Chapter 3
After-portrait Drawings: Red Chalk
FIX FIGURE NUMBERS
Thus far, the discussion of the role of drawings in mid-eighteenth century portraiture has
focussed on the drawn studies of hands, poses and costumes that were used in the developmental
stages of portraits. In order to complete the portraits these studies were meant for, the ideas would
be translated onto the canvas and completed in oils, and the finished portrait would eventually be
sold. One might assume that at this final stage, drawing would no longer be required. In fact,
drawing continued to play an important role even after a painting was completed.
Portraitists would have wanted to document their work for future patrons. As they obviously
did not have photography to do this, they needed a different method. Several of the most important
commission would be engraved for public circulation. In order for the translation to be accurate, a
detailed drawing was necessary. It sometimes occurred that the drapery painter would have fulfilled
this role, particularly John Baptist Gaspars for Lely.1 However, there is little evidence to suggest that
Vanhaecken was associated with making drawings for engravers.2 As for those portraits that were
not destined to be engraved (such as personal or familial portraits), they were often never seen
again. Portraitist needed to make a detailed drawn copy before the work was removed from the
studio.
There is a group of drawings from the National Gallery of Scotland collection that appear to
have had this documentary role. They are much more detailed than the developmental sketches: the
sitters’ faces are drawn, there is an exacting detail found in the costumes, and often the background
of the image in also included. These drawings, which will be termed ‘after-portrait’ drawings, most
1
Noon, 1979: xiv.
Most of the engravings by Hudson are by John Faber, while James McArdell is frequently the engraver of
Ramsay’s works.
2
notably feature the use of red chalk in addition to black and white. As far as research for this
dissertation has seen, this aspect of the drawings has not been significantly highlighted. This seems
odd, as any argument for Vanhaecken’s association with these drawings heavily relies on this aspect.
This is because the red chalk appears to have been used in order to differentiate between the work
of the face painter and that of the drapery painter. This is based on the fact that the red chalk is
used to draw the hands and face of the figures portrayed, while the costume and background are
done in black. These features were the domain of the portraitist, while the costume and background
was left to the assistants.
Yet a problem arises out of this argument. If there is substantially more of the portrait
rendered in black chalk than red, how then we should consider the relationship between the head
assistants like the drapery-men, and the face-painter? One ‘after-portrait’ drawing that perhaps best
illustrates this issue is Dr Richard Mead, from the Edinburgh collection of Vanhaecken-attributed
drawings. (Fig. 1) The source of the sheet is Ramsay’s painting, Dr Richard Mead, 1673-1754. (Fig. 2)
This particular painting was the subject of a letter to the editor of Apollo in 1964.3 In it, the writer
Ralph Edwards raises an inherent issue regarding mid-eighteenth century portraits. Just how much
did Hudson or Ramsay rely on the drapery-painter for the completion of their work?
To stimulate this debate, Edwards asks a simple yet revealing question. Did Van Aken paint the
wig? If he did, then he also painted the letter, the cravat and the statue in the niche. 4 What, then,
remains of Ramsay? To answer this question, one needs to examine the after-portrait drawing of Dr
Mead. While aware of the drawing’s existence, Edward clearly did not look at it closely. If he had, he
would have given more credit to Ramsay than he does in his letter. The sheet features perhaps the
largest amount of red chalk of any of the after-portrait drawings. More than Mead’s hands and face,
red is used on the table, the books, and the heavy background drapery. If indeed the red chalk
denotes the work of the face-painter, in this case Ramsay, then it appears that he did indeed
complete the most work on this painting.
3
4
Edwards, 1964: 76.
Edwards, 1964: 76.
Therefore, to answer Edwards’s question, it does seems that Vanhaecken painted the wig, as
well as the rest the doctor’s costume and the statue in the background. However, this should not
diminish the importance of Ramsay’s input, which Edwards seems to suggest is lacking due to his
hiring of an assistant (which evidence suggests was indeed Vanhaecken).5 The differing amount of
work Ramsay, or Hudson for that matter, would have done on a portrait may have depended on the
prestige of the commission. Perhaps because the portrait of Dr Mead was of particular importance,
Ramsay felt it was his duty to complete more of the portrait himself. This sentiment is frequently
felt in other artists such as Reynolds, who also enjoyed the use of assistants to complete his largest
commissions. (REF)
This practice was particularly important for the production of larger-scale commissions, as can
be illustrated by Ramsay’s portrait Hon. Francis Charteris and Lady Katherine Gordon from 1747-48.
(Fig. 3) For this portrait there are corresponding after-portrait drawings in the Edinburgh collection.
There exists one drawing for both the male and female figures, and each drawing features red chalk
on the faces and hands. (Figs. 4) When looking at the painting itself, there are clear squares around
the head of the figures. According to Vertue, Ramsay completed the heads in his Edinburgh studio
and sent then down to Vanhaecken to sew them into the completed canvas. (NEED REFS) More
here...
