Self-Reflection Brochure

Self-Reflection \
The Portrait
& Its Uses
Wisbech and Fenland Museum

The portrait
has a long cultural history,
emerging in the earliest forms of art such as statuary, coins, religious
and funerary decoration, as well as painting.
As a figurative form of representation, the portrait painting has
an unbroken line of development from the Renaissance onwards.
Based on the skill to render the physical appearance of objects in an
illusionistic manner, figurative art could also be accused of doing no
more than just copying that appearance, something which Academies
placed in the lower ranks of art. They valued the artistic imagination
that could bring subjects from history to life. The portraits
painted by Rembrandt and other Dutch artists of the 17th century,
proved that the form could achieve the highest artist goals through
employing both painterly skills and imagination to convey character
and inner depth.
The first real challenge to portraiture was the emergence of
photography in the mid-19th century. Notwithstanding its size and
monochrome limitation, photography could claim that because it
recorded with light, it was a more accurate representation of the
physical appearance of a person than any painting. However, its
commercial success merely made this cheaper form of a ‘portrait’
more widely accessible to a larger number of people who wanted
to be portrayed.

The advent of Modern Art from the beginning of the 20th century
and its dominance in Western Art until the late 1960s, along with
the development of mass media, was a further attack upon the value
of figurative portraiture. To some extent late 20th century art continued
to relegate this form as an insignificant artistic practice, and
this is still, to some extent, the case with contemporary art, yet the
form itself has never quite ceased to exist.
David Hockney and Lucien Freud along with Damien Hirst, and many
other contemporary artists, have all produced portraits. Hockney’s
recent exhibition at the RA (July-October 2016), containing no less
than 82 portraits, is proof of the ongoing validity of this form.
The photographic portrait, whether of a movie star, or a celebrity,
has dominated our cultural horizon since the mid-20th century.
When we add to this our present fascination with the internet,
social media and digital technology, it is clear that whenever we take
a photo of our friends or a selfie on our mobile phone and post it on
Facebook, we are affirming the enduring fascination for the portrait.
1

Hudson
Room
2

The illusion of portraiture
All two-dimensional surfaces, whether it is a painting, a photograph,
a film or TV screen or indeed the mobile phone screen, are limited
by the fact that they are a flat surface. Consequently, in trying to
represent the real world as we experience it in three dimensions, an
illusion has to be created. The video or photographic image which
appears to represent faithfully the object and its place in space, is
as much a visual illusion as a painting which has to generate illusion
through painterly techniques. The art of the portrait because of
its earliest association with replicating the physical appearance of a
person, had to call upon techniques such as perspective and the use
of light and shade as well as colour and scale to mimic the illusion of
depth, hence suspending our disbelief in relation to the two-dimensional
surface that we are looking at, in order to persuade us that
we are looking at a three-dimensional object.
Giuseppe Arcimboldo’s work is perhaps an extreme example of this
process of the objects created through the marks made, as well as
the colours used, represent the actual plants and fruits, which then
in turn coalesce to suggest the appearance of a face. The illusion can
be broken down quite easily by focusing on the particular plants and
fruits, and then acknowledging that they too are in fact an illusion
since they are no more than marks made by the brush on a twodimensional
surface.
Why are portraits made?
Apart from the obvious answer that portraits are made because
someone commissions them, there are five ways of considering
their function: capture likeness, create a record, display status, and
symbolise concepts. Perhaps the most obvious reason why a portrait
in any medium is made, is to capture the likeness of a particular
individual. Typically, this is as much concerned with the physiognomy
of the face as with the costume and stature of the individual.
3

Elizabeth Josephine Peckover, 1893, Photograph.
4

Portraits can also act to create a record for legal purposes and
identity such as the Wisbech prison photographs in the exhibition,
which serve to record the appearance of the prisoners for future
reference (a process which is still used by the police).
Portraits are also capable of communicating the individual’s status in
society or indeed the wider world. In this form, they are much more
reliant on the external trappings of the office that the person holds
or represents and the symbols associated with that office, as seen
in the portrait of Napoleon I in his Coronation robes or the photograph
of King Radama II of Madagascar, shown in the exhibition.
We generally assume that the portrayed image is a faithful rendition
of the person’s appearance, yet a glance at the coins in our pocket
will tell us that very often such portraits are symbolic representations,
which are much more concerned with conveying a concept,
such as the state or the monarch.
Portraits can do all these things, and in addition, attempt to convey
the character of the person through their appearance, the objects
around them, the context in which they are portrayed, and the
activities with which they may be engaged. The portrait of Chauncy
Hare Townshend is an excellent example of a work which conveys
a sense of the character of this individual through his pose, the
clothes he wears, his hairstyle, and above all by the faithful dog
whose head he is stroking. It would be natural to assume that this
is his pet dog and that he loved this dog so much that he insisted on
it being portrayed alongside himself, and this may indeed have been
the case. However, the history of the use of the dog as a symbol
of fidelity and trustworthiness goes back to funerary monuments,
brasses, and tombs of the Middle Ages where it appears at the
foot of a Knight’s effigy. The artist or perhaps Townshend himself
requested this symbolic reference in the portrayal because of what
he wanted to say about himself.
5

