolor school” Foster, Kathleen A. The Makers of the American Watercolor Movement 1880-1890 , p.
111.
51
Observance of the pre Raphaelites as “instructive exemplars”. Tuckerman, Henry. Book of the Artists.
New York: GP Putnam and Sons, 1867. NYPL Rare books division.
52
Conant, Stillman S. “The Exhibition of Watercolors”, p. 59
12
control the loose medium of watercolor and advanced watercolor as a “modern” medium akin
to oils, as opposed to an appendage to etchings. 53
Although gaining support and interest from a variety of camps, the Pre-Raphaelites continued
to be characterized by contemporary critics as painfully illustrative, “uninteresting” ,“weak or
monotonous”, or lacking in the spiritual or interpretive qualities that Ruskin held as the
highest elements in art.54 He called for the “realists” to take their art to “another higher step”,
building upon their foundation of “patient, affectionate, discerning observation of nature.”55
This call for a more poetic naturalism would follow the Pre Raphaelites for years. Younger
artists who had trained with the American Pre-Raphaelites, but who were “more Turneries
than Ruskin”, attempted to marry “poetic” vision with a keen observation of nature. 56
Perhaps because of these sorts of changes in artists' styles, and the criticisms, or lack of them,
on Pre-Raphaelite work, by the mid 1870’s the American Pre-Raphaelites were no longer
shown as a group.
57
Artists returning from Europe, art criticism and developments in technique contributed to a
shift in watercolor in America in the later part of the nineteenth century. Artists, such as
James Abbot McNeil Whistler (1834-1903) (FIG. 6), to whose art Ruskin had a particular
aversion, heralded a transition to a more expressive vision.58 With their aversion to detail
that was exemplified in the stippling technique and an interest in economy of means, they
used the medium differently than their American Pre-Raphaelite predecessors.59 Instead of
mixing the paint with gouache, they worked with the fluidity and transparency of the
medium, experimenting with papers, defying precision by applying paint in loose washes,
53
“Cook, Clarence “National Academy of Design: Forty Second Annual” New York Daily Tribune. July 3,
1867, p. 2
54
“Fine Arts: The Exhibition of the Watercolor Society.” The Nation. February 29, 1872 p. 144
55
Cook, Clarence “National Academy of Design: Forty Second Annual”1867, p. 2
56
Ruskin believed that work of Thomas Moran (1837-1926) exhibited poetic vision informed by an
attention to truth previously only achieved by Turner (1775-1851). Foster, Kathleen “Makers of The
American Watercolor Movement”, p. 136.
57
I was not able to find, although I saw occasional representations of their work, any great quantity of Pre
Raphaelite work in the Exhibitions of the American Watercolor society after 1873. If anything, there was a
greater diversity of styles represented in the exhibition catalogues of the American Watercolor Society in
the later half of the nineteenth century. “Annual Exhibition”. American Watercolor Society. National
Academy of Design. Microform. NYPL. Volumes 1-4, 1867-188
58
Merrill, Linda Pot of Paint: Aesthetics on Trial in Whistler v. Ruskin. Washington and London:
Smithsonian, 1992.
59
Shelley, 72.
13
exposing under drawing and the hollows of the paper. This is evident in the works of
Winslow Homer (1836- 1910) (FIG. 15)and John Singer Sargent (1856- 1925) (FIG. 13, FIG.
14 13)who used a range of practices. Developments in the practice of watercolor and
criticisms leveled against the pre-Raphaelites created a new type of discussion in the art
world in which the Pre Raphaelites were not participants.
By 1873 many of the Pre-Raphaelite artists including Newman had left the New York
watercolor “scene”, but continued to paint in “miniaturist” style, or branched to other modes
of painting, attempting to answer Cook’s call to create a vision ,more personal than perceived
in the tightly wrought renderings of the Pre-Raphaelite. 60 Although he maintained his interest
in realistic renderings of landscape, William Trost Richards (1833-1905) began
experimenting with similar techniques being explored by the younger artists. With just a few
years in between, his paintings show a marked departure from his tightly rendered, finely
detailed paintings like Franconia Mountains from Campton, New Hampshire, 1872 (FIG.
11)61 Within a few years, as exemplified in A Rocky Coast 1875 (FIG 12), Richards was
painting larger pieces on fibrous paper (in contrast to the smooth board preferred by the
American Pre-Raphaelites) and applying loose washes of paints – a complete departure from
Ruskinian technique. 62
60
Newman left for Italy in 1872, only returning to the United States once after that. Leith “Chronology” in
Quiet, page 113. Moore left to teach at Harvard, T.C. Farrer departed for London, Foster, Kathleen A.
Makers of the Watercolor Movement, p. 130. Henry Farrer and WT Richards turned to luminist landscapes
and seascapes. This is evident in formal analysis of both of their work in Avery, Kevin American
Drawings and Watercolors in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York: Yale, 2002. and in Ferber,
Linda and Barbara Dayer Gallati, Eds. Master’s of Color and Light: Homer, Sargent and the American
Watercolor Movement. Washington and London: The Brooklyn Museum of Art, 1998.
