A Graduate of Pomona
9. William Henry Hunt, Study of a Gardener at Cassiobury Park, c. 1825
Study of a Gardener at Cassiobury Park
London, the Courtaul Gallery, No. D.1967.EWS.55
Ink and watercolor
15 X 10 3/8 in., 38.1 X 26.4 cm.
Signed, l.r., W. HUNT
This is undoubtedly the one work by Hunt, from all periods, which has been most publicly exhibited in the past 40 years. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it is one of the least attractive of his watercolors.
During the decades when Hunt's genre and still life watercolors were almost completely out of favor, only one aspect of his oeuvre continued to be somewhat appreciated - his early studies of villages, churches, and manor houses, most of which were painted in Hertfordshire when the artist was a guest of his patron, Dr. Thomas Monro. In retrospect, this may seem a bit odd, since these early works had virtually nothing to do with the artists later fame. It could even be said that Hunt was hardly a professional artist before the late 1820s, since he exhibited very few works publicly, was still an apprentice of sorts, depending on the patronage of Monro and his acquaintances, and clearly not earning a living as an artist. Perhaps Hunt was slow in becoming self-sufficient due to his physical limitations, but, for whatever reason, the artist was about 37 years old before he began to regularly exhibit at the watercolour society and does not seem to have left his parents home until he was 40.
But why did art critics and dealers only value works by Hunt from his early period of develpment and which had very limited commercial value in the artist's lifetime. I believe it is due to a refusal to accept Victorian art in general, which necessarily included most of Hunt's innovations and techniques - those qualities which made Victorian art, with all its sentimentality, possible in the first place. Most of those who defined what was "real" art in the 20th century were still stuck in the 18th century, where inked outlines and colored washes were sufficient for the creation of a proper watercolour, at least until upstarts such as Hunt changed the very nature of watercolor painting. Conservative seems too mild a word to describe this attitude, which has resulted in disproportionate emphasis being given in most discussions of British watercolor to the early works of Hunt and minimal consideration of those later works by "Bird's Nest Hunt."
Even more amazingly, this attitude persists to this day, both in the salesroom and in decisions of curators as to which works by the artist are most appropriate for inclusion in exhibitions of watercolors. Although the very highest prices for works by Hunt are now achieved for his barn/shed interiors and some of his domestic interiors, studies such as this one still command high prices compared to Hunt's still lifes and genre paintings. Late in 2010 a very similar study of a game keeper appeared in a regional auction in England with a modest estimate. It was clearly a preparatory study, with isolated images, squiggles, and no real composition to unify the parts. Yet it sold for a hammer price of £19,000, many times the pre- auction estimate. While it is true that these early figure studies are rare -- only a handful have made it to the market in the past twenty years, it is apparent that the dealers who pay these high prices, based on their own tastes and beliefs as to what constitutes an "important" work by the artist, have had a rather difficult time finding homes for their important works. A drawing by Hunt of a gardner in a potting shed, which was clearly a major work for Hunt when it was painted in the early to mid 1820's, has gone from one London dealer to another for the past 20 years without finding a buyer from outside the trade. Yet one rarely sees a still life or one of the artist's boy figures circulate in this way.
A few years back a traveling exhibition of British watercolors from the Spooner Collection, now owned by the Courtauld Institute of the University of London, included this study of a gardner as the sole representation of Hunt's work. I went to see the exhibit at one of its American venues , and it stuck me how dull and actually unattractive the assemblage of faded, ink and wash drawings by the traditional greats of British watercolor painting looked on one wall after another. I was intrigued how the other visitors were reacting. I tried to listen quietly and from a distance as the works were being discussed in hushed voices, with most trying hard to find significance or even some pleasure from the collection, but I could not contain myself when a couple began to analyze the significance of the medium brown patch of color which surrounds the Gardner's head and continues upward to the right top of the sheet. I believe, rather strongly, that this portion of this "important" work by Hunt is nothing more than a big stain, and I offered that opinion, and some others, to the couple. They seemed happy to be relieved of the burden of trying to find greatness in so many of the watercolors that, at best, just looked like old, faded studies for what would have been finished pictures such as one might consider hanging in a parlor or which might once have been wonderful but had seen their better days.
Even though it is undeniable that a great many English artists in the 18th and 19th century achieved wonder after wonder with the watercolor medium, how did we get to the point where we are made to feel that every work of art on a museum wall must have great meaning, that those who take it upon themselves to tell us what is good actually have superior knowledge and insight, and that we must prefer faded Hunts with big stains simply because they are 20 years older than the works which made him famous and admired -- or worse, because they depict the outlined figure of gardener loaded down with fruits and vegetables instead of a radiant young girl, fully modeled in color and light, next to her basket of flowers? But when curators and dealers fail to offer us works of art which were the true paintings on which artists staked their reputations, who is brave enough to say that that important watercolor has a big stain, or that the emperor is wearing no clothes?
Hunt is known to have had a very good sense of humor, and maybe he is laughing somewhere over the prices a very few are wiling to pay for works he gave away to Dr. Monro (or for which he was paid a daily stipend for all that he could paint); but for some reason, I doubt it.
