The Affected Affectionate:
The Dutch Baroque Style Revisited in Arthur Devis’ Devoted Middle Class Families’
Conversation Pieces
Lindsay E. May
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of Master of Arts in Art History
At
The Savannah College of Art and Design
© March 2012, Lindsay Elizabeth May
The author hereby grants SCAD permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and
electronic thesis copies of document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter
created.
Signature of Author and Date ___________________________________________/___/___
________________________________________________________________/___/____
Rebecca B. Trittel, Ph.D.
Committee Chair
________________________________________________________________/___/____
Arthur J. DiFuria, Ph.D.
Committee Member
________________________________________________________________/___/____
Stephen M. Wagner, Ph.D.
Committee Member, Graduate Coordinator
The Affected Affectionate:
The Dutch Baroque Style Revisited in Arthur Devis’ Devoted Middle Class Families’
Conversation Pieces
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Art History Department
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Master of Arts in Art History
Savannah College of Art and Design
By
Lindsay E. May
Savannah, GA
March 2012
2
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the Art History Department of Savannah College of Art and Design for
their support and encouragement during this project. In particular, I extend my sincerest
appreciation to Dr. Rebecca B. Trittel for sharing with me her extensive knowledge and precious
time. I would also like to thank Dr. Arthur DiFuria for helping me create cohesion out of
scholastic chaos. Both professors were invaluable, not only in this research, but in my art history
education. I would like to say a special thanks to Kim May, Susan May, Alex May and Jennifer
Hitt for their attention to detail, grammar, and punctuation.
3
Table of Contents
List of Illustrations…………………………………………………………………...5
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………. 6
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………. 7
Historiography……………………………………………………………………….. 8
The Glorious Revolution and the Ascent of
William and Mary in Seventeenth Century England……………………………….13
The Impact of Dutch Art in Seventeenth
and Eighteenth Century England…….…………………..………………………… 16
Arthur Devis: Life and Career……………………………………………………… 21
Middle Class Conversation Pieces…………………………………………………... 27
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………. 33
Images……...…………………………………………………………………………. 34
Bibliography ………………….……………………………………………………… 45
4
List of Illustrations
1. William Hogarth, The Rakes Progress, Plate III
34
2. Jan Steen, The Dissolute Household
34
3. Peter Paul Rubens, The Garden of Love
35
4. Hendrick Pot, Charles I, Henrietta Maria and Charles, Prince of Wales
(later Charles II)
35
5. Adriaen Van Stalbemt and Jan Van Delcamp, A View of Greenwich
36
6. Pauwels van Hillegaert, The Princes of Orange and their Families on
Horseback Riding Out from the Buitenhof, the Hague
36
7. Gerrit Houckgeest, Charles I Dining in Public
37
8. Dirck van Delen and Dirck Hals, Banquet Scene in a Renaissance Hall
37
9. Peter Tillemans, Master Edward Marco and Miss Mary Marco,
Children of the Reverend Dr. Cox Marco
38
10. Arthur Devis, Peregrine Bertie with His Brothers and Sisters
38
11. Arthur Devis, Sir John Shaw and his Family in the Park at Eltham Lodge, Kent
39
12. Arthur Devis, Francis Vincent, His Wife Mercy & Daughter Ann,
of Weddington Hall, Warwickshire
39
13. Arthur Devis, Sir Joshua Vanneck and his Family
40
14. Peter Tillemans, The Little Haugh Hall, Suffolk
40
15. Pieter de Hooch, Dutch Family
41
16. Arthur Devis, The Swaine Family of Fencroft, Isle of Ely, Cambridgeshire
41
17. Frans Hals, Family Group in a Landscape
42
18. Arthur Devis, John Bacon and his Family
42
19. Gabriel Metsu, Family of Burgomaster Dr. Gillis Valkenier
43
20. Arthur Devis, Family Group on a Terrace in a Garden
43
21. Aelbert Cuyp and Jacob Gerritz, Portrait of a Family in a Landscape
44
5
The Affected Affectionate: The Dutch Baroque Style Revisited in Arthur Devis’
Devoted Middle Class Families’ Conversation Pieces
Lindsay E. May
March 2012
The Glorious Revolution of the seventeenth century saw more than just a political
transfer of ideas between the Dutch Republic and England. An artistic influence was exchanged
and in turn resulted in a Dutch-inspired style in the newly forming English painting technique.
While the Dutch Baroque excelled in numerous styles of artistic representation, landscape
paintings and group portraits gained appeal in England due to traveling artists and foreign
diplomats bringing such art into the country. The eighteenth century bore a multitude of unique
English artists such as William Hogarth and Thomas Gainsborough, however, one English
painter has received little recognition to his contribution to art history: Arthur Devis (17121787). Under the tutelage of Northern European artist Peter Tillemans, Devis’ artistic career
began in landscapes, eventually focusing primarily on conversation pieces. In the case of Devis,
middle class family conversation pieces afforded him a top spot in a niche market. The French
Rococo style gained momentum amongst his European and British contemporaries, however,
Devis chose instead to utilize the seventeenth century Dutch landscapes and group paintings and
adapt them for his intimate middle class family portraits.
6
Introduction
In 1688 the Dutch monarchy successfully established itself into British society,
solidifying political ties between the two nations. Not only did the reign of the Netherlands’
William and Mary trigger a monarchical and authoritative shift, bringing a Dutch Protestant rule
to England, but it also played a part in transforming the nature of English art during the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Unified by a mutual aversion to France, the Dutch and
English cultures merged and within England created a distinctive English artistic style, lessening
the reliance on continental artists painting for British patrons. Some of the more significant
pictorial motifs to migrate out of seventeenth century Netherlands were group portraits and
landscapes.
As the motif progressed in England, the group paintings gained portrait status as they
captured distinct and known individuals as opposed to the seemingly anonymous figures in most
Dutch paintings. Through this use of elegant informality and display of specific groups, a
distinctly English pictorial type, the conversation piece, developed. One such inheritor and
manipulator of the Dutch style is English artist Arthur Devis (1712-1787) whose artwork
captured middle class England in their pursuit of society. Scholastically forgotten for the more
illustrious careers of his contemporaries, namely William Hogarth (1697-1764) and later Thomas
Gainsborough (1727-1788), Devis disregarded the fashionable French Rococo style in favor of
the Dutch approach, particularly within his conversation pieces. Devis adopted the group
portrait, as did many of his contemporaries, yet he paired it with intricate landscapes, for which
he was originally trained.1 The pictorial concepts of Arthur Devis’ middle class conversation
pieces are indebted to the Dutch Baroque period in terms of iconographic details and character
1
John Hayes and Stephen V. Sartin, Polite Society by Arthur Devis 1712-1787: Portraits of the English Country
Gentleman and His Family, [Preston, Britain: Harris Museum and Art Gallery,1983], 19.
7
portrayal, through which a sociological change is exposed within the contemporary English
familial unit.
Historiography
Due to the relatively small amount written on Dutch and English relations, and until
recently the apparent anonymity of Devis, research on this particular topic is insufficient for the
argument of Devis’ use of Dutch Baroque techniques. Several scholars, such as Lisa Jardine and
Lawrence Stone, provide reliable information about the association and semblance between
seventeenth century Dutch merry companies and eighteenth century English conversation
pieces.2 The information they disclose, however, is minimal and therefore incomplete. A
connection is acknowledged, but since neither author focuses on a specific artist, compositional
comparisons are missing. However, by thoroughly examining the works of Devis, who centered
his career around accurately and faithfully portraying middle class families, a connection of the
two nations’ artistic styles can be discovered.