61
Formal analysis of William Trost Richards (1833-1905) A Rocky Coast 1877. Watercolor and gouache
on fibrous brown paper. 22 x 36 in. Signed and dated on the lower right Wm. T. Richards, 1877. The
Metropolitan Museum of Art, Bequest of Catharine Lorillard Wolfe, 1887.
62
Formal analysis of William Trost Richards (1833-1905) The Franconia Mountains from Campton, New
Hampshire, 1872. Watercolor, gouache and graphite on wove paper. 83/16 x 14 1/16 in. Signed and dated
at lower right Wm T. Richards 1872.
14
Franconia, New Hampshire. William Trost Richards 1872 (FIG 11)
Rocky Coast. William Trost Richards. 1877. (FIG 12)
Despite the changes happening in watercolors in America, Newman did not respond to the
shifts in art practice in the way that his cohorts had. While the composition of Newman’s
paintings changed somewhat over time, he never attempted “expression” through looser
application of the brush. He continued to paint according to Ruskinian principles for
throughout his life, employing stippling to aid his devotion to detail.
Although Newman’s flower portraits were well received, and he continued to show
intermittently at the American Watercolor Society while other American Pre-Raphaelites
failed to show, it is possible that his departure from New York was instigated by more than
“health concerns.”63 In 1872, Newman embarked for Europe, eventually settling in Florence,
63
1870 was a low point for all the of the American Pre Raphaelites, the Hills, Farrers and CH Moore and
William Trost Richards did not show at the Society. However Newman did submit a flower portrait. This
came from my review of artwork exhibited the “Annual Exhibition”. American Watercolor Society.
National Academy of Design. Microform. NYPL. Volumes 2. 1870 This is also confirmed in Foster,
15
which he called home for the remainder of his life. He found endless subject matter, a circle
of English and American expatriate artists and writers, and a steady influx of art buyers. Italy
provided the conditions for Newman to concentrate on the perfecting of his craft.
While living in Florence, Newman corresponded and thus struck a friendship with John
Ruskin. Ruskin became an ardent supporter of Newman’s work, and advised Newman on
subject matter.64 Though their relationship waned in later years, perhaps Newman’s initial
relationship with Ruskin strengthened Newman’s adherence to Ruskinian technique and
ethos.65 It has been mentioned Newman assisted Ruskin on his Stones of Venice, Ruskin’s
treatise on architectural preservation.66 Newman’s turn to architectural subject matter was
certainly affected by this.67
In Italy, Newman gained greater confidence as an artist, traversing new territory in subject
matter. He also began to develop a broader clientele- in England, through John Ruskin ,and in
New England, through Charles Moore. 68 Newman continued to practice his drawing through
studies with Florentine buildings and with nature studies in the Tuscan countryside, as he had
Kathleen “Makers of the Watercolor Movement” p. 118. Most writers who have detailed Newman’s life
have stated that he moved to Europe on the advice of doctors. Forman, 529. Also in Ahrens, 95, Leith,
Quiet, 19 and Ferber and Gerdts, 204. But, based on the critical climate that existed in the United States
for pre-Raphaelite work, he could have also been seeking new patrons and a fresh environment to pursue
his craft his way.
64
H. Buxton Forman details Ruskin’s advice to Newman on Italian architectural subject matter in his article
for The Manhattan. Forman, 530-532.
65
More on their falling out can be found in Leith, Royal W. Ruskin and His American Followers in
Tuscany: A Historical Study. Guild of Saint George Ruskin Lecture. St Albans: Betham Press for the Guild
of Saint George 1994. p. 8-9.
66
Forman, 89
67
In Florence Newman become acquainted with Ruskin’s literary friends, such as the
Browning’s, Newman also entered into Ruskin’s Guild of Saint George. The Guild’s
purpose was to preserve architectural monuments through careful drawings and
watercolors that hoped to avert the limitations of photography. I have not been able to
substantiate his familiarity with the Brownings with any primary evidence, though it is
mentioned in various sources that Newman knew them and was that he was involved in
Ruskin’s Guild in Florence. Sources include Kathleen Foster, in “Makers of the
American Watercolor Movement” (p. 132-3) and Leith “Ruskin and His Followers” and
Aherns. His participation in the guild certainly foreshadowed his work in Egypt. His
large paintings of Tuscan buildings and Egyptian temples appear as homages to
architectural grandeur as well as silent protests to human damage.
68
Leith, Royal W. “The Expatriate Years of Henry Roderick Newman”. The Magazine Antiques, v. 149
(April 1996) p. 574-583.
16
in his youth in Vermont. Newman shifted his paintings to larger format, vertically aligned
compositions, with detailed, fragmentary views of architecture subjects such as in San
Martino, Lucca, 1887 (FIG. 7 ) and large flower portraits such as Anemones and Daffodils,
1884 (FIG. 16).69
San Martino, Lucca, 1887 (Fig 7)
Throughout his life Newman worked in this meticulous style, applying his characteristic
stippling technique and palette according to Ruskin’s edicts.70 In San Martino, Lucca, light
and shadow play an important role, Newman depicts not only the shadows cast by the
69
San Martino, Lucca, 1887 25 3/4 x 16 3/4 in. Watercolor on Paper. The Jordan-Volpe Gallery. And
Anemones and Daffodils, 1884. Watercolor on paper. 21 x 11 in. The Jordan-Volpe Gallery.