Types of portraits
In producing a portrait, the human fi gure can be represented in a
number of ways and these can be classifi ed as a series of portrait
categories or conventions, which have been in place, more or less
from the emergence of portraiture as a subject in Western art in
the 15th century. Whilst some conventions go further back to antiquity
especially Romano Greek art, such as the profi le portrait, the
bust, the equestrian portrait and the standing portrait – generally
seen in large-scale public sculpture – others have emerged more
recently, and in response to the changing technologies of the time,
such as photography.
The nine categories identifi ed here broadly cover the range of possible
variants in the composition of a portrait, and relate to a range of
functions associated with the portrait. The profi le portrait is clearly
best suited to coins, medals and plaques, whereas the companion
portrait is best suited to the representation of husband and wife.
Typically, the standing portrait is used when it is important to draw
attention to the stature or status of the person or the costume
worn by that person – as is seen in the portrait of Alderman Richard
Young, which hangs in the Wisbech Town Council meeting room.
How valuable are portraits?
The value of the work of art is always a problematic issue because
it is almost entirely dependent upon the status given to the artist,
subject, materials, or skill displayed, and how it is regarded at any
particular moment in history. The emergence of an art market from
the 16th century onwards – the sale and purchase of works of art –
added a new dimension when prominent individuals began to amass
collections, the dimension of monetary worth.
When Vladimir Tretchikoff painted the Chinese Girl, in Cape Town
in 1952/3, using as the model a young woman he had come across
working in a launderette, his own status as an artist was negligible.
6

Balding A: Sister of the Hospital of the Holy
Trinity, Castle Rising, Oil on Canvas.
Napoleon I, Relief.
Skippers: Siamese Twins Chang and Eng
Bunker, 1846, Oil on Canvas.
7
Sanders G S: William Watson, Oil on Canvas.

The resulting work displayed very few aesthetic or artistic qualities
that could have been agreed upon by either collectors or connoisseurs
at that time. It only came to prominence when, in the late 50s
and the early 60s, it was made into a print, and therefore became
widely available at a modest cost, that it achieved its status as the
‘Mona Lisa of Kitsch’, becoming the bestselling art reproduction of
the 20th century. When it sold for $1.5 million in 2013 at the auction
house Bonhams, it achieved a status that was never imagined by
the artist and certainly never envisaged by the model.
When Leonardo da Vinci accepted the commission to paint a portrait
of the wife of the merchant Francesco del Giocondo, sometime
between 1503 and 1506 (this is disputed and there is evidence that
he was still working on it as late as 1517), he certainly did not
imagine that it would become the quintessential representation of
Western art: the Mona Lisa. Nor could he have imagined that this
small panel of poplar wood measuring only 77 cm x 53 cm, painted
with oil colours, currently in the collection of the Louvre in Paris,
would become the most valued, if not priceless, work of art.
Ultimately the question to be answered here is: what is it about the
‘Mona Lisa of Kitsch’ and the ‘Mona Lisa’ which determines their
respective values?
Who owns the portrait?
The photograph of Florence Owens Thomson and her children was
taken by Dorothea Lange in February or March 1936 in Nipomo,
California, during a month-long trip photographing migrating farmworkers
in the state on behalf of the Resettlement Administration.
Later, Lange stated in an interview “there she sat in the lean-to tent
with her children huddled around her, and seemed to know that
my pictures might help, and so she helped me. There was a sort of
equality about it.” (From: Popular Photography, February 1960).
In fact, Lange took a series of photographs of Mrs Thompson and
her children, and it’s clear from the resulting photographs as well as
8

