Blue Boy and Fame
Famous painting, but why?
Why are some paintings identifiable to the general public and others are not?
Is the quality of composition, dynamic subject matter, or historical importance?
Are there works of art that were promoted into fame?
Is fame a product of serendipity?
The famous painting “Blue Boy” was created in the period just before the American Revolution (1770) by Thomas Gainsborough. It remains one of the most recognizable works of art in Western Culture. Its popularity continues and I wanted to know why?
Gainsborough was one of the most important English painters of the last half a the 18th century. He was born in Suffolk county in 1827. His father was a weaver. As a young boy he showed considerable artistic talent and as a young man pursued the study of art in London studying with an engraver. When he returned home he focused on painting the surrounding pastoral landscapes of his home.
He married the illegitimate daughter of the Duke of Beaufort in 1847. In the first few years they had two girls and he was only able to support the family by borrowing against his wife’s annuity. Realizing his landscapes would not bring him enough income he moved to Ipswich and turned to painting portraits.
At first his clientele were local merchants and squires. After studying the work of the Flemish Baroque master, Van Dyke; he began attracting the kind of work of wealthy clients preferred. He enhanced his reputation by entering work in the Royal Academy. He would draw his income as a portrait painter for the upper class.
Despite becoming successful his heart longed to paint, not people; but the countryside. He complained to a friend "I'm sick of portraits and wish very much to walk off to some sweet Village where I can paint landscapes.”
“Blue Boy” was painted, it was believed; as a portrait of the son of a wealthy merchant named Jonathan Buttall. Buttall was listed in the painting's provenance (the record of ownership) as the first owner. Art historians have argued that it is a costume study. The model was actually the painter's nephew. The painting itself is lifesize ( 70” tall and 48” wide). The style mimics a Van Dyke portrait of two boys dressed in costumes of a yellow orange.
Whether it was a portrait, a study, or just an advertisement for his skills; “Blue Boy” became more famous as it aged. The first step toward fame was made by the British Institution for Promoting the Fine Arts in the United Kingdom. This private 19th-century society in London published a high quality reproduction of the painting to distribute.
The British Instituion unlike the Royal Academy, admitted only connoisseurs, not artists and was dominated by the nobility. It’s members fit into the profile of an ideal Gainsborough client. The groups members widely shared the story of how Gainsborough used the portrait to contradict Sir Joshua Reynolds who was the darling of the Royal Academy.
Reynolds lectured often at the rival Royal Academy . In a lecture on color he advised:
“that the masses of light in a picture be always of a warm, mellow color, yellow, red, or a yellowish white, and that the blue, the gray, or the green colors be kept almost entirely out of these masses”
Clearly Gainsborough approached his composition differently from Reynolds; but each was a master portrait painter. The argument, seems to me; is between the rival groups of art patrons and not between these two artists. That story of a rivalry served the as an initial catalyst for Blue Boy’s reputation as great work of art.
The story of the rivalry between the two artists over this painting was, according to art historians has been proved false. The painting had been made 8 years prior to the lecture on color by Reynolds. Gainsborough would not have known about Reynolds advice.
Blue Boy, Gainsborough, 1870.
The painting was bought and sold. With each sale it’s value grew. When its first owner, Buttell filed for bank bankruptcy in 1796 “Blue Boy” was purchased by a member of parliament and an artist named; John Hopppner. Interestingly, Hoppner had greatly admired Reynolds. Hoppner was an artist known as a brilliant colorist. A few years after the purchase, Hoppner sold the painting to another member of parliament Robert Grosvenor in 1809.
Grosneror was the 2nd Earl of Westminster. He rebuilt the family wealth investing in horses, breeding stock, and art. The painting would remain with the family for more than 100 years. During that time Blue Boy’s value to the estate was increased by allowing the public to see the work at the family’s London home and by lending the work to exhibitions which allowed the general public to be exposed to the portrait.
In 1857 Blue Boy was seen by over a million people in the biggest exhibition in British history:The Art Treasures of Great Britain. The exhibition held in Manchester was open for 5 months.
In 1921 the painting was sold to the American railroad magnate Henry Edward Huntington. It is now held in the permanent collection of Huntington Library.
This costume study became an art icon through more than a century of marketing. It started with creating a buzz spreading a story of conflict between two artists and art institutions. The 3rd owner wealth of the work did not hang in isolation in a stately home, instead he monetized the work through exhibitions and public viewing. Its value was further enhanced by low cost reproduction (prints, figurines, etc…).
Eventually it became famous enough to become a cultural reference through other mediums including a tribute song by Cole Porter and a reproduction hanging on the wall of the home in television's iconic family sitcom, Leave It to Beaver. Today Blue Boy is pop culture reference for the LGBTQ community.
My “Blue Boy” is about as far from the famous painting as it could get. The title is not a nod to Gainsborough; but the blue is descriptive of the young man’s mood. It is genuine portrait and not a costume put on for effect. That raw emotion is what drew me to the initial photograph. Young children do not have the impulse developed later in life to ignore how they are feeling. They wear their emotions on their sleeve. If they are tired, upset, or angry; they let you know.
My Blue Boy is made up of pieces of work that were cut up and sewn together with a zig-zag stitch. The background is a digital reproduction of a quilt I inherited from my fathers family. It was pieced, but never finished. Initially I hung the quilt top as a backdrop for photographing a pair of jeans worn at Woodstock by my husband.
I printed that still life of “Jeans on Hook” on canvas, painted, and stitched the piece but it just didn’t come out as I intended. Like Gainsborough and many other artists; I am attached to working with a particular genre. This attempt at a neutral subject was made to try to appeal to a buyer. It was not my voice as an artist and most likely the reason for a failed end result.
The second art quilt I cut up, like the first, didn't come out as intended. I used the photo of my grandson and created a digital composition using a background image of a toxic wildfire sky that hung over California that summer. Our air in Southern Utah was feeling the effects and may be why that little boy was not feeling great. In this case the subject was fine, but the painting, specifically of the eyes, was sub par. I repainted, cut out the figure and pieced it into the background.
It hangs on the wall in my office where I read, do handwork, and occasionally nap. It is not the best work in my portfolio; but this Blue Boy holds a place in my heart.
Until next time…
Margaret
Interesting! Love how you tied the two blue boys together.