70
Throughout Modern Painters I and Elements, Ruskin states artists should use no more than four colors.
“Mr. Newman employs a limited palette, chiefly yellow and brown ochre, place lemon, rose madder and
real ultramarine. With this he mixes all he needs.” Zimmerman, Helen “An American Watercolorist” The
Sun, September 7, 1890: 15
17
building across the town square, but also the shadows within each of the individual arches
and among the sculptural reliefs on the building’s façade. The form of the imposing building
cuts diagonally across the foreground and is balanced by the open sky over the villa and
neighborhood market in the background. As with many of his works, Newman created an
architectural record of the past but showed it in its relationship to the human present.
Newman also created a group of uncharacteristically allegorical paintings while in Italy. Italy
1883 (FIG 8), painted on the Gulf of Spezia, is (although realistic) as close to an idealized
composition as Newman would come. The Gulf of Spezia was famed for Dante’s exile and
for Shelley’s fate. Newman, who was well versed in literature, was probably thinking of this
when he painted it. 71 Newman’s interests in floral, landscape and architectural subject matter
were synthesized in Italy. Clusters of grapes, roses and olives spilling around a gherico in the
foreground, frame the Bay of Lerici, with a view of the convent where Dante was exiled.72
The ambitious painting serves as homage to Italy’s natural beauty, its classical history and
contributions to literature. Italy’s vast expanse of sky, rendered in his meticulous stippling
technique, demonstrates Newman’s ability to render large-scale watercolors without the use
of wash.
In 1892 Newman began wintering in Egypt. Although he enjoyed a twenty-year career in
Italy as both a popular and prosperous painter, it is possible that his move was motivated as
much by the new craze for all things Egyptian as, as by upheaval among the art world in
Florence.73 In Egypt, he again absorbed himself in recording decorative relief sculpture. He
continued to be concerned with the accurate rendering of detail and the play of light upon his
subjects. Working in Egypt for over ten winters, Newman observed temples at Philae from
angle. As in Captives of Ramses II, 1907 (FIG 9), fragmentary views remained his preferred
compositional device. Captives of Ramses II shows captives carved in relief on the south side
71
Forman, 536
For more about the Dante- Shelley references in this painting see Forman, p 536 and Leith “Newman’s
Expatriate Years” p. 579
73
Claire Conway, assistant curator, American Paintings and Sculpture in discussion with the author at the
Metropolitan Museum of Art. 3 November 2003.
72
18
of the base of the third colossus at Abu Simbel.74 Faithfully rendering every detail, Newman
shows the cracks in the relief and sand piling up in the lower right section of the frieze.
Captives of Ramses II (FIG 9)
Recognizing Newman’s contribution to the history of American Watercolors, the
Metropolitan Museum of Art acquired Newman’s East Entrance, Room of Tiberius, Temple
of Isis, and Philae, 1905 in 1990 (FIG 10).75
74
In Ahrens, 97, the accuracy of the detail in Captives of RamsesII is elaborated on by comparing it with
a contemporary photograph of the same subject.
75
The painting is presented in its original frame, which greatly increases its size and grandeur while
augmenting its “golden” hues. A wood frame painted in gold and detailed with craved hollyhocks on the
far outer edges, it is typical of what is referred to as Newman’s “Ruskin Frames”. Due to this relative
obscurity for most of the twentieth century, most of these frames survive. After 1882 most of Newmans work
were framed in “Ruskin Frames”, which he acquired at the Fine Art Society of London. Leith, Quiet, 23.
19
East Entrance, Room of Tiberius, Temple of Isis, and Philae, 1905 (FIG 10)
Up-close, it is evident that stippling is a great way to convey texture and detail.76 As in his
other works, depth of field is achieved in scale, gradation of hues from intense in the
foreground to less in the background, and stippling reveals the detailing in Philae’s reliefs.
His palette of shades of stone and sky along with his rendering of the play of light across his
subject, make the desert heat and dust almost palpable. His unediting eye and meticulous
detailing not only of the ornamentation on this great Egyptian temple, but also of darkened
area of water damage caused by flooding of the Aswan dam, takes Ruskin’s “rocks” to
another level. In East Entrance, Room of Tiberius, Temple of Isis, Philae, Newman
combined all of the technical skills he had acquired since his days as a burgeneoing painter
earnestly studying his local New England setting with his continued desire to faithfully
document what he had observed. The painting stands as a testament to the fragile beauty of
Egyptian monuments and the impact of human enterprise upon them.
76
Though not on display, one can make an appointment to see the painting through the American Paintings
and Sculpture Department at the Metropolitan Museum.