A primary source, the Diary and Correspondence of John Evelyn, F.R.S. compiled by
William Bray, follows the writings of Englishman John Evelyn. This Englishman visited the
Dutch Republic during the seventeenth century and gave firsthand accounts of the local art
market. In some ways, one could equate Evelyn with Dutchman Constanijn Huygens. As
contemporaries, both men had an education and interest in art and can both provide seventeenth
century views on the art world. There are a few excerpts in which Evelyn expresses his opinions
on Netherlandish art. The Flemish Peter Paul Rubens is most often recognized as Evelyn
travelled the Netherlands. While he does not mention other Netherlandish artists, Evelyn
2
Lisa Jardine, Going Dutch: How England Plundered Holland’s Glory, [Great Britain: HarperCollins, 2008] and
Lawrence Stone, The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800, [New York: Harper Colophon Books,
1979].
8
describes with awe the sheer volume of Netherlandish art he saw for sale at a mid-seventeenth
century open market:
13th August, 1641. We arrived late at Rotterdam, where was their annual
mart or fair, so furnished with pictures (especially landscapes and
drolleries, as they call those clownish representations), that I was amazed.
Some of these I bought and sent into England. The reason of this store of
pictures, and their cheapness, proceeds from their want of land to employ
their stock, so that it is an ordinary thing to find a common farmer lay out
two or three thousand pounds in this commodity. Their houses are full of
them, and they vend them at their fairs to very great gains.3
As early as the 1640s, men from England, such as Evelyn clearly discovered the economic
advantage of such types of paintings. It is interesting that Evelyn comments on the “clownish”
aspects of the paintings, an obvious recognition of the lax morals displayed within the merry
company pictures, a popular Dutch Baroque genre motif. As seventeenth century Dutch genre
evolved into the conversation piece in England, this informality and overt exhibition of depravity
was, for the most part, exchanged for group portraits which highlighted social status and wealth.4
One of the key resources in connecting Dutch genre paintings to the English conversation
piece is Lisa Jardine’s Going Dutch: How England Plundered Holland’s Glory.5 Jardine’s study
focuses on the seventeenth century when the Dutch established themselves into the upper
echelons of society, ultimately resulting in William of Orange’s becoming King of England (r.
1672-1702). The book highlights the entwining socio-political factors of the two nations. The
discussion on culture focuses in particular on the exchange of art and artists between England
and the Dutch Republic. After the death of Charles I, the royal artistic property was sold at a
pittance, dispersing the art throughout Europe to various bidders, acknowledging that fine art
collecting was not limited exclusively to the royal household - a practice already in observance
3
John Evelyn, http://www.archive.org/stream/diaryofjohnevely01eveliala#page/n15/mode/2up, 19 [Access February
19, 2012].
4
A notable exception to this was William Hogarth and his satirical conversation paintings and prints.
5
Lisa Jardine, Going Dutch: How England Plundered Holland’s Glory, [Great Britain: HarperCollins, 2008].
9
in the Netherlands.6 Additionally, following the Glorious Revolution and the rise to power of
William and Mary, many Dutch artists found employment in England, bringing with them their
renowned pictorial concepts. As to the topic of Dutch influence in eighteenth century British art,
Jardine’s book provides the background and starting material for a more in depth study. Per
Jardine, the Dutch Republic gave Charles II a “gift” consisting of the finest European and Dutch
art. This aptly named “Dutch Gift,” abundant in genre paintings, went on display in England,
undoubtedly establishing a taste for Northern European art among an elite English audience.7
Amongst the numerous Italian artworks, contemporary Dutch artists’ works were selected for
their popularity, such as Gerrit Dou and Pieter Saenredam.8 Even John Evelyn described the
fashion for paintings such as these while visiting the Prince of Orange’s country house: “for
[there is] nothing more remarkable than the delicious walks planted with lime trees, and the
modern paintings within.”9 Certainly this provides a much needed historical and physical link to
the parallelism of Dutch and English art.
Lawrence Stone’s The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800 briefly discusses
the middle class portrayal in art. Stone’s book addresses eighteenth century sociological issues
of England in detail, everything from marriage, sexuality, gender roles, childrearing, parenting,
and families. In his analysis of family portraiture, Stone argues that the English style derived
from seventeenth century Dutch bourgeoisie art.10 Unfortunately, Stone does not elaborate on
this artistic connection and instead focuses on the historical practices of gender roles and
parenting. However, “bourgeoisie art” could refer to the group portraits popular with the wealthy
6
Lisa Jardine, Going Dutch, 120.
Ibid., 144.
8
Ibid., 140.
9
John Evelyn, http://www.archive.org/stream/diaryofjohnevely01eveliala#page/n15/mode/2up, 20 [Accessed
February 19, 2012].
10
Lawrence Stone, The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800, [New York: Harper Colophon Books,
1979], 259.
7
10
merchant class emerging in the seventeenth century Netherlands. Stone addresses the
interpretation of character roles in family paintings based on their sociological history. He does
not, however, pinpoint the Dutch roots of character portrayal in English conversation pieces.
Kate Retford’s article-length study explores the changes in family portraiture, but devotes
her attention to the artist Nathaniel Hone (1718-1784) and the portrait collection in Kedleston
Hall.11 The artwork she discusses is that of Lord Scarsdale (Nathaniel Curzon) and his wife.
Since the article focuses on an aristocratic family, the research there in is not specified for the
middle class, the sitters of choice for Devis. There was a distinct child rearing difference
between the middle and upper classes, therefore the discussed pretense of affection (the primary
argument of Retford) does not necessarily extend to all areas of society. 12 Retford does briefly
mention Devis for his attempt at portraiture, but was formally dismissed because of the stiff
nature of the posed characters. 13
Stephen Sartin and John Hayes curated and catalogued one of the few monographic
studies of Arthur Devis: Polite Society by Arthur Devis 1712-1787.14 This compilation includes
what is known about the relatively obscure artist, his artworks and scholastic attempts to
interpret the characters portrayed in the works. As suggested by the title, Devis’s primary focus
was the conversation piece, also known as family portrait. Fairly straight forward, these
academics do not mince words and acknowledge that portraiture and conversation pieces were
not considered high art in the hierarchy of genres and thus, they conclude Devis did not
11
Kate Retford, “Sensibility and Genealogy in the Eighteenth Century Family Portrait: The Collection at Kedleston
Hall,” The Historical Journal, Vol. 46, No. 3, September 2003, p. 541. http://0www.jstor.org.library.scad.edu/stable/pdfplus/3133561.pdf?acceptTC=true. [Accessed August 20, 2011].
12
Stone, The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800, 295. It must be acknowledged at this point that the
lower, poorer classes are excluded from discussion only on the basis that they could not afford commissioned
portraits and could not thus be included within the scope of social change in art.
13
Kate Retford, “Sensibility and Genealogy in the Eighteenth Century Family Portrait,” 541.
14
John Hayes and Stephen V. Sartin, Polite Society by Arthur Devis 1712-1787: Portraits of the English Country
Gentleman and His Family, [Preston, Britain: Harris Museum and Art Gallery,1983].
11
participate in high art. This could be observed as an interpretation of Devis’ historical obscurity,
in that high art was “highly” coveted and dignified, thus the ultimate goal for many eighteenth
century artists.
The migration of the seventeenth century Dutch genre imagery and the evolution of the
eighteenth century English conversation piece has been a topic mentioned but never thoroughly
discussed. Stone connects the conversation piece to the Dutch bourgeoisie art, without
elaboration.15 Ellen D’Oench agrees with Stone’s connection adding that while the “format
flourished in Holland… it was introduced gradually into England by Netherlandish portraitists
working in upper-class households.”16 One of the key components that links the Dutch Baroque
to Devis’ English conversation pieces, which these authors do not explore, is the element of
landscape incorporated into a group portrait. Additionally, while Devis’ landscape training is
mentioned, it is not fully explored. Just as Retford described Devis’ characters as stiff and
deliberately posed, his landscape is passed over for his awkward portraiture. As will be explored,
this importance of Dutch landscape painting is one of the defining features that sets Devis apart
from his contemporaries in the conversation piece field; it is his strongest artistic element and
thus shows how strong the Dutch Baroque influenced his work.
15
Stone, The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800, 259.
D’Oench, Ellen G. The Conversation Piece: Arthur Devis and His Contempories. [ New Haven: Yale Center for
British Art], 1980, 4.