9. William Henry Hunt, Study of a Gardener at Cassiobury Park, c. 1825
Study of a Gardener at Cassiobury Park
London, the Courtaul Gallery, No. D.1967.EWS.55
Ink and watercolor
15 X 10 3/8 in., 38.1 X 26.4 cm.
Signed, l.r., W. HUNT
This is undoubtedly the one work by Hunt, from all periods, which has been most publicly exhibited in the past 40 years. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it is one of the least attractive of his watercolors.
During the decades when Hunt's genre and still life watercolors were almost completely out of favor, only one aspect of his oeuvre continued to be somewhat appreciated - his early studies of villages, churches, and manor houses, most of which were painted in Hertfordshire when the artist was a guest of his patron, Dr. Thomas Monro. In retrospect, this may seem a bit odd, since these early works had virtually nothing to do with the artists later fame. It could even be said that Hunt was hardly a professional artist before the late 1820s, since he exhibited very few works publicly, was still an apprentice of sorts, depending on the patronage of Monro and his acquaintances, and clearly not earning a living as an artist. Perhaps Hunt was slow in becoming self-sufficient due to his physical limitations, but, for whatever reason, the artist was about 37 years old before he began to regularly exhibit at the watercolour society and does not seem to have left his parents home until he was 40.
But why did art critics and dealers only value works by Hunt from his early period of develpment and which had very limited commercial value in the artist's lifetime. I believe it is due to a refusal to accept Victorian art in general, which necessarily included most of Hunt's innovations and techniques - those qualities which made Victorian art, with all its sentimentality, possible in the first place. Most of those who defined what was "real" art in the 20th century were still stuck in the 18th century, where inked outlines and colored washes were sufficient for the creation of a proper watercolour, at least until upstarts such as Hunt changed the very nature of watercolor painting. Conservative seems too mild a word to describe this attitude, which has resulted in disproportionate emphasis being given in most discussions of British watercolor to the early works of Hunt and minimal consideration of those later works by "Bird's Nest Hunt."
Even more amazingly, this attitude persists to this day, both in the salesroom and in decisions of curators as to which works by the artist are most appropriate for inclusion in exhibitions of watercolors. Although the very highest prices for works by Hunt are now achieved for his barn/shed interiors and some of his domestic interiors, studies such as this one still command high prices compared to Hunt's still lifes and genre paintings. Late in 2010 a very similar study of a game keeper appeared in a regional auction in England with a modest estimate. It was clearly a preparatory study, with isolated images, squiggles, and no real composition to unify the parts. Yet it sold for a hammer price of £19,000, many times the pre- auction estimate. While it is true that these early figure studies are rare -- only a handful have made it to the market in the past twenty years, it is apparent that the dealers who pay these high prices, based on their own tastes and beliefs as to what constitutes an "important" work by the artist, have had a rather difficult time finding homes for their important works. A drawing by Hunt of a gardner in a potting shed, which was clearly a major work for Hunt when it was painted in the early to mid 1820's, has gone from one London dealer to another for the past 20 years without finding a buyer from outside the trade. Yet one rarely sees a still life or one of the artist's boy figures circulate in this way.
A few years back a traveling exhibition of British watercolors from the Spooner Collection, now owned by the Courtauld Institute of the University of London, included this study of a gardner as the sole representation of Hunt's work. I went to see the exhibit at one of its American venues , and it stuck me how dull and actually unattractive the assemblage of faded, ink and wash drawings by the traditional greats of British watercolor painting looked on one wall after another. I was intrigued how the other visitors were reacting. I tried to listen quietly and from a distance as the works were being discussed in hushed voices, with most trying hard to find significance or even some pleasure from the collection, but I could not contain myself when a couple began to analyze the significance of the medium brown patch of color which surrounds the Gardner's head and continues upward to the right top of the sheet. I believe, rather strongly, that this portion of this "important" work by Hunt is nothing more than a big stain, and I offered that opinion, and some others, to the couple. They seemed happy to be relieved of the burden of trying to find greatness in so many of the watercolors that, at best, just looked like old, faded studies for what would have been finished pictures such as one might consider hanging in a parlor or which might once have been wonderful but had seen their better days.
Even though it is undeniable that a great many English artists in the 18th and 19th century achieved wonder after wonder with the watercolor medium, how did we get to the point where we are made to feel that every work of art on a museum wall must have great meaning, that those who take it upon themselves to tell us what is good actually have superior knowledge and insight, and that we must prefer faded Hunts with big stains simply because they are 20 years older than the works which made him famous and admired -- or worse, because they depict the outlined figure of gardener loaded down with fruits and vegetables instead of a radiant young girl, fully modeled in color and light, next to her basket of flowers? But when curators and dealers fail to offer us works of art which were the true paintings on which artists staked their reputations, who is brave enough to say that that important watercolor has a big stain, or that the emperor is wearing no clothes?
Hunt is known to have had a very good sense of humor, and maybe he is laughing somewhere over the prices a very few are wiling to pay for works he gave away to Dr. Monro (or for which he was paid a daily stipend for all that he could paint); but for some reason, I doubt it.