20
Around the turn of the twentieth century, Newman’s style showed signs of loosening. Under
drawing is apparent and stippling is visible to the naked eye in his later works. Until the end
of his carrier, however Newman continued to make works that were “brilliant in color, exact
in scale and reverential in execution”.77 Newman himself noted that Egypt had freed his
hand: “I was too inclined to emphasize detail and not give mass, now I render both. I have
got greater ease of hand.”78
Despite his residence abroad and adherence to pre Raphaelite painting methods long after the
American Pre-Raphaelite movement had ended, Newman was not completely impervious to
the changes happening in the American art world. By 1890, when Helen Zimmerman
interviewed Newman, he seemed to be aware of the language regarding poetic expression and
painting, so popular among artists like Whistler, Albert Pinkham Ryder (1847-1917) and
Moran. Zimmerman described Newman as striving for “poetic truth” combined with
“fidelity of rendering”. 79 And, although the Newman of 1890 was speaking about art in the
same terms of the critics who challenged him and his cohorts to find a more poetic,
“expressive” vision twenty years prior, the difference between Newman and his more
internationally acclaimed contemporaries was deep. His approach to art remained a spiritual
quest through fidelity to nature as opposed to one revolving around “expression” (as was the
goal of many watercolorists working in the later part of the nineteenth century). His interest
remained in the patient rendering as opposed to the quick application of the brush or
“economy of means”.80 Newman felt that to be taken seriously and to last, an artist should
treat his art, not as a pastime, but “as the most holy thing, like [a] religion”.81
Even if the American Pre-Raphaelite movement died along with the loss of interest in
Ruskin’s philosophies, it can be seen as setting the stage for the next developments in
watercolor. Just as the Hudson River School’s idealized or generalized landscapes provided
fodder for the American pre-Raphaelites, the American Pre-Raphaelite’s call for truth in art
77
Leith, R. “Newman’s Expatriate Years” p. 582.
Zimmerman, 15. This is relative because the one painting I saw from the period to which he was
referring, Temple of Isis at Philae, is executed in meticulously controlled stippling.
79
Zimmerman, Helen “An American Watercolorist” The Sun, 7 September, 1890: 15
80
Shelley, in describing the expressive and quick movements of the brush used by Homer, Sargent and
Whistler. P. 77
81
Zimmerman, 15
78
21
was gave reason for succeeding artists to challenge notions of visible truth in landscape by
presenting experienced or “expressions” of truth in landscape. The American PreRaphaelites, once at the center of the American watercolor, seemed to be forgotten. By the
1880’s Newman received relatively little attention in the United States. Reviews of his only
solo exhibition in the United States, held at the Boston Museum of Fine arts reveal that not
only were the circumstances of Newman’s life unknown and his pre-Raphaelite technique
misunderstood, but that he was also unknown to much of the public.82 His supporters and
students were quick to come to his defense.83 Furthermore, his longtime friend and fellow exmember of the American Association for Truth in Art, Charles H. Moore, wrote to the editor
of the Boston Evening Transcript, not only in Newman’s defense, but also to elucidate a
public which had forgotten Ruskin and his principles on the ethos and importance of
Newman’s technique and style:
Mr. Newman is not an Englishmen.. [he is] an American whose first inspiration and
instruction were received something more than twenty years ago from a group of
young artists in New York who were then endeavoring to break away from the
conventional methods that largely prevailed, and to study Nature faithfully, minutely
and independently. It was to some extent a continuation in this country of the pre—
Raphaelite movement in England…. He carried with him a style of work which has
received surprisingly little modification under foreign influences, but in which he has
steadily improved. 84
82
The editor claims that Newman was English and that his aims were chiefly to achieve “a triumph of
labor”. “Art Notes: Some English Watercolors at the Museum”. Boston Evening Transcript. 27 March 1885
P.5
83
“Claiming that the four colors Newman used were sufficient to render anything, A pupil of Mr.
Newman’s” corrects the editor of the Boston Evening transcript who took issue with Newman’s limited
palette.
“Mr. Newman’s Four Colors”. Boston Evening Transcript, 31 March, 1885: 6.
84
Moore begins by guiding the readers, who by that time were not accustomed to viewing “realistic”
watercolors such as Newman’s on how to look at the painting. “Mr. Newman’s artistic limitations are
apparent, and are inherent in his very qualities. There is nothing vicious or pretentious in his work and he is
not to be blamed for not giving us the qualities of art which do not fall within the range of his genius. But
taking his work for just what it is, the unprejudiced observer will, I think, find a range of beauty and
genuine veracity in it—beauty and veracity of a kind much needing to be apprehended at the present time...