16
12
The Glorious Revolution and the Ascent of William and Mary in Seventeenth
Century England
England’s so-called “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 may have had a direct impact on
Devis’ development of the conversation pieces. While England and the Netherlands maintained a
congenial rapport with one another prior to the late seventeenth century, the Glorious Revolution
and its aftermath witnessed the commingling of England’s and Holland’s cultures. This event is
also responsible for the new English style which emerged in the eighteenth century. What is
referred to as a “revolution” could be (and has been by some historians) labeled as an invasion. 17
As Jardine explains it, the Glorious Revolution “was a large-scale naval and military engagement
in which the ‘enemy’ (the legitimate English monarch and his government) more or less declined
to participate, and in which victory went surprisingly easily to the aggressor [William].”18 The
English monarch was James II, a Catholic, whose daughter, Mary, was the wife of William,
Prince of Orange and Protestant ruler of the Dutch Republic. Two central themes stand out as the
primary driving forces of the revolution: religion and politics. At one level, religion stands out as
the revolution’s focal point: the Protestant Dutch liberating England from the oppressive
Catholic monarchy and its government to restore the Protestant religion to England. However,
the influence of politics, which involved both the interest of Protestant countries and William
and Mary, cannot be overlooked as a contributing agent in the revolution. Through this invasion,
William sought to prevent James II from, in Jardine’s words, “forming an anti-Dutch Catholic
alliance with France, and a bid to secure [William’s] own and his wife’s dynastic interests.”19 To
the Protestant countries, France was a large threat, politically and religiously. The Stuart Crown
17
Lisa Jardine in Going Dutch discusses this in detail.
Ibid., 42.
19
Ibid., 5.
18
13
sought to ally itself with this Catholic powerhouse, while Protestants in both England and
Holland (like William III) strove to prevent this alliance.
William left the Hague, landing in England with a large fleet of ships and thousands of
men in November 1688.20 Initially, William’s preparations and exact arrival were kept
clandestine to avoid alerting King James II.21 The King in fact knew William’s intention to
invade prior to the launch, but no specifics were made available to him. Therefore, William
caught the King off guard when he landed at last in England.22 William and his forces arrived,
having been “invited” by a group of Englishmen in opposition to Catholic policies, and as
William’s party marched toward London he gained more support, eventually causing James to
abandon the throne as he fled to France.23 After days of deliberation, Parliament offered William
and Mary joint reign of Great Britain.
Understanding the cultural and artistic connections between the Dutch Republic and
England requires exploration of the political marriages of Dutch and English royalty during the
seventeenth century, even prior to the Glorious Revolution. The houses of Orange (the United
Provinces) and Stuart (English royalty) began advantageous marriages in the early 1600s, hoping
to secure political and dynastic control over the regions.24 In 1625, the Stadholder (ruler of the
United Provinces) Frederik Hendrik and his wife Amalia (former lady-in-waiting to the Stuart
princess and later “Winter Queen,” Elizabeth of Bohemia) began a process of introducing Stuart
court culture into Dutch rituals. An extravagance in art purchases and royal habits were adopted
20
Mary Ede, Arts and Society in England under William and Mary, [London: Stainer and Bell, 1979], 37.
Lisa Jardine, Going Dutch, 5.
22
Ibid., 5.
23
Mary Ede, Arts and Society in England under William and Mary, 37.
24
Lisa Jardine, Going Dutch, 82.
21
14
into the United Provinces, emulating London court society.25 One of the key consultants during
this courtly transformation was the secretary and art adviser of the Stadholder (and welldocumented anglophile), Sir Constantijn Huygens.26 Sir Huygens (not to be confused with his
son, Constantijn Jr., who was William III’s secretary) was well respected for his artistic opinion,
praising such artists as Rembrandt, Rubens and Jan Lievens, bolstering several to court artist
status.27
It was truly the ascension of William and his wife Mary that brought one of the more
recognized mergers of the two countries’ cultures, art included. London was used to diffusing
foreign fashions, ideas, and society throughout the rest of the country, primarily by way of
provincial visitors to the city.28 During the 1640s, England experienced an artistic boom by the
growth of foreign artists taking advantage of their prosperity in England’s expansion and
welcome of a variety of art.29 Taking with them the newest social customs and cultural attitudes,
gentry families traveling home from London played a part in the distribution of foreign cultural
aspects among the countryside. This in turn strengthened London’s importance and influence
throughout the rest of the country.30 As an important aspect to observe, the gentry, while not all
exclusively residing in the metropolitan areas, were still able to travel to the city where they were
exposed to the most recent cultural trends. On their return trips home, they subsequently brought
these new trends back to their country lives. Arthur Devis, and more importantly his clients, were
able to understand the fashions (and artistic techniques) through their proximity to the European
cultural hub that was London.
25
Jardine, Going Dutch, 82.
Ibid., 82.
27
Ibid., 83.
28
Ede, Arts and Society in England under William and Mary, 15.
29
Ibid., 35.
30
Ibid., 15.
26
15
As Mary Ede elaborates, “[social] status in late seventeenth-century England was
expressed by a man’s style of living and there was social pressure to compete in extravagant
display.”31 Since the Crown (more particularly, the new Queen Mary) was on the forefront of
fashion, the scramble to emulate the Royal Household elevated ones social status in regards to
their ability to reproduce the most current cultural whimsy. Therefore, given that the monarchs,
newly arrived from the Netherlands, incorporated their own Dutch culture into their fashions and
pursuits, it can be concluded that the English aristocracy and gentry, anxious to adopt the fashion
of the royals for their homes, chose to utilize Dutch art into their own interpretations. In short,
because of the influx of Dutch art into the market following the Glorious Revolution, the
conversation piece, a distinctly English creation, was conceived.
The Impact of Dutch Art in Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century England
The Dutch Golden Age witnessed the development of numerous pictorial categories
under the general heading of “genre imagery,” that were important for Devis. While Devis
utilized landscape and group portrait compositions from seventeenth century Dutch examples,
the English conversation piece incorporates more motifs. Peter C. Sutton uses the term genre to
refer to scenes that depict everyday life, especially seventeenth century Dutch prints and
paintings.32 Within Sutton’s description, the term genre includes conversatie (stressed by Sutton
as different than the English conversation piece), cortegarde (the guardroom piece), bordeeltje
(brothel scenes), and boerenkermis (peasant kermis celebrating the founding of a church or
31
Ede, Arts and Society in England under William and Mary, 22.
Peter C. Sutton, “Masters of Dutch Painting,” in Masters of Seventeenth-Century Dutch Genre Painting, edited by
Jane Iandola Watkins, [Great Britain: Balding + Mansell, 1984], xiv.
32
16
parish).33 In 1791 Quatremère de Quincy first defined genre as denoting scenes of common or
domestic instances.34 Many aspects of these genre images made their way into various examples
of eighteenth century English conversation pieces. For example Devis’ contemporary William
Hogarth’s Modern Moral Series prints and paintings, in particular, The Rakes Progress, Plate III
(1735) [Fig. 1] is an especially vivid example of English indebtedness to Dutch genre imagery.
Here, Hogarth illuminates a brothel scene, in which the series’ wayward central character, Tom
Rakewell, spends his time and money in the midst of slatternly prostitutes. In his own
conversation pieces, Hogarth may have adopted motifs from Jan Steen’s (1625/6-1679) The
Dissolute Household (1668) [Fig. 2]. The Dissolute Household warns of the dangers of worldly
pleasures, just as Tom Rakewell experienced. The father’s (a self portrait of Steen himself!)
disregard for the chaotic nature of his brood is apparent by his nauseating smirk while smoking
and straddling a woman, who based on Sutton’s description is not the mother of the household
but a prostitute.35 Due to his neglect as a father figure, the house is in havoc, in which a child
pickpockets and the space is in disarray. Hogarth may have used the depravity and lack of morals
displayed here to illuminate the same path his Rakewell character followed, ultimately leading to
his incarceration in a mental asylum.
