Artists and Reputations
In 1877, the brand-new Grosvenor Gallery in London held an exhibition of modern artwork that had not made it into the Royal Academy. The exhibition, far from being a second rate club of rejects, included several well-renowned artists of the time, including several members of the Pre-Raphaelite brotherhood. And set in the brand new gallery, it was quite the event.
The great and eminent art critic of his day, John Ruskin, went to the exhibition. Today, Ruskin has art schools, roads, and even a small park named after him. He is credited with plotting the course of modern painting and ‘discovering’ numerous famous artists. In 1877, he was art royalty. As he wandered around the exhibition, one particular painting caught his eye. The painting depicted a deep black night sky, lit with bright sparks and muted splashes of colour and light. It was bold, daring and thoroughly modern. Ruskin thought it was rubbish.
Writing in his art criticism publication, Fors Clavigera, he pithily stated ‘I have seen, and heard, much of Cockney impudence before now; but never expected to hear a coxcomb ask two hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public’s face.’
Unfortunately for Ruskin, the painter in question was not one to take an insult lying down. James McNeill Whistler was an American avant-garde artist who was touchy about his American origins, careless with money and quick to take offence – he once challenged a man to a duel.
Naturally, he was furious at Ruskin’s blunt criticism of his work – a depiction of a falling firework in a London pleasure garden – ‘Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket’. In his mind, the work was a master example of the developing field of aestheticism, and critics like Ruskin were nuisances of a bygone age. He did not elect this time to challenge Ruskin to a duel; instead, he went a step further and instructed libel lawyers.
The ensuing legal proceedings became a closely followed obsession in Victorian society, regularly featuring in cartoons and magazines, and being a hot topic of conversation in artistically-inclined circles. It was, after all, a showdown between age-old nemeses: the artist vs the critic.
The news hype built constantly, culminating in a trial by jury in November 1878. Ruskin disappointed the court by not showing up: he sent a famous artist, Edward Burne-Jones, in his place. Whistler disappointed the judge by behaving brashly and extravagantly, and trying to conceal his American heritage. In the end, the jury found against Ruskin: his criticism had not been ‘fair or bona fide’ and his words were libelous, which in 19th century terms, meant ‘committing to writing words disparaging to another and holding him up to hatred, contumely, and contempt.’ In a final twist, the judge noted the jury’s decision, but clearly irritated by Whistler’s behaviour, awarded him one single farthing in damages: about 10p in today’s money.
Both men had amassed a horrifying amount of legal fees, and came out of the whole affair with their reputations no better than before.
Thankfully, defamation law has come a long way since 1878. There are no juries, the law is clearer thanks to statutory reform, and criticism has stronger protection under s3. Defamation Act 2013. Most significantly, claimants now have to demonstrate serious harm to bring libel proceedings.
What does remain, however, is the central conflict that exists between art and art criticism. The career of an artist can be challenging throughout, but one of the hardest parts of it is establishing a good reputation.
There is no longer a ‘fair or bona fide’ test applied to works of criticism. Instead, there is an established statutory defence of Honest Opinion, under s3 Defamation Act 2013. Critics are not always fair, but in today’s legal landscape a Claimant would have to satisfy the court that a piece of criticism was made with malice (ie. That the writer did not honestly believe the libel was true), in order to overcome this defence.
As media lawyers at Taylor Hampton, we help navigate difficult reputation issues such as this. There is a fine line between someone honestly critiquing your work and unfairly picking on you. When you are concerned that something like this is happening, there are numerous options available to you to protect your work and your reputation.