the nature of the photographic equipment being used, that to some
extent, this particular image was very carefully composed. Even
Lange’s later statement suggests that there was an element of cooperation
between the photographer and the model, therefore the
composition and the pose, especially of the children, have been carefully
arranged to convey a particular message. As a migrant worker,
living in a tent with her family, it is clear that Mrs Thompson was
poor, however Lange’s artistic skill turned this image of desperation
into an elegiac representation of motherhood akin to the Western
tradition of the Madonna and child. This of course did nothing to
relieve Mrs Thompson poverty, but through Lange’s artistry keeps
her image before us as an icon of 1930s America.
In total contrast, the ‘selfie’ apparently taken by an Indonesian black
macaque monkey whose curiosity brought it close enough to the
camera, which had been carefully set up by the photographer David
Slater, to trip the shutter resulted in a series of photographs that
have become the basis of an international legal dispute concerning
the copyright of the image. Naturally, the photographer claimed the
copyright, but PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals)
and animal activists brought a legal case to court to assert that
the copyright belongs to the monkey because he/she activated the
shutter. The case is still unresolved, but serves to draw attention
to the issue of ownership of the image. Whilst we might consider
this to be a distracting argument, it is clear that if we choose to
believe that the animal had no active part in the taking of the picture,
then it’s also clear that the photographer did no more than to set
up a camera. Furthermore, the image could not have been taken
without the camera or the particular characteristics of that camera
which ultimately are the result of the designer of the camera and
the company which manufactured it. In other words, the image was
only made possible by the existence of the camera. Consequently,
the camera manufacturer could claim some ownership of the image.
This argument descends into absurdity, but points to a real concern
in the digital multimedia world where, once an image has been
posted on the Internet, the individual who posted it loses all control
or rights over it.
9

How are portraits used?
Religion and the state
The portrait has been used to represent religious values across
world religions (apart from those that ban all realist representations)
as a way of establishing the relationship between the member
of that religion and its key figures.
The emphasis has been on the personification of the values and
ideas through the representation of the religious images. Western
religions tend to emphasise the physical experience of the deity,
such as personal suffering and sacrifice, whereas Eastern religions
such as Buddhism concentrate on the transcendent values of the
experience of the deity.
The state has done the same thing with symbolic representations
of Kings and Queens, Emperors, and Generals, whether that is on
a coin, a medal or a state seal. The actual appearance of the individual
is only the starting point for the personification of the values
represented by that state. It is not accidental, for example, that the
profile representation of the monarch on coins and medals recalls
the earliest uses of this in ancient Rome, and in doing so appeals to
the concept of imperial power represented through the figurehead.
Remembering the dead
From ancient antiquity to the modern day, the most prolific use of
the portrait has been to commemorate the dead. Often part of
complex funerary decoration, the portrait whether in the form of
a painted mask, a death mask, or a mummy case, the intention has
always been to record the status or appearance of the deceased, to
accompany them in the afterlife or more simply as a memento mori.
10

11
Van Sil T: Descent from the Cross, Copy after Rubens, Detail, 1835, Oil on Canvas.

12

Charles the Martyr
Within hours of Charles I’s execution on 30th January 1649, Eikon
Basilike was published. Claimed to have been written by Charles
himself, it is a justification of his actions, and is the basis of the
cult of Charles the Martyr. After the Restoration, he was made a
saint with his Feast-day fixed as 30th January and remained in the
Church’s Calendar until 1859.
The fragment of a portrait of Charles shown on the left was found
in the roof timbers of Walsoken church and presumably served as
an icon of the royal saint, probably as an image to be worshipped
rather than a portrait.
Funerary monuments
The memorial on the north wall of the chancel of St Peter and Paul’s
Wisbech represents Thomas Parke who was born 1543 and died 1st
January 1630 aged 87, and Audrey Parke his wife who died in 1639.
This kind of memorial was popular in the 17th century. It shows
figures representing Thomas and Audrey kneeling at a prayer desk,
and their daughter Elizabeth is shown kneeling in the recess under
the desk. Thomas is in armour of the early 17th century, whereas
Audrey wears a dark cloak or dress with a wide brimmed black hat.
There is a plaque in the centre section which reads ‘to the memory
of their dear and deceased Father Thomas Parke their mother (yet living).
Sir Miles Sandys KNT and Dame Eliz his wife daughter and heir of the
said Thomas Parke erected this memorial’. A skeleton resting above
the figures is a reminder of the vanity of life.
The image of power
Leadership and military prowess has often been displayed through
the ‘uniform of office’ or the physical attributes of the individual -
these are sometimes exaggerated or made the central feature. The
emphasis given to the Imperial coronation robes of Napoleon I, and
13