The term conversation piece was connected to images emanating from the Low Countries
prior to its popularity in eighteenth century England.36 It is reminiscent of the Flemish word
conversatie, used in seventeenth century to “describe paintings of informal groups, though not
necessarily portraits of known people.”37 However, in England, particularly with Devis’
33
Sutton, Masters of Seventeenth-Century Dutch Genre Painting, xiv.
Ibid., xiv.
35
Ibid., 322.
36
D’Oench, “Conversation Piece,” [Accessed August 19, 2011].
37
Ibid.
34
17
paintings, the conversation piece is anything but anonymous in terms of the people it portrays.
Peter Paul Rubens’ (1577-1640) Garden of Love [Fig. 3] is perhaps an important example of a
Netherlandish precedent for the English conversation piece – while the painting does not
necessarily depict an informal group, it has been suggested that it portrays members of his own
family.38 Rubens was highly regarded by painters throughout Northern Europe, especially
England. His painting shows a family group portrait, and since English painters thought highly
of him, it may have been an important example for their conversation pieces.
Initially, the history of the conversation piece in England began with royal family
portraits. According to Desmond Shawe-Taylor, King Charles I “appreciated imagery of this
type and sought to embody his reign in the character of royal solemnity that it projects,” inspired
by such artists as Hans Holbien the Younger (1497-1543) and Rubens.39 In 1632, Charles
commissioned Netherlandish artist Hendrick Pot (1585-1637) to paint a royal family portrait
with his wife Henrietta Maria and their son, Charles, Prince of Wales [Fig. 4]. Unlike the
affectionate family portrayal to be seen later in Devis’ work, King Charles is painted on the
opposite side of the portrait as his family. Around them are objects celebrating their royal status,
such as the crown upon the table. What is interesting is the spatial composition of the painting,
where the figures are dwarfed against the large drapes and long table. This spatial composition is
of significance in the development of the conversation piece in England because of its distinction
between a portrait and a conversation piece. The elongated formation of the painting incorporates
38
Gustav Glück claimed the painting possesses the portrait of Rubens and his new bride, Helen Fourment, and
therefore the remainder of the company must be Helen’s extended family. Historian Elise Goodman, however,
believes that the family were merely sitters and it is not meant to ultimately be a family portrait. Elise Goodman,
“Ruben’s Conversatie a la Mode: The Garden of Leisure, Fashion and Gallantry,” The Art Bulletin, Vol. 64, No. 2
[June 1982], 247 , http://0-www.jstor.org.library.scad.edu/stable/pdfplus/3050219.pdf?acceptTC=true [Accessed
January 19, 2012].
39
Desmond Shawe-Taylor, The Conversation Piece: Scenes of Fashionable Life, [London: The Royal Collection
Enterprises Ltd, 2009], 26.
18
and even accentuates the painting’s backdrop. While the large curtains are used as a framing
technique in traditional formal portraiture, there is also a hint of what may lay behind the curtain
suggesting an interior aspect of the painting. The Dutch Baroque held an appreciation for interior
paintings and this excessive detail to something seemingly unseen may be due to Pot’s
background and heritage.
King Charles employed other Northern European artists to work on a number of
conversation pieces for him.40 Adriaen Van Stalbemt (1580-1662) and Jan Van Belcamp (161053) contributed on the 1632 A View of Greenwich [Fig. 5], highlighting once more the
Netherlandish penchant for landscape painting as well as portraying the royal family and select
society members in the lower foreground. Upon first sight, this painting appears to be a
landscape, given that the royal family is clustered in the foreground, overshadowed by the
immense sprawl of Greenwich. It is important to note that the Dutch , within their landscapes,
almost always included humans. Madlyn Millner Kahr explains that this is due in part because
the Dutch “saw the natural world as dominating but not hostile to human life.”41 This is one of
the aspects of Dutch painting Devis really excelled in, in that his characters, while prominently
displayed in the foreground, they, like the van Stalbemt and Van Belcamp painting, are often
dwarfed by a vast and ostensibly limitless landscape background.
Shawe-Taylor discusses the similarities of The View of Greenwich piece to
Netherlandish landscapist Pauwels van Hillegaert’s (1590-1640) The Princes of Orange and
their Families on Horseback Riding Out from the Buitenhof, the Hague [Fig. 6].42 The only real
similarity between the two paintings is the intention of the commissioning party to portray a
40
Shawe-Taylor, The Conversation Piece, 31.
Madlyn Millner Kahr, Dutch Painting in the Seventeenth Century, [New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1978],
211.
42
Ibid., 33.
41
19
royal family with a royal residence in the background. The Prince of Orange is depicted in front
of a grand palace (the Buitenhof). He and his party occupy the foreground while tall, leafy trees
and the palace grounds fills a large majority of the painting.
Gerrit Houckgeest (1600-1661) painted a conversation piece for Charles I which,
according to Shawe-Taylor, adapts a Dutch merry company (a lively and jovial pictorial motif)
to portray the English royal family. It is also a prime example of how the Dutch incorporate
immaculate interior paintings within a group portrait. Charles I Dining in Public of 1635 [Fig.
7] shows off the Dutch artist’s ability and precision in interior detailing. Charles dines to the far
left, surrounded by the court, in a large hall with marble columns and checkered tile, a theme in
many Dutch paintings during the seventeenth century. Shawe-Taylor compares it to Dirck van
Delen and Dirck Hals’ 1628 merry company, Banquet Scene in Renaissance Hall [Fig. 8] which
shows off an elaborate interior scene and dining characters. The high ceilings and narrow walls
allude to an elongated space, as used in Houckgeest’s dining piece. A distinct difference between
the two is the behavior of the groups. Charles and his court conduct themselves with elegance,
seated with a royal, upright posture. In contrast, Hals’ painting highlights the merrymaking
aspect of banquets. Lounging men and women actively engage in conversation with one another.
The examples employed here showcase the group composition. This was one aspect that Devis
used in his conversation pieces. Devis, as will be explored, utilized this approach to character
portrayal with his figures. Here, the figures are not seated as they would be in a formal portrait
painting (such as Pot’s royal portrait) but there is activity taking place.
20
Arthur Devis: Life and Career
It was not until the 1930s when scholars began to recognize English painter Arthur Devis
(1712-1787) as an integral figure in the development of English painting. Prior to that, Devis was
considered a relatively minor player in the expanding English artistic style of the eighteenth
century. His works were often overshadowed by his contemporaries and Royal Academy
predecessors. Nevertheless, Devis’ contribution to the blossoming art scene cannot be neglected.
With his own unique style and attention to manners, Devis made his living producing
conversation pieces while adopting artistic approaches employed by seventeenth century Dutch
artists, more so than other English artists of his time.
Devis was born on February 12, 1712 in Preston, Lancashire to Anthony Devis and Ellen
Rauthmell.43 His father, Anthony, was a prominent figure in the area and eventually gained a
high political office in a local town. Some scholars suggest that because of this political
influence, the younger Devis was introduced to a prestigious artistic patronage.44 Evidence
suggests that Devis’ early artistic career may have been spent learning and working alongside
Flemish born painter Peter Tillemans (1684-1734), to whom he was introduced by the artist
Hamlet Winstanley, who was painting commissions in Preston around the time Devis resided
there.45 This potential pedagogic connection forges a possible link between Devis and Northern
European artistic influence.
43
Hayes and Sartin, Polite Society by Arthur Devis, 19.
Ibid., 19.
45
Ibid.
44
21
Peter Tillemans was primarily a landscape artist who worked as a copyist of Old Master
paintings during his career in Antwerp.46 It was in England that Tillemans found an audience
market for his landscapes and miniaturized portraits. One of his English patrons, Dr. Cox Marco,
encouraged him to endeavor to paint outside the landscape genre, such as history paintings.47 At
the time of acquaintance with Devis, Tillemans worked near Liverpool for the Earl of Derby.48 A
significant skill that Tillemans developed during his English career was his work on country
estates. According to Steven Deuchar, “contact with the sporting gentry brought [Tillemans’]
commissions for a number of country estate views, many of which he embellished with
foreground hunting episodes.”49 It was in these estate paintings that it is possible to see how this
Northern European artist influenced Devis using artistic techniques seen in his predecessors.
