This title was digitized by the Museum of Contemporary Art of Georgia (MOCA GA).
About Art papers. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1981-current | View Entire Issue (Sept. 1, 1981)
BS: Yes, a lot of the abstraction is about man-woman relationships, the difficulties of resolving those rela tionships and still being independent, being a free and liberated person. The work is also about energy, creative energy. From the markings that began with the Autograph Series, 1 am now using other markings of different shapes and colors to visualize dif ferent energies and different ideas. CB: You’re really talking about translating those energies graphically into your pieces. BS: Yes, 1 deal on a personal level with my work. It’s not so much about the materials or objects 1 use as it is about my feelings. Feelings are really hard to transmit into a formal art object. Feelings are hard for people to express, especially in our everyday life. We are taught as children to put them down, particularly the intimate ones. Because 1 deal with my work on a personal level, I think it’s important that people know that art isn’t just abstract or minimal, but about feel ings and the fact that it’s all right to show those feelings. In the eighties, I think more people are beginning to Swan Coach House Collection Laurel Wemmet The eight portraits in the Swan House collection of paintings belong ing to the Atlanta Historical Society reflect the development of portrait painting in England from the end of the seventeenth century through the eighteenth century. Their small number and lack of definitive attribu tions in some cases should not obscure their value as important examples in Atlanta of English por traiture of that period. In conjunction with other furnishings at Swan House, these paintings reveal an interest in eighteenth century styles which pervaded the taste of domestic interior decoration during the 1920’s and 1930’s. Research conducted during the past year and a half has yielded new infor mation about these eight portraits. With the assistance of leading author ities on seventeenth and eighteenth century painting in England, the iden tity of two of the individuals represented in these portraits is known for the first time, and the attributions of these paintings to various artists active in England dur ing this period have been examined and either verified or challenged. The Historical Society acquired these portraits, along with other paint ings and furnishings original to the house, in 1966 when Swan House was purchased from the estate of Mrs. Edward Inman. In 1977, an addi tional portrait was donated to the col lection by another Atlanta family. Unfortunately, due to the absence of Inman family records of purchase, details of the acquisition of the paint ings are unknown. With one excep tion, the portraits were probably bought in New York and England expressly for Swan House in the 1920’s and 1930’s. A painting of an unknown little girl hung in the Inman’s earlier home on 15th Street in Ansley Park, where the couple lived prior to the completion of Swan House in 1928. Swan House, designed by Atlanta architect Philip Schutze, was in fluenced by the architectural style of Italian villas created by Andrea Palladio for noblemen in the six teenth century. The Palladian style, as it is called, is derived from classical traditions and was revived in the eighteenth century in the houses of English noblemen, and in the begin ning of the twentieth century in American domestic architecture. Mrs. Inman’s furnishings were select ed to harmonize with the orderly details of the Swan House architec ture at a time when there was a strong reaction to the dark, crowded in teriors of the Victorian era. Her careful choice of originals and reproductions of period style fur niture was complimented by the selec tion of predominantly portrait paint ings, the type of painting which dominated England until after the middle of the eighteenth century. In the dining room, prominantly hung over the mantelpiece, is the por trait of Robert Spencer, Viscount Teviot (1628-1694), identified by a gold inscription in the lower right hand corner of the canvas. This is a three-quarter length portrait (48" high by 39" wide), very close to the in termediate size measurements (50" X 40") that had become standard for portraiture in England by the end of the seventeenth century. The inscrip tion is invaluable since it names an individual whose identity might otherwise have been lost to posterity. This practice of inscribing sitters’ names and coats of arms did not en dure much beyond the seventeenth century. The portrait of Lord Teviot can be dated about 1690, based on the nobleman’s costume of a fashionable lace cravat, loose cloak and shoulder length periwig, the attire worn by gentlemen for their portraits at that time. With the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660 in England, cloth ing styles became richer and more elaborate under