the trappings of power, as well as the symbols of authority such as
the Imperial Roman Eagle on top of his staff, the Christian orb resting
on the stool, or point to his aggrandising status.
The Rev William Ellis’s photograph of King Radama II, whilst nonetheless
regal, as he is dressed in a suitable uniform of state, with
his crown on the table beside him, makes an interesting contrast
with the image of imperial power represented by Napoleon. There
is some irony here as it was the French who gifted the crown to
Radama II in an effort to persuade him to favour their desire to
bring Madagascar into the French sphere of influence. The British
were in competition for this influence but the French won.
General Giuseppe Garibaldi (4th July 1807 – 2nd June 1882) the
‘hero of two worlds’ whose thrilling deeds during the campaign for
the unification of Italy had unfolded day-by-day through the 1860s
on the front pages of most newspapers, received a tumultuous welcome
wherever he went on his three-week tour of England in the
spring of 1864. His fame as a republican hero was so great that it
generated a personality cult which was quickly exploited by manufacturers
such as Peak Freans, who invented the Garibaldi biscuit in
1861; by printmakers who produced numerous images of Garibaldi’s
exploits, and the Staffordshire potteries who produced statuettes
and busts of the general. In all these portrayals, the key symbolism
is his red shirt, the poncho, his sword and his horse.
The bronze sculpture represents an Oba, a king of Benin (a former
kingdom in modern day Nigeria in West Africa), shown with the
traditional symbols of the palette he holds in his right hand, the
headdress studded with cowrie shells, the shield and necklace, all
testify to his special status. Figures such as these were produced
for the Palace of the Oba in Benin City by metal casting craftsman
from the 12th century onwards, but first came to the attention
of Europeans after the British Punitive Expedition of 1897, which
resulted in the destruction of the kingdom of Benin and the ransacking
of the city and the Palace. This particular example is a work
produced after the restoration of the kingdom by the British in 1914
when the practice of metal casting for the court was revived.
14

In this display only the young Queen Victoria is portrayed through
her feminine attributes, whilst her status is signified by the costume
and hat (reminiscent of portraits of Queen Elizabeth I).
Social class and portraiture
From the privileged…
From the emergence of portraiture in Western art in the Renaissance,
the commissioning of a portrait has always been a sign of privilege
and wealth. Whilst this was initially limited to princes, rulers and
the elite, and controlled by sumptuary laws which limited who could
be portrayed and how they could display their status and wealth, it
gradually extended to bankers and merchants, and ultimately to all
the elite. These early portraits tended to be displayed in the context
of funerary chapels or funerary monuments in churches, palaces and
offices of state. However, as the practice of commissioning portraits
extended across wider social groups such as merchants, they were
typically displayed in the home of the individual.
The companion portraits of Mr Charles and Mrs Louisa Whiting are
a very good example of the desire to demonstrate status as well as
privilege through the commissioning of portraits which would then
be displayed in their home for everyone to see.
Their appearance, the clothes they wear, and the pose all contribute
to their display of status as well as the simple fact that they can
afford to have portraits painted. Displaying a portrait of yourself or
your family in your own home was a clear sign of privilege as well as
wealth, and perhaps a none too subtle reminder of their status in
Wisbech society. Mr Whiting is represented as a gentleman wearing
formal clothes with a high black necktie, holding a newspaper, whilst
Louisa Whiting is shown wearing a fine décolleté dress decorated
with roses and holding a red rose as a sign of her femininity and
beauty.
15

16

17
Mr and Mrs Whiting, Detail, Oil on Canvas.

This statement being made, apart from possessing the money to
commission the portraits, was all about affirming their rank in society,
to suggest something of their character, and to record their
physical appearance for posterity.
We can probably assume that they did look like this but it is highly
likely that the artist would have been instructed to present them
literally in the best light. Consequently, the pose and the clothes,
as well as the attributes they are shown holding, are all part of the
process of generating the desired image of worthy citizens.
…to the eminent…
Those individuals who had achieved status in their own societies
through their actions, character, or contribution to learning or
commerce, were commemorated through portraits commissioned
on their own behalf or by their social peers. The fact that men are
the predominant subject of such portraits is a clear indication of
the relative social status of the sexes and the lack of opportunities
available to women to achieve within their own societies, unless by
accident of birth they were part of a noble or Royal family, and could
come to prominence.
The career of the Rev William Ellis (1794 –1872) as a missionary
in the South Seas and Madagascar was well known, but it was his
contribution in relation to Madagascar through his published writing
and photography, which cemented his reputation for posterity.
In this portrait, he was shown in later life as a somewhat sombre
gentleman sporting a chin-muffler beard, with no other visible
attributes to attest to his character and achievements, but it is perhaps
this lack of decoration which is the best indication of his status
as a missionary and thinker. In contrast, the portrait of the banker
and philanthropist Lord Alexander Peckover, the most eminent of
the Quaker family of Peckovers of Wisbech, shows him as an equally
serious individual. However, the red robes attest to his socially elevated
status not just in Wisbech, but in the nation.
18