While Tillemans was adept in landscape paintings, he also specialized in foreground
figures, similar to the pictorial layout of Hillegaert’s The Princes of Orange and their Families
on Horseback Riding Out from the Buitenhof, the Hague [Refer to Figure 6]. Tillemans did
create family portrait pieces, such as one for Marco. In Master Edward Marco and Miss Mary
Marco, Children of the Reverend Dr. Cox Marco [Fig. 9], Tillemans’ mastery in landscape and
figural composition is apparent. Here, the children are set in the foreground of a lush, green
forest on a sprawling estate. The children are “framed” by the greenery above them and the low
plants bordering the bottom. Rolling, distant clouds and a shrinking tree-lined hedge lead the
viewer’s eye to a columned structure in the background. It is important to note the way
Tillemans’ details the sky, with the clouds and the contrast between the stormy gray and hopeful
46
Ellen D’Oench, The Conversation Piece: Arthur Devis and His Contemporaries, [New Haven: Yale Center for
British Art, 1980], 5.
47
Steven Deuchar, “Peter Tillemans,” Grove Art Online, http://0www.oxfordartonline.com.library.scad.edu/subscriber/article/grove/art/T085048?q=peter+tillemans&search=quick
&pos=1&_start=1#firsthit, [Accessed October 11, 2011].
48
Hayes and Sartin, Polite Society by Arthur Devis 1712-1787, 19.
49
Steven Deuchar, “Peter Tillemans,” [Accessed October 11, 2011].
22
blue. Kahr discusses that this technique was utilized actively in Holland to highlight the
“impression of the variable weather of Holland.”50 Devis assimilates Tillemans’ portrait style
into his own middle class family pictures, which incorporate elaborate grounds, often shown
with similarly ominous cloudy skies. A catalogue of the sales of Tillemans’ studio at the time of
his retirement in 1733 indicates that Devis collaborated with him on seven paintings.51 Without a
doubt, Tillemans’ influence is seen in of many of Devis’ works, but he also may have exposed
Devis to genres popular to Northern artists. In these collaborated paintings, Devis chose to model
his landscapes off of another Northern Baroque artist, Jan Van Bloemen. However, Tillemans
was Devis’ primary influence.52
Upon his move to London after 1733, Devis’ later career is not particularly characterized
by his landscapes, for which he was trained. Rather, his career centered on his intimate
conversation pieces, showing his great interest and large work production of family portraits. As
Lawrence Stone explains, the eighteenth century saw not only a growing popularity in the family
group portrait, but a visible change: “no longer stiffly and formally posed… the children [are] in
postures and attitudes which indicate friendly and playful association with their parents.”53 As
established, conversation pieces originated with the seventeenth century Dutch genre paintings.
Sartin explains the transition from its Dutch derivation:
Artists in eighteenth century London adapted the idea [of the Dutch genre
painting] to their own purposes, by transforming the nameless figures into
portraits of actual people and transporting them from their own tavern or
courtyard to the Georgian house or its surrounding landscape garden. In
addition, the English artists, who were temperamentally suited to the
Dutch tradition of adhering to nature as closely as possible, attempted to
record every feature in the painting with the same verisimilitude,
50
Kahr, Dutch Painting, 217.
Hayes and Sartin, Polite Society by Arthur Devis 1712-1787, 19.
52
Ibid., 19. According to Sartin, it was established by the compiler of the catalogue for Tillemans’ works, Robert
Raines, that Devis was mimicking his landscapes after Van Bloemen, as well as Marco Ricci and G.P. Pannini.
53
Stone, The Family, Sex and Marriage in England , 259.
51
23
regardless of its importance, and to capture with painstaking skill textural
qualities… .54
Devis certainly follows this prescription for an English conversation piece.
Ellen D’Oench is one of the few scholars who discusses Devis’ Dutch style tendencies
outweighing the increasingly popular French Rococo style. As is evident during his commissions
in London, Devis’ portraits “indicate that he must have examined with care the work of
Netherlandish artists and interior scenes by seventeenth-century Dutch painters.”55 Devis took to
heart the Dutch approach to the deliberate care of the detailing in costumes. Additionally, Devis’
work is individualized by his calculated placement of the figures within the painting. Differing
from several of his contemporaries, Devis assigned emphasis on the figure placement within
almost all of his paintings, and often repeated the same “bodily attitudes.”56 This repetition could
be due to Devis’ almost exclusive use of lay-figures, wooden dolls standing approximately two
and a half feet tall, dressed in fashionable attire. These mannequins not only relieved the portrait
sitters from long, tiresome sessions with the painter, but were nicely truncated in size to aid in
Devis’ small compositions.57 Unfortunately, due to his dependence on the inanimate lay-figures,
Devis’ execution of the human form could not capture the natural movements and contours of
the body. Therefore, scholars have cited this lack of formal anatomical training as one of Devis’
shortcomings as an artist.58
Several scholars believe that the English conversation piece owed much of its pictorial
detailing to French Rococo. Hayes, for example, connects the two saying “[French Rococo was]
54
Hayes and Sartin, Polite Society by Arthur Devis, 20.
D’Oench, The Conversation Piece, 9.
56
Ibid., 13.
57
Ibid., 14.
58
Ibid.
55
24
an aesthetic in which diminutive forms and gaiety of colour were significant elements.”59 While
this can be seen in many English conversation pieces, Devis was an exception to this; some of
his paintings are a riot of color (or would have been at creation), but his compositional style and
execution is inherently Dutch in origin.
Unlike many of his fellow English artists, Devis was influenced by the Dutch more so
than the French Rococo. This can be supported by his own foray into the Rococo style. In the
mid to late 1740s, Devis attempted to arrange his figures into what D’Oench explains as “more
fluid compositions.”60 In Peregrine Bertie with His Brothers and Sisters [Fig. 10] of 1747, Devis
indicates his knowledge of Rococo style with the lounging figures in the far right corner.
Additionally, one of the sisters is curved at the waist rather than positioned completely vertical,
as a lay-figure would portray. Yet, when one compares this example (deemed by D’Oench as his
most Rococo work produced) to his Continental counterparts, his composition lacks the
informality of Rococo, as consequence of Devis’ deficiency in painting the human form. Acutely
aware of his weakness with the Rococo approach, Devis resumed his meticulous positioning of
figures, abandoning the French style for the Dutch influences of earlier periods.61
What sets Devis apart from his contemporaries is not only his meticulous placement of
figures, but the way he reflects their emotional connections to the other sitters in the portrait.
While his portrait sitters strove to express an ideal, such as emulating an upper class appearance,
the end result reproduced their own particular habits. Therefore, familial attitudes were captured
not as an ideal, but as organic and pure emotional relationships within the family. One can see
this trend throughout his career as he established his work around families who were on close
59
Hayes and Sartin, 13.
D’Oench, The Conversation Piece, 14.
61
Ibid., 14.
60
25
emotional and relational terms.62 Take for example Sir John Shaw and his Family in the Park at
Eltham Lodge, Kent of 1761 [Fig. 11]. Set outdoors, like many of Devis’ works, the Shaw family
is portrayed in pursuits befitting their position in life. The first Sir John Shaw was a wine
merchant of London. This painting represents Sir John Shaw’s great-grandson of the same name
and his family.63 Sir John Shaw and his wife are seated underneath a lush, green tree. A child
rests upon Mrs. Shaw’s knee as she gazes at Sir Shaw who has paused briefly from reading a
letter to gaze around at his family. One son is recumbent against the tree, lazily reading while the
other son gingerly pets his dog. Devis, in addition to rendering the characteristics of the Shaw
family for an appropriate conversation piece, has put Sir Shaw on an equal pictorial line with his
wife, deviating from the traditional portraits where the man of the house is more pronounced.