Discuss how drawings show Vanhaecken catering to artists, not just patrons, how these
drawings show what HE has done, and this importance of this! Double check flow of following
paras
These after-portrait drawings could then have been used not only as record of his work, but
also be shown to face-painters outside of his main associates as incentive to hire him for their jobs.
This would also account for the fact that many of the drawings ignore the backgrounds of the
portraits, putting the emphasis wholly on the sitter and the details of their costume. This would then
further rule out the idea that these drawings were made as basis for engravings, where the
5
Edwards, 1964: 76.; Miles, 1979: s.p.; Vertue, 1744.
background would have been necessary to include. It has certainly been stipulated that Vanhaecken
worked for a number of other painters beyond Ramsay and Hudson.6
Not all of the after-portrait drawings in the Edinburgh collection portray as eminent or as
involved portraits as Dr Mead. Just as there were several different classes of consumers for
portraiture during the mid-eighteenth century, there were corresponding types of portraits. To get a
sense of the needs of professional gentlemen seeking a portrait that is not quite as grand as Dr
Mead, we can look at the two after-portrait drawings of clergyman. (Figs. 7, 8) They are the next
step down from the Dr Mead prototype, at three-quarter length, and portray their subjects in a
similar but less elaborate setting. The gentry and middle classes were quite happy with smaller-scale
portraits. One’s budget would determine the nature of the portrait: its scale, detail, and its status as
either a three-quarter or bust length. Therefore, after-portrait drawings in the Edinburgh collection
show Vanhaecken cultivating a variety of portrait types that could be offered different levels of
patrons, as well as those that he was personally best at. This is especially true of the portraits of
women. Like those portraying gentlemen, the female after-portrait drawings feature red chalk on
the visible skin surfaces, like the chest, face and hands. It is important to note that are noticeably
more after-portrait drawings of female sitters than of men in the Edinburgh collection. This leads us
to believe Vanhaecken was not only better at painting portraits for women and better known for
them.
Looking ahead to the type of female portraits displayed at the Royal Academy’s public
exhibitions, these were of a different sort than what was seen in earlier years of the eighteenth
century. The theatricality of both artist and sitter in the exhibited portraits stemmed from the need
6
Waterhouse, 1953: 139. Note: Waterhouse names some of the other artists Vanhaecken apparently worked
for: Highmore, Knapton, Pond, Dandrige, Wills and Winstanley. This list is difficult to confirm as accurate,
though Vertue attests to Vanhaecken working for many different artists. Apparently he put their work such ‘on
a level that it is very difficult to know one hand from another.’
to satiate an audience hungry for innovative poses, costumes and settings.7 Previous to this, male
and female portraiture had little public outlet beyond engraving. There was less of a desire or need
by patrons for drama in their portraits. Rather, elegance, tranquility and refined taste- all used to
describe the very best of Ramsay and Hudson’s works- were the order of the day.8 These earlier
portraitists, not faced with charming a jaded audience, were able and encouraged to repeat the
features of portraits from one sitter to the next.
The variety of styles Vanhaecken depicts in his portfolio of after-portraits drawings range from
full length portraits to the more typical three-quarter length, as well as a series of bust length
portraits featuring a shaded ‘oval’ frame. One can also clearly point out the types of portrait
costumes popular for during the mid-eighteenth century. These are the ‘Van Dyck’ dress and the
‘Lely’ dress.
The ‘Van Dyck’ costume stems from the seventeenth century, featuring the most stereotypical
tropes of that period’s fashion such a heavily pleated sleeves and stiff, upright lace collars. While not
typically worn every day, the dress gained popularity as a costume for theatrical masques and
festivals.9 Various pictorial sources exist, with the most influential artist being not Van Dyck but
Rubens. One of several portraits the artist completed of his wife Helène Fourment is believed to
have been in the possession of Sir Robert Walpole during the 1740s. 10 (Fig. 9) It was at this time
incorrectly believed to be by Van Dyck. 11 Yet despite this mix-up, the costume does warrant the
association with Van Dyck. He was in fact a student of Rubens and may have taken inspiration from
his master for this costume.12 There are a number of actual Van Dyck portraits that feature
costumes with similar decorative effects, such as the Portrait of Maria Louisa de Tassis, 1630, as well
7
Note: This is particularly shown in Reynolds’s portraits, such as Lady Susan Sacrificing to the Graces, as
discussed in Perry, G. and Rossington, M., Femininity and Masculinity in Eighteenth Century Art and Culture
(Manchester, 1994).
8
Waterhouse, 1953: 139.
9
Ribiero, 1984: 138. Note: In her post-graduate thesis, Ribiero extensively discusses the details of the
masquerade costume and its influence on mid-eighteenth century portraiture.
10
Miles, 1979: s.p.
11
Miles, 1979. s.p.
12
Barnes, 2004: 2.
as several more that may or may not have been known in mid-eighteenth century England.13 (Fig.