Thomas Clarkson (1760-1846), the leading English abolitionist
and campaigner against the slave trade in the
British Empire, and later in the Americas, was undoubtedly
the most illustrious son of Wisbech. As such he was
commemorated by the commissioning of the public
monument to him that still stands in Bridge Street
in the centre of Wisbech.
Clarkson won the fi rst prize in an essay competition
whilst at the University of Cambridge with
his Essay on The Slavery and Commerce of The
Human Species, Particularly the African, 1785.
This is generally regarded as the starting
point of his lifetime’s work. When slavery
was fi nally abolished in the British Empire
with the act of Parliament in 1833,
Clarkson continued to campaign for its
abolition across the world.
“…But this is suffi cient. For if liberty
is only an adventitious right; if men
are by no means superior to brutes; if
every social duty is a curse; if cruelty
is highly to be esteemed; if murder is
strictly honourable, and Christianity
is a lie; then it is evident, that the African
slavery may be pursued, without either
the remorse of conscience, or the imputa-
tion of a crime. But if the contrary of this is
true, which reason must immediately evince, is
evident that no custom established among men
was ever more impious; since it is contrary to
reason, justice, nature, the principle of law and
government, the whole doctrine, in short of
natural religion, and the revealed voice of God.”
— fi nal page of Clarkson’s essay
19
George Gilbert Scott RA: Thomas Clarkson, 1880-81, Stone. Wisbech Town Council.

The monument to him, paid for by public subscription and a large
donation by the Peckover family, was commissioned from Sir
George Gilbert Scott RA (1875). His original design was adapted
into the form that we see today. Work began in 1880 culminating
with the unveiling of the monument on 11 November 1881 by
Sir Henry Brand, Speaker of the House of Commons and MP for
Cambridgeshire.
The fact that the neo-Gothic style of the monument closely resembles
the Albert Memorial in Hyde Park, which Scott designed in
1876, is a clear sign of Clarkson’s importance and eminence. Apart
from the larger than life-size statue of Clarkson holding the manacles
of slavery that he had symbolically helped to remove, standing
under a canopy that rises above him like a spire, there are four
panels below him. Three of these panels are in the form of low relief
sculptures representing William Wilberforce, Granville Sharp, and
perhaps most poignantly, a manacled slave in an imploring attitude.
The fourth panel contains the dedication to Clarkson.
Thomas William Foster was appointed the first resident curator in
1841 when the museum was still located in the Old Market. He
helped to increase the collections of the Museum to such an extent
that five years later, a plan was put in place to erect a purposebuilt
Museum alongside a new building for the Literary Society on
a piece of land adjoining the churchyard of St Peter and Paul, which
the Literary Society had purchased from a Mr Hardwicke. The new
museum and literary Society building were designed by the architect
Mr Buckler of London, and the building was erected for a cost of
£2,405, the cost of which was met by the issue of hundred shares of
£25 each. The new museum opened on July 27, 1847. Foster continued
to be the curator until 1874.
This portrait of him, in keeping with the fashion of the time, is relatively
plain, and he is shown dressed as a gentleman should be. The
most interesting detail is almost invisible in the lower left-hand side
of the painting: books on natural history and an example of taxidermy.
The stuffed bird and the books point to the primary interest
of the curator and remind us that the museum’s collection at this
20