Here, Sir Shaw is merely part of his family and this painting is a scene out of time, focused more
on familial importance rather than gender and familial stratification. It also clearly outlines what
many English families strove to have displayed: their splendor and wealth, apparent by the
rolling lawn, manicured garden, and stately home in the distance. The tenderness and close
kinship displayed in Devis’ conversation pieces exhibited a change, as well as a demand, for
family portraits, indicating a social and artistic change in which Devis was a key component.
This painting does not exclusively present a middle class family per se, but it still provides an
example of the emotional and relational aspects Devis brought out in his conversation pieces.
62
63
D’Oench, The Conversation Piece, 22.
Ibid., 64.
26
Middle Class Conversation Pieces
Certainly, this familial attitude shift, the emotional and organic familial affection, is
captured in one of Devis’ more affectionate paintings, completed in 1763, Francis Vincent, His
Wife Mercy & Daughter Ann, of Weddington Hall, Warwickshire [Fig. 12]. In European
Perspectives on Men and Masculinities: National and Transnational Approaches, the authors
present evidence that “some early modern writers… argued that mothers were bound to love
their children more than fathers.”64 In this particular family conversation piece, that does not
seem to be the case. The tenderness is represented in the face of the father, who has abandoned a
letter to devote his attention to his daughter. She, in turn, rewards his attention with a
honeysuckle. Francis’s wife, Mercy, seems unaware of this interaction as her gaze is focused
forward while she absently holds Ann. It is the attention of the father to his child that makes this
painting a unique example highlighting both the familial change during the eighteenth century
and Devis’ own predilection for painting close families.
A painting that connects the Dutch style with English art is Sir Joshua Vanneck and his
Family (1752) [Fig. 13]. Devis certainly picked up on the Dutch attention to fabric texture with
the ladies’ dresses. Their voluminous dresses have a distinct, realistic sheen, undoubtedly
indicating their lavish expense and the English aptitude for displaying their own wealth and
splendor in family group portraits. Sir Joshua Vanneck was a newly created Baronet merchant of
Dutch descent, growing up in the Hague and eventually moving to England and was perhaps
drawn to Devis’ style for his own family portrait.65 The painting seems to be a bustle of activity;
most of the members engaging in something other than a portrait pose. The different levels of
64
Jeff Hearn and Keith Pringle, European Perspectives on Men and Masculinities: National and Transnational
Approaches, [Great Britain: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006], 124.
65
D’Oench, The Conversation Piece, 59.
27
poses and inattentive nature of some of the participants suggests animation as opposed to the stiff
inactivity of other portraits. Sir Vanneck poses traditionally with his wife seated, however, he is
placed compositionally at the far left of the painting, not the center, and thus is not the focal
point of this painting. Two of Vanneck’s daughters engage in an animated discussion in the
middle of the painting, disregarding the rest of the party. At the far left of the painting a couple
poses sweetly, the elegant woman (another of Vanneck’s children) leaning slightly toward the
man (possibly her husband), who gazes up briefly from his book as he gently wraps his arm
around the woman. Children compose the foreground, markedly different from the adults by
stature and clothing style. A lone man in the back stares at the chatting ladies. The background
depicts a winding river, covered by an arched stone bridge, and a large stone tower slowly rises
out of the tree line, reminiscent of Dutch landscape pieces. The cloudy sky is similar to the
billowing cloud formations in many of Tillemans’ paintings, such as the Little Hough Hall,
Suffolk [Fig. 14] Sir Vanneck would have been familiar with Dutch art and could possibly have
had an opinion as to what he wanted to come of his family portrait.
For the Vanneck piece, there is a strong similarity to the compositional scheme found in
Pieter de Hooch’s 1662 painting Dutch Family [Fig. 15]. In this painting we see a family
gathered in a courtyard, positioned similarly to how Vanneck’s family was placed. A male figure
stands on the outer left edge, engaging the viewer with his resolute stare, standing much like Sir
Vanneck in his own family portrait. At the far right sits a man, as is mirrored in Devis’ piece, but
with a much younger gentleman. Overall, the family character placements create a crescent
beginning at the edges with the two men and indenting inward as a semi-circle. Devis’ Vanneck
painting mirrors this crescent in its own character placement. Furthermore, the utter complexity
and detailed nature of the landscape in both paintings must be accounted for, such as the tower in
28
the background, rising above the courtyard walls, just as the tower rises above the trees in the
Vanneck piece.
One of Devis’ more awkward portraits was that of The Swaine Family in 1749 [Fig. 16].
The group (because of careless provenance records, an accurate genealogical identification
cannot be gained) is clustered in the foreground, creating nearly a straight line in their
positioning. The background landscape however has been lauded as one of his best and most
naturalistic, quite rightly so.66 The exquisite trees indicate the immaculate detailing Dutch artists
and Devis utilized to accurately capture nature. The conjectured family identified in this piece is
that of John Swaine the elder, a linen-draper in the City of London, and his son of the same name
with his own family.67 The elder Swaine leans against the tree to the far right while his son
reclines upon a tree stump opposite him. Young Swaine’s wife leans in toward her husband
while their children do the same, compositionally connecting their positions to the rest of the
family, as if this clustering of bodies were the only indicator of their familial intimacy. The
whole family is in a state of relaxation, indicated by the fishing poles and the book young Swaine
is reading. The only two characters looking toward the viewer are Swaine’s daughter and
Swaine’s father. Swaine himself looks over his children, pointing to his daughter who holds a
small lap dog. The family genuinely displays affection toward one another, heightened by their
close proximity to one another and the father’s attention toward his children. Even Swaine’s
young son shows an abandonment of societal norms by reclining, depicted not as a little adult but
as the child he is.
66
67
D’Oench, The Conversation Piece, 55.
Ibid.
29
Dutch artist Frans Hals’ (c. 1580-1666) Family Group in a Landscape (1647) [Fig. 17] is
an intimate and tender representation of a loving family group portrait, similar to the familial
representations in The Swaine Family. Each of the members in this Dutch painting is in direct
physical contact with another, or overlapping another, making it a close-knit household with no
one relegated to the outskirts. This intimacy is mirrored in the Swaine piece with the intentional
leaning of the family members to connect them. The parents are seated in the center of their
brood, aligned on equal setting with each other. The father turns toward his wife who is engaged
with a spirited child grasping a piece of fruit. The eldest children surround their parents, patient
and unimposing. To the far left, a young girl holds a squirming child, enraptured by her brother’s
attempts to amuse her. Seated upon the ground, another young child looks up from her basket
and is the only sitter to look out at the viewer. As the young Swaine son is depicted in Devis’
painting, so too are the children in this painting: composed as full of life, as children are
supposed to be. The far left of the painting exposes rolling fields, speckled with cows beneath a
tumultuous sky. This painting is not only a prime example of how Dutch artists, such as Hals,
combine group portraits with landscape paintings. The precise rendering of a large, modest
family, pleased with their situation in life and proud of their group, with a highly detailed
background, seems the object Devis tried to reach in his Swaine portrait.
In addition to middle class families, Devis was also employed to paint distinguished
members of society, such as scientist and Fellow of the Royal Society, John Bacon. [Fig. 18] In
John Bacon and His Family (1742-43), Bacon’s career and pursuits are made evident by the
scattered scientific instruments throughout the painting, such as the telescope and compass
placed to the far right. Mrs. Bacon takes the center of the portrait with her youngest daughter,
Catherine, eyes straight ahead. John Bacon is placed behind and to the left of his wife and
30
interacts with son, John William, who holds a flute to acknowledge his musical talents and
accomplishments.68 Additionally, this portrait outlines the ideals this family held highest:
education and intellectualism, as displayed by how the children are communicating. The oval
portraits on the wall are those of John Milton, Alexander Pope, Sir Francis Bacon, and Isaac
Newton, suggested by Hayes as Bacon’s interest in poetry and philosophy.69 Although two
children are configured to the far right, the scene still displays a familial tenderness prevalent in
most of Devis’ works.