The architectural subjects seem to me especially precious as records of noble monuments which will not
remain long in existence…” Moore, Charles H. “Mr. Newman’s Watercolors at the Museum: To the Editor
of the Transcript” Boston Evening Transcript. 30 March 1882. p.4
22
By 1882 when Moore wrote his response to the editor, he had to make an effort to guide the
general public on how to view works such as Newman’s. Pre-Raphaelite opaque painting
techniques were almost obscure; they had been eclipsed by the “less formal”85 techniques of
watercolorists working with transparent washes. Nevertheless, if great art is characterized by
“something classical, but takes a particular style further, or something that creates a serious
dialogue with contemporaneous school of art or of art that came before it”, than Newman and
the American Pre-Raphaelite movement could be regarded as having created great art. 86
Interest in Newman re-surfaced in the 1980s, when his work was included in the first
retrospective exhibition of American Pre-Raphaelites, held at the Brooklyn Museum of Art.87
Perhaps propelled by this show, Newman’s works began to sell at auction for relatively high
prices.88 This may have been due to the interest generated by the show at the Brooklyn
Museum, or perhaps this coincided with a surge in photo-realism in watercolors.89
If realism in American watercolor re-emerged by the later half of the twentieth century, one
could wonder why stippling would permanently disappear from the watercolor scene? One
can only surmise that although stippling was strongly tied to Ruskinian ethos, it was also not
applicable to the approach to watercolors that had developed at the turn of the nineteenth
century. When Newman began using stippling, it had already been a technique for
miniaturists and for engravers for over a century. In some ways, Newman may have prided
himself that he worked in a technique that corresponded with older materials. (Newman is
documented as criticizing mass produced watercolors made for amateurs.)90 Stippling
required a slow pace, patience and fortitude to execute, whereas by the 1860’s, newer, mass
produced supplies made it easy for an artist to paint impressions quickly in the field. By the
85
This is evident in a large number of transparent watercolor paintings, such as those by Moran, Homer
and Sargent shown at after 1880. “Annual Exhibition”. American Watercolor Society. National Academy
of Design. Microform. NYPL. Volumes 1-4, 1867-188. “less formal” comes from Shelley, 75.
86
George Preston, Professor of the History of Art at City College City College, New York, December 2,
2003.
87
Ferber, Linda and William H. Gerdts, editors. The New Path: Ruskin and the American Pre-Raphaelites.
Brooklyn, NY: Brooklyn Museum, 1985
88
Anemones listed for 18,000 dollars and Italy for in American Paintings Sale: November 11, 1990
Sotheby’s. New York, 1990. Noted in Fricke collection artist file that it sold for 50,000.
89
See work by Carolyn Brady, a successful botanical photo-realist working in watercolors in the 1980’s.
90
Forman and Zimmerman.
23
turn of the century, efforts to control watercolor with a strictly dry method seemed anathema
to watercolorists. The main movement in watercolor technique was toward experimentation
with papers and with washes, and not to painstaking detail. Newman, however, continued to
paint brilliantly colored, monumentally sized (for water colors) works in his consistent dainty
style.
Newman’s style of painting represents an important juncture in the history of American
watercolors. The progress made in the manufacturing of art materials and technical manuals
in the early part of the nineteenth century allowed for a new type of a investigation into the
understanding of the application of watercolor in the later part of the century. Newman began
painting at a time of great changes in the medium itself- watercolor was becoming
differentiated from craft, respected as an independent fine art medium and propagated via
numerous manuals. Inspired in theory and practice by the writings of Ruskin, Newman was
part of a reformist movement, called the American Pre-Raphaelites, that tried to bring about
reform in art; to instruct a transition in art practice from the ideal and false, to the realistic
and true. The members of the Association for the Advancement of Truth in Art created
finely detailed and un-idealized studies of nature through keen observation and the use of
limited palettes, stippling and cross-hatching. Like most early watercolorists in America and
his fellow American Pre-Raphaelites, Henry Roderick Newman was a direct inheritor of
British watercolor tradition, but by the time he Newman left for Europe, watercolor artists in
America were making decided shifts away from the more formal English style. Despite
criticisms and the popularity of new approaches to the medium eclipsing their own
approaches, Newman, who continued painting in the pre-Raphaelite technique, and his
friends were instrumental in the foundations and development of the American school of
watercolors.
Present day watercolorists are trained to exploit the transparency of their medium. In
researching Newman’s stippling of opaque pigments, we are exposed to both a technique no
longer practiced but also a theory of art that is ripe for reconsideration.
24
Review of Sources
Although I have commented throughout this paper on various aspects of sources, I will
elaborate on the sources from which I got the most guidance for further research. The
point from which I started was Kevin Avery’s American Drawings and Watercolors in
the Metropolitan Museum of Art, volume I. New York: Yale, 2002/ the assignment for
this project was to begin our research with a work of art in the Metropolitan’s collection.
This book, allowed me to fulfill two key parts of my research- namely to find a painting
and to begin to learn about the history of watercolor in America. Its reproductions gave
me a visual history in which I could assess the changes in watercolor from the eighteenth
century through the end of the seventeenth century. These pictures enabled me to
formulate questions and informed my readings of other sources. Marjorie Shelley’s
article - “The Craft of American Drawing: Early Eighteenth to Late Nineteenth Century”
(p.28-79)- and her sources sited in her bibliography also in American Drawings,
particularly lead me to understand the material development of the watercolor art form in
America as a precursor for theoretical development. Although the American PreRaphaelites were only briefly mentioned in this book, it provided a basis for my approach
to them.
My initial entrance into the world of the American Pre-Raphaelites was through Linda
Ferber. Through her that I was first exposed to stippling and to Henry Roderick Newman,
her book and exhibition catalogue gave me a grasp on the history of the movement.
My best sources on Newman’s life were the works of Royal Leith. Leith wrote the only
published “book” I could find which was solely devoted to the work of Henry Roderick
Newman: an exhibition catalogue from the Jordan-Volpe Gallery entitled A Quiet
Devotion: The Life and Work of Henry Roderick Newman. New York: The JordanVolpe Gallery, 1996. Identified as a Newman expert, Leith did exhaustive research.