21
Thomas William Foster, First Curator of Wisbech Museum, Detail, 1893, Oil on Canvas.

Balding A: Wisbech Marketplace, During a Festival (Queen Victoria’s Golden Jubilee, 1887?), Detail, Oil on Canvas.
22

period comprised largely of items of natural history and geology
alongside curiosities such as the largest swordfish ever captured
which was 25 feet long, and weighed 5 tonnes.
…to everyone
The subject matter of the works painted by the Impressionists in
the latter part of the 19th century almost exclusively focused on
the bourgeoisie, the new middle-class emerging in France. The two
examples: Édouard Manet’s A Bar at the Folies-Bergère; and Georges
Seurat’s Bathers at Asnières, are shown here as a reminder of their
subject matter of ‘modern life’. A barmaid and her customer in a
contemporary music hall bar, or the boys and the tradesmen relaxing
or swimming on the banks of the river Seine at Asnières, subject
matters which were the complete opposite of the academic works
shown at the annual Salon in Paris.
The rapid evolution of photography from experimental practice to
the invention of the Daguerreotype in 1839 by Louis-Jacques-Mande
Daguerre, and the emergence of photographic studios, meant that
by the 1850s almost anyone could have a portrait photograph taken.
The continuing development of the photographic process and the
invention of new types of cameras as well as paper film by George
Eastman in 1885 and later celluloid film (1888 – 1889) accompanied
by his first camera, the ‘Kodak’, in 1888, meant that ordinary people
were empowered to take their own photographs.
This democratisation of the fixing of an image, in other words making
the tools required for creating photographic images available to
almost anyone for a small cost, resulted in the empowerment of
the ordinary person, hence placing the creation of a portrait in the
hands of all. The introduction of colour film in the 1930s completed
this process, and for much of the 20th century film-based photography
reigned supreme.
The invention of the digital camera by Stephen Sassoon an engineer
at Eastman Kodak in 1975 and its rapid development resulting in the
23

introduction of the digital camera phone by Sharp in 2000; the Sony
Ericsson Z1010 and the Motorola A835 in 2003, completed this
process which today means that almost all mobile phones have an
integrated digital camera. Consequently, anyone who owns a mobile
phone today is also in fact a photographer able to create a portrait
or a self-portrait or a group portrait, or indeed any kind of portrait.
The career of Lilian Ream (1877 – 1961) is uniquely associated with
Wisbech and the people of Wisbech, with many of her photographs
being portraits of Wisbech residents. The Lilian Ream Collection
(originally acquired by Cambridgeshire Libraries in the 1981), is now
looked after by a Trust (founded in 1993). It has in its collection
upwards of 150,000 negatives, unfortunately many of these are
deteriorating - a natural consequence of the materials used to make
film - and the process of conservation is slow and time-consuming.
The self-portrait and the selfie
The self-portrait as a category of portraiture is unusual in one
sense, in that the creative artist also becomes the subject of his or
her creativity. It is also unusual in the commercial sense, in which
typically portraits were commissioned from artists by patrons for
payment, yet in this form, the artist is the patron, and therefore
cannot gain any payment out of the activity. And finally, it’s unusual
in terms of the processes and tools that have to be used in order
to create the self-portrait. A reflective surface in which to study
your own appearance is a prerequisite for the painter, therefore
until the successful production of mirror glass, the artist had to rely
upon the reflection on a polished surface or a liquid in order to
gauge their own appearance. The advent of photography made this
process much easier, but even in the early days of photography, it
still required an assistant to control the exposure of the prepared
plate. The development of the portable camera made it easier to
take photographs by one and all, but the self-portrait was still a hit
and miss affair, as the photographer could not be both in front of the
lens and behind the camera’s viewfinder. It is only with the advent
24

of the mobile phone with a front facing camera that the self-portrait
has been achievable by everyone.
Being able to create a self-portrait, by possessing the necessary
tools, is not the same as making a portrait that can convey more
than just the physical appearance of the subject. As a work of art,
the self-portrait, does more than just represent appearance, it also
conveys ideas about the self-image, character, and values of the person
represented.
Early examples of the self-portrait such as that by Albrecht Durer
painted in early 1500 just before his 29th birthday (Alte Pinakothek),
is an extraordinary example of the way in which this particular form
of the portrait can be used and manipulated by the artist to make a
very powerful statement about their appearance, status, personality
and character. Unashamedly, Durer represents himself in an almost
blasphemous manner looking like the image of Christ.
Unlike the self-portrait by Rembrandt painted in 1660 or the selfportrait
of Vincent van Gogh painted in 1889, Durer’s work is
bombastic, all about self-advertisement, and youthful pride in his
own skills and abilities, whereas they are all about introspection,
questioning, and self-reflection.
Through painterly techniques and the use of colour, as well as the
careful build-up of texture, surface and light, Rembrandt turns his
self-portrait into a study of old age, change of fortune, social and
personal isolation, which goes beyond being a mere likeness of him.
More than 200 years later Vincent van Gogh was doing something
similar with new techniques of brushwork, new colours, and a new
use of light, but he too appears equally as introspective and isolated.
Day Shuker’s self-portrait continues this tradition of making the
portrait do more than just represent the physical appearance of the
person. If her technique is a little too dependent on earlier forms
of avant-garde art, the result is still interesting because it forces us
to look beyond the surface of appearance and consider the reality
of the artist.
25