The arrangement of John Bacon and his family can be compared to Flemish artist Gabriel
Metsu’s (1629-1667) painting, The Family of Burgomaster Dr. Gillis Valckenier (1657) [Fig.
18]. On a superficial level, these paintings share illustrious sitter-subjects as a “burgomaster”
was in essence a town mayor. However, it is the placement of the figures that is so highly
recognizable in Devis’ Bacon portrait. The burgomaster is seated to the left, with his child to the
left of him, as Bacon and his son, John William, are positioned. The burgomaster’s wife and
young daughter comprise the center, while a child and nurse with a baby make up the right of the
painting. Metsu differs, however, from Devis’ attention to the background details. Metsu focuses
on the family atmosphere created by having the children play with a veritable menagerie of pets
at the feet of the parents. That being said, both group portraits make use of the interior setting.
As seen also in the Houckgeest painting, the Bacon piece has a direct view of a large, columned
arch, acting here as a wall to the adjoining room. Metsu’s painting makes use of this arched
doorway in his own painting. While the arched doorway is not exclusive to the Dutch Baroque, it
is worth note to observe the similarities of Devis’ doorway to that of Houckgeest’s and Metsu’s.
68
69
Hayes and Sartin, Polite Society by Arthur Devis, 43.
Ibid., 43.
31
The use of lay figures is most prominent in Devis’ 1749 Family Group on a Terrace in a
Garden [Fig. 20]. The children, although at play, are stiff and mannequin like. However, Hayes
refers to this as Devis’ “finest painting,” in reference to the compositional skill and rococo use of
color.70 The unidentified sitters are set on a terrace overlooking a river landscape. Sitting
opposite the children with the carriage are who Hayes conjectures as the children’s mother and
grandfather, while the father stands next to his wife.71 Quite a lot of attention and detail are
apparent in the river landscape, a skill demonstrated in the Vanneck portrait as well. While the
warmth is absent from this portrait, it still echoes another Northern European painting. Portrait
of a Family in a Landscape (1641) [Fig. 21] is a collaboration between Aelbert Cuyp and Jacob
Gerritz, with Aelbert attending to the landscape and Jacob to the figures. The painting shows a
well to do family, indicated by the fact that they are in pleasurable pursuits, not toiling away at
work. The father stands clearly defined amongst a group of women, holding hands gently with
his wife; the group stares toward the viewer. They are not extravagant in their appearance and
are modestly dressed. Using his walking stick, the father points to the center of the painting
where a child accepts a dead bird, prize from the hunt no doubt. In the background, cattle grazes
and lounge in the golden grass as the gray clouds slowly engulf the sky. The father is depicted as
caring, since he is holding the mother’s hand and drawing the viewer’s eye to his daughter. As in
the family on the terrace painting, there are two compositional groupings: the group comprising
of the parents to the left, and a small party to the right, revealing a landscape in the background.
70
71
Hayes and Sartin, Polite Society by Arthur Devis, 53.
Ibid., 53.
32
Conclusion
To many scholars, Arthur Devis may not have contributed much to art historical
discourse in the eighteenth century, especially painting alongside British painter and satirist,
William Hogarth, or fellow portraitist, Thomas Gainsborough. However, Devis was an
instrumental figure in the development of the eighteenth century conversation piece and he could
not have accomplished such an incredible artistic production without Dutch Baroque influence.
By exposing the degree of influence the Dutch Baroque had on later English art, this research
will be a valuable contribution to historical scholarship. Is has been suggested by other scholars
that the French Rococo style was the true catalyst for the iconic English style and the Dutch
Baroque was merely a contributing factor. 72 Through the use of seventeenth century Dutch
Baroque genre pictures juxtaposed with Devis’ own conversation pieces, this research helped to
uncover the breadth of the Dutch contribution, especially with the art of Arthur Devis. . The
landscape and character portrayal, seen many of the Dutch merry group portrait pictures, have
exposed a sociological change within the contemporary English middle class family.
72
Hayes and Sartin, 13.
33
Images
Figure 1: William Hogarth, The Rake’s Progress, Plate III, 1735, Etching and Engraving, 318 x
387 mm, Tate Britain, London,
http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?cgroupid=999999961&workid=6628&searchi
d=27250 [Accessed November 5, 2010].
Figure 2: Jan Steen, The Dissolute Household, 1668, Oil on Canvas, 31 3/4 x 35 inches,
Wellington Museum, London. Scanned from Jane Iandola Watkins, ed. Masters of
Seventeenth-Century Dutch Genre Painting. Great Britain: Balding + Mansell, 1984,
plate 85.
34
Figure 3: Peter Paul Rubens, Garden of Love, Oil, 1633-34, Museo del Prado, http://0library.artstor.org.library.scad.edu/library/iv2.html?parent=true# [Accessed January 30,
2012].
Figure 4: Hendrick Pot, Charles I, Henrietta Maria and Charles, Prince of Wales (later Charles
II), 1632, Oil on Panel, 47.3 x 59.7 cm, The Royal Collection, Britain. Scanned from
Desmond Shawe-Taylor. The Conversation Piece: Scenes of Fashionable Life. London:
The Royal Collection Enterprises Ltd, 2009, p. 29.
35
Figure 5: Adriaen Van Stalbemt and Jan Van Delcamp, A View of Greenwich, 1632, Oil on
Canvas, 82 xx 107 cm, Royal Collection, London. Scanned from Desmond ShaweTaylor. The Conversation Piece: Scenes of Fashionable Life. London: The Royal
Collection Enterprises Ltd, 2009, p. 31.
Figure 6: Pauwels van Hillegaert, The Princes of Orange and their Families on Horseback
Riding Out from the Buitenhof, the Hague, 1621-2, Oil on Canvas, Royal Cabinet of
Paintings, Mauritshuis, the Hague. Scanned from Desmond Shawe-Taylor. The
Conversation Piece: Scenes of Fashionable Life. London: The Royal Collection
Enterprises Ltd, 2009, p. 33.
36
Figure 7: Gerrit Houckgeest, Charles I Dining in Public, 1635, Oil on Panel, Royal Collection,
London. Scanned from Desmond Shawe-Taylor. The Conversation Piece: Scenes of
Fashionable Life. London: The Royal Collection Enterprises Ltd, 2009, p. 37.
Figure 8: Dirck van Delen and Dirck Hals, Banquet Scene in a Renaissance Hall, 1628, Oil on
Panel, Akademie der Bildende Künste, Vienna, Austria.
http://www.artres.com/c/htm/TreePfLight.aspx?ID=LES, [Accessed February 22, 2012].
37
Figure 9: Peter Tillemans, Master Edward Marco and Miss Mary Marco, Children of the
Reverend Dr. Cox Marco, Norwich Castle and Art Gallery,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/artists/peter-tillemans/paintings/slideshow#/2,
[Accessed March 6, 2012].
Figure 10: Arthur Devis, Peregrine Bertie with His Brothers and Sisters, 1747-1748, Oil, 40 x 50
inches, Courtesy of Lord Wimborne. Scanned from Ellen D’Oench. The Conversation
Piece: Arthur Devis and His Contemporaries. New Haven: Yale Center for British Art,
1980, Plate 20.
38
Figure 11: Arthur Devis, Sir John Shaw and his Family in the Park at Eltham Lodge, Kent, 1761,
Oil on Canvas, 52 3/4 x 78 3/8 inches, The Art Institute of Chicago, Gift of Emily Crane
Chadbourne, Chicago, http://0library.artstor.org.library.scad.edu/library/iv2.html?parent=true#. [Accessed August 8,
2011].
Figure 12: Arthur Devis, Francis Vincent, His Wife Mercy & Daughter Ann, of Weddington Hall,
Warwichshire, 1763, Oil on Canvas, 421x37.7 inches, http://0library.artstor.org.library.scad.edu/library/iv2.html?parent=true#, [Accessed August 8,
2011].