However, after going over some of his primary sources, and finding a few more of my
own, I came to different conclusions about Newman and Newman’s life.
Leith and Ferber provided me with the initial sources that lead me deep into the
nineteenth century.
I looked to Kathleen A. Foster’s works to see how she made use of exhibition reviews.
She was particularly scientific, backing her claims with statistical evidence about number
of paintings sold, exhibited, etc. Although I disagree with some of her interpretations, I
utilized her approach to looking at auction and exhibition histories.
James Jarves’s article “Our Painters in Europe. Have we an American School of
Painting?” Art Review. CHICAGO: vol 1, no. 5, 1871. p. 6-7, was particularly interesting
to me, because out of all the literature I have come across, he seemed to have the clearest
grasp on the ideological shifts in the American art world in the nineteenth century.
Henry Buxton Forman’s article “An American Studio in Florence,” The Manhattan, III.
(June 1884: 526-528). Forman a friend and occasional business partner of Newman and
25
therefore I take some of his writings with a grain of salt. Interviews (such as
Zimmerman, Helen “An American Watercolorist” The Sun, September 7, 1890: 15) and
articles such as Forman’s convey, however, a sense of what kind of person Newman was
and what he thought or didn’t think about the art world.
I included the lengthy quote from Charles Moore in the Boston Evening Transcript,
because I had not seen any aspect of that argument referenced.
On the outset of this paper, I knew nothing of the Pre-Raphaelites, the history of
watercolor, or even of Ruskin (something, that as a student of Philosophy, I should be
ashamed of). I only knew that I found Newman’s technique peculiar and was curious to
know more about it. It became apparent to me, however, that Newman’s work could be
looked at a variety of levels: from composition and application of the brush on a micro
level, to identity in American art or to cycles of intellectual movements on a macro level.
At times, hurdles seemed never ending- not being able to locate a painting, going to three
different libraries for different aspects (volume one, volume two and the bibliography) of
the same book, but all in all I am pleased with the sources I was able to uncover. In
researching this topic, I came into a whole realm and movement that now I can’t imagine
American art without.
26
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Henry Roderick Newman
Newman, Henry Roderick. Letters from Henry Roderick Newman to Thomas Charles
Farrer, October 13, 1863, October 22, 1863, October 30, 1863, November 11, 1864 and
November 20, 1864 The Gordon Ford Papers, The New York Public Library. In
“Miscellaneous Papers”. Originally filed in the letters of Thomas Farrer and now in a
separate file under Henry Roderick Newman
Newman, Henry Roderick. Letters from Henry Newman to Henry Buxton Forman. Percy
Byshe Shelley Collection of Papers, 1809-1908. NYPL, Berg Collection.
Of interest because they detail Mr. Newman’s non-painterly life (of some ease) in St.
Tropez and Florence, as he liaised a “deal” to acquire Percy Byshe Shelley Papers for
Harry Buxton Forman
Contemporary Periodicals
Where there is a known author, it is placed accordingly, otherwise, articles are organized
according to date.
American Art Journal
“Art Matters: The Artist Fund Exhibition- Watercolor Room.” American Art Journal 6,
no. 6 (6 April 1866). P.87
“Paletta”, “Art Matters: The American Society of Painters in Watercolors.” American
Art Journal 6, no. 24 (6 April 1867), pp. 374-375 Particularly unfavorable review of
Newman’s work.
Art Journal
“Current Opinion on Landscapes and Water-Colours” Art Journal 4 (July 1878), 94
Very pre-Raphaelites, aside from Richards are mentioned.
Art Review
Jarves, James Jackson “Our Painters in Europe. Have we an American School of
Painting?” Art Review. CHICAGO: vol 1, no. 5 (April 1871). p. 6-7
The Crayon
“Sketchings. An Exhibition of English Art” The Crayon, no.4 (August 1957) p. 251
This review, in a journal that could be seen as a precursor to the New Path shows impact
the show of English pre-Raphaelites could have on artists.
27
Boston Evening Transcript
Moore, Charles H. “Mr. Newman’s Watercolors at the Museum: To the Editor of the
Transcript” Boston Evening Transcript. 30 March 1885 p.4
“Mr. Newman’s Four Colors”. Boston Evening Transcript, 31 March 1885: 6.
“Art Notes: Some English Watercolors at the Museum”. Boston Evening Transcript. 27
March 1885 p.5
The Galaxy
Conant, Stillman S. “The Exhibition of Watercolors” Galaxy (1 January 1867) p.53-59.
This is a good source to get the general public reception to the American Watercolor
Society’s first exhibition
The Manhattan
Forman, Harry Buxton “An American Studio in Florence,” The Manhattan, 3 (June
1884) pp. 526-528.
The Nation
“Fine Arts: The Exhibition of the Watercolor Society.” The Nation. 29, February 1872 p.
144
The New Path
The New Path New York: Society for the Advancement of Truth in Art. Volumes 1-2
May 1863-December 1865. NYPL
“A Letter to the Subscriber” New Path. Volume 1, No. 9. (October 1864). Page 113120. This article challenges the artist members of the Association for Advancement of
Truth in Art to take a more active stance in politics.