The Library
26

Wisbech prison records
The prison in Wisbech, designed by the architect George Basevi in
1843/44 and referred to as a new house of correction, was described
by one observer as not being of great architectural effect, but providing
satisfaction by the excellent arrangements. The prison in Gaol
Lane (now Victoria Road) was demolished in 1878 in response to
the provisions of the Prisons Act of the previous year because it
had just 43 cells, although records indicate that the cells were often
used to house four or more prisoners.
The survival of two volumes of the prison records covering the
periods 1870 to 1878 provide an insight into the nature of crime in
Wisbech as well as the background, age, profession and character
of the criminals. The fact that the term ‘offender’ meant something
different, and that prison sentences were handed out to persons as
young as 10 years old for a minor crime such as taking some handkerchiefs,
is disturbing to us today. However, that which is perhaps
more disturbing is to see the photographs of these individuals contained
in these prison records, who unlike our stereotypical image
of the ‘mugshot’, are posed as if they had gone to the photographer
to have their photograph taken, sometimes seen in their best
clothes, sometimes in their working clothes, and sometimes in rags.
The primary reason for taking photographs of offenders was due
to an initiative taken by the governor of Bedford prison in the
27

1850s, Robert Evan Roberts, who became concerned that too many
habitual criminals were getting away because the police relied on
written descriptions to help them capture criminals. He decided to
commission a photographer to take pictures of offenders, so they
could easily be traced if they committed further crimes. This practice
very quickly became widespread throughout the penal system
and of course, is still in use to this day.
The images of the prisoners are displayed here as social documents,
without any prejudice to them as human beings, for whatever their
crimes were, they were being judged by a different set of values.
Those Victorian values did not distinguish between the actions of
children, adults or the aged, the poor or the wealthy. They were all
punished according to a severe penal code, which saw fit to handout
periods of hard labour, being condemned to years in a reformatory,
being transported or executed, to young and old without distinction
or mercy.
Rev William Ellis photographs of
the Royal family of Madagascar
In the middle of the nineteenth century, the island of Madagascar
was the object of British and French ambitions, and the situation
was further complicated by Queen Ranavalona’s dislike of European
Christian influences. So, it was only on her death in 1861 that
William Ellis was able to establish his position with the new King
Ramada II who was much more open to the presence of Christian
missionaries in Madagascar. He started to photograph the Royal
family but he saw photography as a means of record rather than
of exerting European superiority. He had been trained by Roger
Fenton, a leading member of the Royal Photographic Society, one of
whose subjects was portraits of the British Royal Family which might
explain the poses and costumes of Ellis’ Malagasian royal portraits.
This was how he thought royalty should be portrayed rather than
a conscious attempt to force European values on the Malagasians.
28

29
Ellis W: Radama II, King of Madagascar, Age 34, Detail, 26 Sep1862, Photograph.

Charles Dickens’ Great
Expectations and fictional portraits
Charles Dickens’s manuscript of Great Expectations, gifted to his
friend Chauncey Hare Townshend and bequeathed by him to the
museum, is an extraordinary autograph document which provides
insights into the writing practices of this author of the Victorian
world. The corrections, the deletions, the overwriting, the pasting
of additional paper, the testing out of different outcomes to events,
all demonstrate this organic process of creative writing.
Out of this autograph manuscript emerges the imagination of the
creative artist who, calling upon his own experience of the world,
his observation of people and the circumstances in which they live,
invents new characters who came to dominate the imagination of
his readers as much in his own day as today. The very fact that we
can instantly summon up the main characters from this novel, is
in part the result of our exposure to the contribution of the cinema
and television, but entirely due to the creative imagination of
Dickens who made these fictional characters real.
The descriptions of them, of their appearance, of their actions, of
the environments in which they lived, all contribute to the evocation
of an actual person before us. When we first meet Miss Havisham
of Satis House, Dickens through the eyes of Pip straining to see in
the gloom of her self-imposed seclusion, allows us to see in physical
form the impact of her unhappy experience as a jilted bride. Her
tattered wedding dress, the decay of her wedding banquet, her
semi-invalid condition, draw our attention and fix it in a manner
which enables us to see through the neglect to the inner desperation
and desolation of this person.
30