39
Figure 13: Arthur Devis, Sir Joshua Vanneck and his Family, 1752, http://0library.artstor.org.library.scad.edu/library/iv2.html?parent=true# [Accessed August 8,
2011].
Figure 14: Peter Tillemans, The Little Haugh Hall, Suffolk, Norwich Castle and Art Gallery,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/artists/peter-tillemans/paintings/slideshow#/4,
[Accessed March 6, 2012].
40
Figure 15: Pieter de Hooch, Dutch Family, 1662, Oil on Canvas, 114 x 97 cm, Akademie der
Bildende, Vienna, Austria, http://www.artres.com/c/htm/Home.aspx, [Accessed October
11, 2011].
Figure 16: Arthur Devis, The Swaine Family of Fencroft, Isle of Ely, Cambridgeshire, 1749, Oil,
64.2 x 103.5 cm, Yale Center for British Art, New Haven, Connecticut. Scanned from
Ellen D’Oench. The Conversation Piece: Arthur Devis and His Contemporaries. New
Haven: Yale Center for British Art, 1980, Plate 21.
41
Figure 17: Frans Hals, Family Group in a Landscape, 1648, Oil on Canvas, 148.5 x 251 cm,
National Gallery, London. http://did.scad.edu/students/subject_detail.php?s_code=scad65134&s_file=scad-65134-106032_bal54987.jpg, [Accessed October 11, 2011].
Figure 18: Arthur Devis, John Bacon and his Family, 1742-1743, Oil on Canvas, Yale Center for
British Art, Paul Mellon Collection, Connecticut. Scanned from Hayes, John and Stephen
V. Sartin. Polite Society by Arthur Devis 1712-1787: Portraits of the English Country
Gentleman and his Family. Preston, Britain: Harris Museum and Art Gallery, 1983, p. 91.
42
Figure 19: Gabriel Metsu, Family of Buromaster Dr. Gillis Valkenier, 1657, Oil on Canvas, 72 x
79 cm, Gemaldegalerie, Berlin, Germany,
http://did.scad.edu/students/subject_detail.php?s_code=scad-57711&s_file=scad-5771196316_mhf0470.jpg, [Accessed October 11, 2011].
Figure 20: Arthur Devis, Family Group on a Terrace in a Garden, 1740, Oil on Canvas, 101.5 x
124.5 cm, British Rail Firm, England, http://0library.artstor.org.library.scad.edu/library/iv2.html?parent=true#, [Accessed August 8,
2011].
43
Figure 21: Aelbert Cuyp and Jacob Gerritz, Portrait of a Family in a Landscape, 1641, Oil on
Canvas, 155 x 245 cm, Israel Museum, Jerusalem, West Bank,
http://did.scad.edu/students/subject_detail.php?s_code=scad-48170&s_file=scad-4817082886_08D_338-003.jpg, [Accessed October 11, 2011].
44
Bibliography
Alpers, Svetlana. The Art of Describing: Dutch Art in the Seventeenth Century. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1983.
Bachrach, Albert G. H. Sir Constantijn Huygens and Britain, 1596-1687: A Pattern of Cultural
Exchange. London: Oxford University Press, 1962.
Banks, Oliver T. Watteau and the North: Studies in the Dutch and Flemish Baroque Influence on
French Rococo Painting. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1977.
Bense, Johan Frederik. Anglo-Dutch Relations from the Earliest Times to the Death of William
the Third, Being an Historical Introduction to a Dictionary of the Low-Dutch Element in
the English Vocabulary. London: Oxford University Press, 1925.
Carter, Philip. Men and the Emergence of Polite Society, Britain 1600-1800. Essex, England:
Pearson Education Limited, 2001.
De Jongh, E. “Real Dutch Art and Not-So-Real Dutch Art: Some Nationalistic Views of
Seventeenth-Century Netherlandish Painting.” Simiolus: Netherlandish Quarterly for the
History of Art, Vol. 20, No. 2/3 (1990-1991), 197-206.
D’Oench, Ellen G. The Conversation Piece: Arthur Devis and His Contemporaries. New Haven:
Yale Center for British Art, 1980.
Ede, Mary. Arts and Society in England Under William and Mary. London: Stainer and Bell,
1979.
Evelyn, John. Diary and Correspondence of John Evelyn, F.R.S. Edited by William Bray.
London: George Routledge & Sons, Limited, 1900.
[http://www.archive.org/stream/diaryofjohnevely01eveliala#page/n15/mode/2up].
Fernie, Eric. Art History and Its Methods: A Critical Anthology. London: Phaidon Press Limited,
1995.
Foyster, Elizabeth A. Manhood in Early Modern England: Honour, Sex and Marriage. Essex,
United Kingdom: Addison Wesley Longman Limited, 1999.
Goodman, Elise. “Ruben’s Conversatie a la Mode : The Garden of Leisure, Fashion, and
Gallantry.” The Art Bulletin, Vol. 62, No. 2 (June 1982), pp. 247-259.
Hallett, Mark. Hogarth. London: Phaidon Press Limited, 2000.
Hayes, John and Stephen V. Sartin. Polite Society by Arthur Devis 1712-1787: Portraits of the
English Country Gentleman and his Family. Preston, England: Harris Museum and Art
Gallery, 1983.
45
Hearn, Jeff and Keith Pringle. European Perspectives on Men and Masculinities: National and
Transnational Approaches. Great Britain: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.
Hoak, Dale and Mordechai Feingold, eds. The World of William and Mary: Anglo-Dutch
Perspectives on the Revolution of 1688-89. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996.
Jardine, Lisa. Going Dutch: How England Plundered Holland’s Glory. Great Britain: Harper
Collins Publications, 2008.
Jarrett, Derek. England in the Age of Hogarth. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986.
Jones, Robert W. Gender and the Formation of Taste in Eighteenth-Century Britain: The
Analysis of Beauty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Jorissen, Theod. Introduction to Mémoires de Constantin Huygens: Publiés pour la première
fois, d’après les minutes d’auteur. The Hague: Nijhoff, 1873.
Kahr, Madlyn Millner. Dutch Painting in the Seventeenth Century. New York: Harper & Row,
Publishers, 1978.
Kolfin, Elmer, trans. Michael Hoyle. The Young Gentry at Play: Northern Netherlandish Scenes
of Merry Companies 1610-1645. Leiden: Primavera Pers, 2005.
Langford, Paul. A Polite and Commercial People: England 1727-1783. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1989.
Maclaren, Neil. The Dutch School. London: National Gallery Catalogues, 1960.
Myrone, Martin. Bodybuilding: Reforming Masculinities in British Art 1750-1810. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2005.
Nichols, Tom, ed. Others and Outcasts in Early Modern Europe: Picturing the Social Margins.
Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2007.
Retford, Kate. The Art of Domestic Life: Family Portraiture in Eighteenth-Century England.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006.
Salomon, Nanette. Shifting Priorities: Gender and Genre in Seventeenth-Century Dutch
Painting. Stanford University Press, 2004.
Shawe-Taylor, Desmond. The Conversation Piece: Scenes of Fashionable Life. London: The
Royal Collection Enterprises Ltd, 2009.
Shepard, Alexandra. Meanings of Manhood in Early Modern England. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2003.
46
Stewart, Douglas. English Portraits of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Los Angeles:
University of California, 1974.
Stone, Lawrence. The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800. New York: Harper
Colophon Books, 1979.
Styles, John and Amanda Vickery, eds. Gender, Taste and Material Culture in Britain and North
America 1700-1830. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006.
Turner, Jane, ed. From Rembrandt to Vermeer: 17th Century Dutch Artists. New York: St.
Martin’s Press, Scholarly and Reference Division, 2000.
Waterhouse, Ellis. Painting in Britain 1530-1790. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994.
Watkins, Jane Iandola, ed. Masters of Seventeenth-Century Dutch Genre Painting. Great Britain:
Balding + Mansell, 1984.
Whyman, Susan. Sociability and Power in Late Stuart England: The Cultural Works of the
Verneys, 1660-1720. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Wiesner, Merry E. Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1993.
47