Farrer, Thomas Charles “A Few Questions Answered” The New Path New York:
Society for the Advancement of Truth in Art. New York. V.1, no.2 (June 1863) pp. 1336
New York Daily Tribune
Cook, Clarence: the writer for the Tribune, Clarence cook was a sympathizer with the
American Pre-Raphaelites. He was also an editor of The New Path. Although some of his
28
early and later articles criticize pre-Raphaelite works, he was one of their more
important champions.
Cook, Clarence “The Close of the Artists’ Fund Exhibition” New York Daily Tribune. 20
December 1866, p. 4, col 5
Cook, Clarence “National Academy of Design: Forty Second Annual” New York Daily
Tribune. 3 July 1867, p. 2
Cook, Clarence “The Water-Color Society”, New York Tribune, 9 February 1878
Cook, Clarence “Fine Arts: The Watercolor Society.” New York Daily Tribune. 20
February 1882. p. 5
New York Evening Post
New York Evening Post for 12, June 1769 and 20 September, 1770
This newspaper gave a few advertisements for draftsmen suppliers, which were the
merchants of watercolor suppliers at the time. This indicates that watercolors were part
of craft and drafting in Colonial America. This idea of watercolor as an attaché to
drafting informs the training that many of the American Pre-Raphaelites had and
highlights the major shift in watercolors that happened in Newman’s lifetime.
New York Herald
“Art Notes: Exhibition of Watercolors at the Academy of Design” The New York Herald
22 February 1872. p. 126. and 29 February 1872. p.144
“Fine Arts: The American Watercolor Society: First Notice” The New York Herald. 28
January 1882. p5. col 4-5. This exhibition was particularly interesting to me because it
showed such a variety of types of watercolors, and there appeared to be marked change
in style and looseness—based on the artists showing. A lot of use of the word
“expressive”. Similarly, there was a lot of use of the word “truth” in art reviews ten
years prior.
“Fine Arts: The American Watercolor Society: Third Notice” The New York Herald. 8
February, 1882. p4. col 6.
New York Times
The New York Times is an especially good source to acquire an over all sense of layout
of the exhibition, who showed (if you can not find the exhibition catalogue) and how the
general public might perceive the works.
“Foreign Art: The Exhibition of British and French Paintings in New York” New York
Times 7 November, 1857 p.2
29
“Are Watercolors Serious? New York Times. 3 February 1878, p. 6, col 5.
“The Watercolor Society: A Brilliant Show” New York Times. 1 February 1879. p.1 col
5.
The Sun
Zimmerman, Helen “An American Watercolorist” The Sun, 7 September 1890: 15
Interview where Newman speaks about his technique and feelings on art.
Roundtable
“Art. The Cooper Institute ‘School of Design’ for Women”.Roundtable. 14 October,
1865, 93.
Books by Contemporary Authors
Ruskin, John Modern Painters London, Smith, Elder, and co.1862, 3 volumes. The first
volume published in 1846, the second volume originally published in 1851 and the final
volume was published in 1860.
Ruskin, John. The Elements of Drawing in Three Letters to Beginners with Illustrations
Drawn by the Author. New York : Wiley & Halsted, 1857.
Tuckerman, Henry. Book of the Artists. New York: GP Putnam and Sons, 1867. NYPL
Rare books division.
Auction Catalogues and Sales
American Paintings Sale: November 11, 1990 New York: Sotheby’s, 1990. I initially
found this information clippings from the catalogue in the Fricke Artist’s file, then
substantiated it via Scippio, the Fricke’s online auction database, and looking up the
catalogue itself at the NYPL.
“Annual Exhibition”. American Watercolor Society. National Academy of Design.
Microform. NYPL. Volumes 1-4, 1867-1890 This is useful in ascertaining whom was
showing, how often and changes in artists and the types of works that were being shown
with the American Watercolor Society, the premier venue for watercolors in America in
the later nineteenth century.
Artists Files
Documented according to the structure of the respective library.
Newman, Henry Roderick. Artist File: Miscellaneous Uncataloged Material. Museum of
Modern Art: 2000. 1 folder.
30
Newman, Henry Roderick. Henry R. Newman: Artist File: Study Photographs and
Reproductions of Works of Art with Accompanying Documentation. 1920-2000. Fricke
Art Reference Library: 2002. 2 folders
Correspondence and Interview
Claire Conway, assistant curator, American Paintings and Sculpture, in discussion with
the author at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. November 3, 2003.
George Preston, Professor of the History of Art at City College, in discussion with the
author at the City College, New York, December 2, 2003.
Royal Leith. Email Correspondence with the Author. December 5, 2003.
General Resources
Listed according to author or editor. Includes books, journals and articles within books.
Ahrens, Kent “Pioneer Abroad, Henry R. Newman (1843-1947): Watercolorist and
Friend of Ruskin” The American art Journal. November 1976: 85-98.
Alexander, David “Stippling: History” in Grove Dictionary of Art. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2003.
Avery, Kevin American Drawings and Watercolors in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
New York: Yale, 2002.