31
F A Fraser: The Works of Charles Dickens, Household Edition, Chapman & Hall, Engraving.

The Library
Annexe
32

Portrait of Emperor Napoleon I
in his Coronation robes
François Pascal Simon, Baron Gérard (1770 – 1837), who painted
the original version of this painting now at Versailles, was born in
Rome, where his father was employed in the house of the French
ambassador, was trained in Paris in the studios of leading artists of
the day including Jacques-Louis David.
He achieved artistic success with his portraits, which were displayed
at the annual Salon, notwithstanding the competition with other
artists of the day such as Anne-Louis Girodet de Roucy-Trioson,
whose studio was also responsible for producing original portraits
of Napoleon and making many copies of them. This success at the
Salon brought him to the attention of Napoleon who probably commissioned
this particular portrait.
These portraits of Napoleon form part of a strategy of propaganda
which accompanied his military career and then as Emperor. This
explains their number and proliferation through official copies which
were commissioned to be distributed around the French Empire.
The present work may have been produced in the studio of Gérard
or commissioned as a copy from another studio. The large number
of copies of this works held in collections in Europe and America
suggests that there was an established process for their reproduction
which in turn points to the existence of a sophisticated
machinery for propaganda.
Apart from commissioning numerous copies of the original work
by Gérard for distribution to prominent officials and his own family,
in 1808, Napoleon ordered the imperial tapestry works to make
a full size woven copy of this portrait. The tapestry is now in the
Metropolitan Museum in New York.
The image was also reproduced by other methods and even appears
in a work by the English artist and engraver George Cruickshank
33

(1792 – 1878) which was published in 1828 in volume 3 of The Life of
Napoleon Bonaparte by William Henry Ireland.
The work, apart from representing the event itself and therefore
acting as a record, is primarily a piece of imperial propaganda in
which the symbols of Napoleon’s regime are very clearly employed
in order to suggest the aggrandized status of the Emperor of the
French. The key symbols are represented by the Imperial Eagle at
the top of the staff that he holds, and the Christian Orb lying next
to the Hands of Justice on the stool. His golden headdress of olive
leaves, and the white silk gown under the velvet robe trimmed with
ermine and decorated with golden bees (which are repeated in the
carpet beneath his feet), all attest to his imperial status and the
fact that he was consciously comparing himself to the holy Roman
Emperor Charlemagne, and his predecessors in imperial Rome, as
well as the tradition of European monarchy. With this in mind is perhaps
not surprising that this work was reproduced in large number
in order to propagate the message of Napoleon’s imperial status.
Busts by Pellegrino Mazzotti
Pellegrino was born in Coreglia, Lucca, Tuscany in 1793/5, he died
at the workhouse in Wisbech on 22 October 1879. From the 1810s
onwards he worked and lived at various times in
Norwich, Ely, Lynn, Cambridge, and Wisbech.
When he moved to England in the 1810s he was
following an established path already trodden by
other Italian plaster fi gure makers who came
to England to work. His training had taken
place in Coreglia where his family owned one
of the workshops making plaster fi gures.
His fi rst destination was Norwich, and it
was here that he set up his workshop and in
February 1822 he married Mary Leeds with
whom he had four daughters. Economic
34

circumstances forced him to travel to gain commissions, and it was
perhaps this that motivated him to donate some of his works to
the newly founded Wisbech Museum in 1842. During this period,
he appears to have moved around between Norwich, Wisbech,
Ely, and Cambridge. He returned to Wisbech in 1854 where he
is recorded as a resident in the 1861 and 1871 census returns. In
the latter years of his life fell into poverty and died in the Wisbech
workhouse on the 22 October 1879. His death was announced in
the Wisbech Telegraph of Saturday, 25 October 1879.
1. Plaster bust of the Rev. Henry Fardell, first President of
Wisbech Museum. Made by Mazzotti, Norwich, 1854.
2. Plaster bust of Professor Poison, by Mazzotti, Norwich.
Given by Mr Mazzotti 6.3.1855.
3. Plaster bust of Thomas Clarkson, the anti-slavery
Campaigner, by P. Mazzotti, Norwich 1855.
4. Plaster bust of William Shakespeare; by P. Mazzotti,
Norwich (pictured bottom left).
35

Williamson J: Chauncy Hare Townshend, Detail, 1869, Oil on Canvas.
36

The portrait on the left is of Chauncy Hare Townshend, who gave his
substantial collection of artefacts to the museum, including the Dickens
manuscript of Great Expectations.