21.04.2016 Views

JAMES McNEILL WHISTLER PRINTS

4mUNpT

4mUNpT

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

the winter of 1861–62; the painting was bought by<br />

Harris Whittemore, who also owned this impression,<br />

and bequeathed by his descendants to the National<br />

Gallery of Art in Washington D.C. Joanna later posed for<br />

Courbet’s painting Le Sommeil.<br />

Weary is one of Whistler’s most ambitious subjects<br />

and one of the last prints he made before he gave up<br />

etching in 1863. It is a romantic and poetic image, both<br />

a departure from his previous subjects and perhaps the<br />

culmination of his printmaking over six years, showing<br />

Jo in a pose described in the simple but expressive title.<br />

At this time Whistler was closely associated with the<br />

Pre-Raphaelites and the influence of Rossetti is apparent.<br />

The two artists had first met in July 1862 and they<br />

were close neighbours after Whistler moved to 7 Lindsey<br />

Row, near Rossetti’s house on Cheyne Walk in Chelsea.<br />

There is a tradition that Weary was inspired by lines from<br />

Rossetti’s poem Jenny:<br />

Why, Jenny, as I watch you there<br />

For all your wealth of golden hair<br />

Your silk ungirdled and unlaced …<br />

This is one of Whistler’s most celebrated works,<br />

made entirely in drypoint and later reinforced with<br />

roulette work in the fifth state as the burr on the plate<br />

showed signs of wear in printing. Although it was<br />

never published, Weary was exhibited widely, first at<br />

the Royal Academy of Arts in 1863 (no.941). The critic<br />

F.G. Stephens wrote in his review that: ‘in the dismal<br />

Octagon Room are placed some of the exquisite drypoint<br />

productions of Mr. Whistler, whose fame the<br />

Royal Academy ignores by placing the marvellous plates<br />

that measure five inches by eight or so, at the top of the<br />

room, one (941) where the sun comes to ruin its delicacy,<br />

even if it could be seen at all’. He wrote later that<br />

‘they deserve noble places and will reward pains taken<br />

to obtain a sight of them … a drypoint, styled Weary,<br />

a lady resting back in her chair, has exquisite tone and<br />

“colour”.’<br />

[46] The Velvet Dress (Mrs Leyland),<br />

1873–74<br />

Etching and drypoint, signed in pencil with a butterfly and<br />

inscribed imp., printed in black ink on Japan paper; in the fifth/<br />

sixth state (of seven)<br />

9 1/8 x 6 1/4 (23.2 x 15.7 cm) sheet 11/2 x 8 inches (29.2 x 20.3 cm)<br />

Provenance: B. Bernard MacGeorge (with his stamp, Lugt 394);<br />

H.H. Benedict (with his stamp, Lugt 1298); C.W. Dowdeswell<br />

(with their stamp, Lugt 690); M. Knoedler, New York (with their<br />

stock number MK 17115); Kennedy Galleries, New York (with their<br />

stock number a 46675)<br />

Reference: Kennedy 105; Glasgow 120<br />

This is one of three drypoints Whistler made showing<br />

Frances Leyland in three of her favorite dresses and it<br />

is one of the first in which he used his butterfly monogram.<br />

The prints may have been intended to help her<br />

decide which of the dresses to wear for her painted<br />

portrait, Symphony in Flesh-colour and Pink: Portrait<br />

of Mrs. Frances Leyland. This is perhaps the most successful<br />

of the etchings; in it, Whistler effectively suggests<br />

the weight and texture of the dress as well as his<br />

sitter’s contemplative expression in a series of spare<br />

lines. The Glasgow catalogue notes that this print “in its<br />

elegant simplicity, [is] as much an icon of the Aesthetic<br />

Movement as Whistler’s oil portrait of the same sitter<br />

…”<br />

A fine, delicately printed impression of this rare etching,<br />

with burr from the drypoint work highlighting Mrs.<br />

Leyland’s face.<br />

68 WOMEN

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!