Bell, Adrian Baxter and Erika Doss The Visionary Landscape. Talk Given at the National
Academy of Design, New York, September 17, 2003.
Dow, George Francis The Arts and Crafts from New England, 1704- 1775: Gleanings
from the Boston Newspapers. Topsfield, MA: The Wayside Press, 1927.
Fabri, Ralph History of the American Watercolor Society: the First Hundred Years. New
York: American Watercolor Society, 1969.
Ferber, Linda “’The Determined Realists’ the American Pre Raphaelites and the
Association for the Advancement for Truth in Art”. The New Path: Ruskin and the
American Pre-Raphaelites. Brooklyn, NY: Brooklyn Museum, 1985. p 11-38.
Ferber, Linda “The Power of Patronage: William Trost Richards and the American
Watercolor Movement” in Master’s of Color and Light: Homer, Sargent and the
American Watercolor Movement. Washington and London: The Brooklyn Museum of
Art, 1998. p69-92
31
Ferber, Linda “Watercolors by Winslow Homer at the Brooklyn Museum of Art” in
Master’s of Color and Light: Homer, Sargent and the American Watercolor Movement.
Washington and London: The Brooklyn Museum of Art, 1998. p.93-116.
Ferber, Linda and Barbara Dayer Gallati, eds. Master’s of Color and Light: Homer,
Sargent and the American Watercolor Movement. Washington and London: The
Brooklyn Museum of Art, 1998.
Ferber, Linda and William H. Gerdts, editors. The New Path: Ruskin and the American
Pre-Raphaelites. Brooklyn, NY: Brooklyn Museum, 1985
Foster, Kathleen A The Makers of the American Watercolor Movement 1880-1890 Ph.D.
Thesis. New Haven, Yale University, 1982.
Foster, Kathleen. “The Pre Raphaelite Medium: Ruskin, Turner and the American
Watercolor”. The New Path: Ruskin and the American Pre-Raphaelites. Brooklyn, NY:
Brooklyn Museum, 1985. 79- 108
Gallati, Barbara Dayer “Controlling the Medium: The Marketing of John Singer
Sargent’s Watercolors” in Master’s of Color and Light: Homer, Sargent and the
American Watercolor Movement. Washington and London: The Brooklyn Museum of
Art, 1998. p. 117-208.
Gallati, Barbara Dayer “Language, Watercolor and the American Way”. in Master’s of
Color and Light: Homer, Sargent and the American Watercolor Movement. Washington
and London: The Brooklyn Museum of Art, 1998. p.143-169.
Gallati, Barbara Dayer “The Exhibition Watercolor in America”. In Master’s of Color
and Light: Homer, Sargent and the American Watercolor Movement. Washington and
London: The Brooklyn Museum of Art, 1998.
Gerdts, William H. “Through a Glass Brightly: The American Pre Raphaelites and Their
Lifes and nature Studies”. The New Path: Ruskin and the American Pre-Raphaelites.
Brooklyn, NY: Brooklyn Museum, 1985 p. 39-78.
Howat, John. American Watercolors from the Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York:
Abrams, 1991.
Leith, Royal W. A Quiet Devotion: The Life and Work of Henry Roderick Newman.
New York: The Jordan-Volpe Gallery, 1996
Leith, Royal W. “The Expatriate Years of Henry Roderick Newman”. The Magazine
Antiques,, v. 149 (April 1996) p. 574-583.
32
Leith, Royal W. “Ruskin and His American Followers in Tuscany: A Historical Study.”
Guild of Saint George Ruskin Lecture. St Albans: Betham Press for the Guild of Saint
George 1994. I found this late, as it was recently added to the catalogue at NYPL,
however, it provides insight into Newman’s relationship with Ruskin while living in italy.
McLanathan, Richard Art in America: A Brief History New York: HBJ, 1988.
Merrill, Linda Pot of Paint: Aesthetics on Trial in Whistler v. Ruskin. Washington and
London: Smithsonian, 1992. Interesting account of the trial over Ruskin’s remarks about
Turner’s painting .
Parker, Thomas “Chronology of the American Watercolor Movement” in Master’s of
Color and Light: Homer, Sargent and the American Watercolor Movement. Washington
and London: The Brooklyn Museum of Art, 1998.p.209-216
Shelley, Marjorie. “The Craft of American Drawing: Early Eighteenth to Late Nineteenth
Century” in American Drawings and Watercolors in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
New York: Yale, 2002. (p 28-79).
Sumner, Ann. Ruskin and the English Watercolour: from the Turner to the PreRaphaelites: Whitworth Art Gallery: University of Manchester, 1989.
Vanderhoof, Ann Artists Supplies and Supplies in Eighteenth Century America. MA
Thesis, University of Delaware, 1977. Microfiche reproduction, Avery Library, Columbia
University.
Woodcock, Sally, “Posing, Reposing, Decomposing: Life Size /Lay Figures and Artist’s
Colourmen in Nineteenth Century London” in Looking Through Paintings: The Study of
Painting Techniques and Materials in Support of Art Historical Research, Edited by Erma
Hermes et all. Baarn, Neteherlands, Uitgeverigij de Prom, 1998.
33