the influence of the French court. The full-bottomed wig which remained in style until the 1730’s was likened by William Hogarth to a lion’s mane in its ability to convey a noble and dignified countenance. In portraiture, how ever, it often tended to obscure the in dividuality of the sitter. The portrait of Lord Teviot is a skillful likeness of a man probably in his sixties. The full, fleshy face becomes the main focus of the paint ing, highlighted by the elegant cravat which contrasts with the dark satin dressing gown and shadowy land scape background. Full, gathered sleeves draw attention to the elegant hands, with their long tapered fingers drawing the folds of the dressing gown around the figure’s solid frame. Teviot’s face is marked by a slightly arched eyebrow conveying an ar rogant manner, while his heavy body suggests a self-indulgent lifestyle. The Spencer family, of which Teviot was a member, as is England’s new princess, Lady Diana, was one of the great families of England, acquir ing its wealth through sheep-raising on their extensive land holdings in the sixteenth century. The political upheaval of the seventeenth century affected the Spencers as it did many of the gentry. Lord Teviot’s older brother was killed supporting King Charles I in the Civil War, and Teviot spent some time abroad during the express themselves, to express feelings other than anger, which is always there. CB: In your installation, MTI, the wooden floor sculpture, you re inforced other people expressing themselves by requesting that each viewer leave an offering at the altar. BS: Special little gifts accumulated around the piece when it was ex hibited in Los Angeles and New York. 1 felt that the energy of the piece increased with each offering. Some people wrote poems, others danced, but everyone felt something for and of the work. The installation involved people with their feeling about the particular piece and with art in general. I want to deal with the universal concept of just being on this planet. I want to deal with evolution, with con sciousness-raising, with making peo ple aware of feelings. 1 am moving away from the separateness of male- female, Black-White, American- European-African divisions and into a universal spirituality. Cromwellian rule of the 1650’s. After the Restoration of the Stuarts in 1660, he became a member of Parliament until 1679. The title of Viscount Teviot was conferred on him by James II in 1685 to facilitate his mar riage to a distant cousin. There were no children from this union, and his wife predeceased him. Teviot, who was a strong Anglican like his friend, John Evelyn, is mentioned on several occasions in Evelyn’s famous Diary, including the news of Teviot’s suicide in 1694, when he cut his own throat. Such a tragic death may have been prompted by his disappointment over his third bankruptcy. In the Swan House portrait, alongside Lord Teviot’s name appears that of Sir Godfrey Kneller (1646-1723), the immigrant German artist who dominated portraiture dur ing his lifetime in England. While there is no reason to doubt the iden tity of Lord Teviot (there are no other known portraits for comparison), the Kneller attribution has been chal lenged by two authorities, Professor J. Douglas Stewart, an expert on Kneller, and Malcolm Rogers of the National Portrait Gallery in London. Both men regard the style of the por trait as closer to that of John Riley (1646-1691), a native-born English artist who shared with Kneller the position of Principal Painter to the monarch from 1688-1691. Riley has been overshadowed, either by Sir Peter Lely (1618-1680) who preceded him, or Kneller who outlived him. Ellis Waterhouse, in his Painting in Britain 1530-1790, has suggested that Kneller’s portraits of men only rarely achieved the “sensitive penetration of character and melancholy” of Riley’s work during the late seventeenth cen tury when both artists were active. Professor Stewart explains that if the portrait of Lord Teviot was painted by Kneller, the sitter would appear bolder and more confident. Incorrect attributions of paintings to Kneller are not uncommon. For nearly half a century, Kneller’s studio produced an enormous number of portraits, setting the style for the en tire period. His work was imitated by contemporary artists, including those who studied at the first Academy of Painting and Drawing which Kneller helped found in 1711. Furthermore, of the hundreds of works Kneller left unfinished at the time of his death, many were completed by his chief assistant, while over 300 remained partially finished when they were sold at an auction. These were likely to have been finished by other artists. The subject of a bust portrait in the library at Swan House was only recently identified as James Craggs, Senior (1657-1721), based on a 1723 English engraving of this individual by George Vertue. The Vertue en graving, after a missing Kneller por trait of Craggs dated 1709, is Art Papers September-October 1981
