A Graduate of Pomona
Fig 10d. William Henry Hunt, Dead Hare, Quail, and Landrail, dated 1825
Dead Hare, Quail, and Landrail
Private collection
watercolor and gum arabic
7 13/16 x 13 3/8 in., 20 x 34 cm
Signed and dated, l.l., W. HUNT 1825
Provenance:
Probably the late William Prior (S) Christie's London, 28 May 1857, Lot 117 [A dead hare, quail, and partridge. A very highly wrought drawing] (P) 5 gns. Whit...;
Probably Henry Wallis (S) Foster's, London 12 Feb 1858, Lot 24 (Dead Hare, Partridge, and Quail, 14 X 8 in.), (P) £13 2 s 6d Mitchell;
Arthur W. Lyon, (S) Christie's London, 18 May 1883, Lot 77 (P) £52 10s, Mc...;
Trelissick House and Gardens, Feock, Cornwall, England (S) Bonham's [house sale], 23 July 2013, lot 235 (P) £1,625, $2,502.50 by the present owner.
Exhibited:
1879-1880, London, Fine Art Society, No. 138, Dead Hare and Game, lent by Mr. A. W. Lyon.
1825 marked a pivotal change in William Henry Hunt's style and technique. He began, with still lifes of dead birds and game, such as this watercolor and others [all other currently known examples in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford], to paint in small, broken strokes, in an attempt to simulate the appearances of fur and feathers. He would soon abandon altogether the use of pen outlines with broad washes of color which he and almost all English watercolorists had relied upon prior to Hunt's break with this traditional method of painting with watercolors.
This large and important early watercolor was included in the exhibition at the Fine Art Society of works by Hunt and Samuel Prout which John Ruskin organized. Ruskin commented on this work as follows: "A most notable drawing of early practice, quite wonderful in textures of fur and in work of shadows, but tentative, and in many points failing."
Hunt's failure to clearly define the bottom portion of the bench on which the game is arranged, where one only sees a hint of the left support, might account for Ruskin's criticism of the work.
If the Head Gardener was actually exhibited in 1825, it must have appeared to be rather old fashion compared to the other works which were also exhibited in that year that were painted in Hunt's new style.
Fig 10d. William Henry Hunt, Dead Hare, Quail, and Landrail, dated 1825
Dead Hare, Quail, and Landrail
Private collection
watercolor and gum arabic
7 13/16 x 13 3/8 in., 20 x 34 cm
Signed and dated, l.l., W. HUNT 1825
Provenance:
Probably the late William Prior (S) Christie's London, 28 May 1857, Lot 117 [A dead hare, quail, and partridge. A very highly wrought drawing] (P) 5 gns. Whit...;
Probably Henry Wallis (S) Foster's, London 12 Feb 1858, Lot 24 (Dead Hare, Partridge, and Quail, 14 X 8 in.), (P) £13 2 s 6d Mitchell;
Arthur W. Lyon, (S) Christie's London, 18 May 1883, Lot 77 (P) £52 10s, Mc...;
Trelissick House and Gardens, Feock, Cornwall, England (S) Bonham's [house sale], 23 July 2013, lot 235 (P) £1,625, $2,502.50 by the present owner.
Exhibited:
1879-1880, London, Fine Art Society, No. 138, Dead Hare and Game, lent by Mr. A. W. Lyon.
1825 marked a pivotal change in William Henry Hunt's style and technique. He began, with still lifes of dead birds and game, such as this watercolor and others [all other currently known examples in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford], to paint in small, broken strokes, in an attempt to simulate the appearances of fur and feathers. He would soon abandon altogether the use of pen outlines with broad washes of color which he and almost all English watercolorists had relied upon prior to Hunt's break with this traditional method of painting with watercolors.
This large and important early watercolor was included in the exhibition at the Fine Art Society of works by Hunt and Samuel Prout which John Ruskin organized. Ruskin commented on this work as follows: "A most notable drawing of early practice, quite wonderful in textures of fur and in work of shadows, but tentative, and in many points failing."
Hunt's failure to clearly define the bottom portion of the bench on which the game is arranged, where one only sees a hint of the left support, might account for Ruskin's criticism of the work.
If the Head Gardener was actually exhibited in 1825, it must have appeared to be rather old fashion compared to the other works which were also exhibited in that year that were painted in Hunt's new style.