10)
Meanwhile, the second most popular costume was the ‘Lely’ dress. As Ribiero attests, this sort
of costume stems from Lely portraits from the later 1670s, featuring loose bodice criss-crossed with
pearls and necklaces. Perhaps the most influential was one of the so-called ‘Hampton Court
beauties’, Countess of Radnor. (Fig. 11) Yet the association with Lely, just as it was with Van Dyck and
Rubens, is extremely fluid and often bleeds into the work of Kneller, including his Duchess of
Portsmouth of 1684.14
As Ribiero points out, ‘...knowledge of the poses and costumes worn in such portraiture was
part of the common consciousness’ of the elite and drapery-painters who wished to be well
employed needed to be highly skilled in these popular fashions.15 The dresses themselves, she points
out, may have been kept in the drapery-man’s studio.16 The basic dress could be transformed to
imitate a seventeenth-century costume with the careful placement of strands of pearls and swathes
of fabric, while still accommodating for the rigid framework of mid-eighteenth century dresses.17
We can see this adaptation throughout the Edinburgh after-portrait drawings. There are two
drawings that have figures in ‘Van Dyck’ dress. Directly related to the Rubens painting is the afterportrait drawing for Hudson’s Lady Lucy Manners, Duchess of Montrose, featuring the same tilted
hat, wide collar and feather prop. (Fig. 12) As Ribiero and others have already pointed out several
times Hudson made repeated use of this particular dress, as well as repeating the pose.18 For
example, in the after-portrait drawings Portrait of a Young Lady Against a Curtain and Portrait of a
Lady Standing, the pose is nearly identical in each, as is the dress. (Figs. 13, 14) In fact, it is arguable
13
Hollander, 2002: 86.
Ribiero, 1977: 838.
15
Ribiero, 1977: 838.
16
Ribiero, 1984: 183. Egerton, 1988: 154. ‘Two drawings of that composition [Mrs Champernoune] were made
by the ten chief drapery painter to Hudson, Joseph van Aken (c. 1699-1749), presumably to serve as a model
for later repetitions within the studio, with only minor alterations to allow for changes in fashion.’
17
Ribiero, 1977: 838.
18
Examples of this are: Faber, after Hudson, Miss Hudson and Mary Panton Duchess of Ancaster, both
available as mezzotints at the British Museum. Miles, 1979.
14
that this is entirely the same dress. The details match: the lace collar, lace cuffs, the bows on the
bodice and the sleeves. As for the ‘Lely’ fashion, we have the example of Hudson’s portrait of Jane
Champernoune, which has a corresponding after-portrait drawing by Vanhaecken.19 (Figs. 15, 16)
This dress, with the central bow, draped pearls, criss-crossed ribbon detail on the bodice and the
sleeves gathered at the elbows, is used repeatedly throughout Hudson’s portraits.20
This is the case not only with three-quarter length portraits, but also the many oval bust
portraits Hudson prolifically produced. Hudson seems to have specialized in this type of portrait and
several after-portrait drawings in the Edinburgh collection attest to this. They were an extremely
popular type of portrait for a young lady who may have been gentry, but not wealthy or important
enough to afford a three-quarter or full-length portrait. Several of the oval portraits have
corresponding after-portrait drawings, the hint of an oval frame sketched around the sitter. One of
the most easily recognizable is the drawing after Barbara Bagot, Mrs Sneyd. (Figs. 17, 18) The sitter
wears a lace cape over her shoulders, the right side thrown back to display her pale chest. Her
bodice features a ‘Lely’ style bow and draping pearls. Unlike the other bust portrait drawings, the
oval shading has been treated with a trompe l’oeil frame of curling arabesques. This feature is
included in the painted portrait.
There are several other similar drawings to Bagot featuring dresses both in the Van Dyck and
Lely styles. In fact, there appears to be a repetition of the dresses used in the three-quarter length
portraits in those of bust length. For example, look at Figure 19 and Figure 20: the simple v-shaped
neckline is remarkably similar, with the lace detailing nearly identical between them. This
‘counterpart’ effect between the three-quarter length and bust length portraits gives further
evidence to the idea that these costumes were more than likely actual dresses kept in either
Hudson’s or his drapery-painter’s the studio, and depending each sitter’s preference and taste, the
basic dress could be accessorized and personalized.
19
Egerton, 1988: 154.
Examples of this are: Hudson, Charlotte Compton, later Viscountess Townshend and Unknown Woman.
Miles, 1979.
20
Discussion of where Vanhaecken drawings might come from? Then on to
influence of students...
Several of the after-portrait drawings in the Edinburgh collection appear to be linked to the
students of Ramsay and Hudson, Wright of Derby and Richard Phelps. For example, there are several
wash studies after Hudson’s oval portraits in the Phelps folio at the British Museum. (Fig. ) In these
drawings, Phelps has paid considerable attention to the details of the costumes of his study figures.
Unfortunately, though, it appears that he did not have the same technical prowess as Hudson’s
student, Wright of Derby. Similarly influenced by the works by Hudson, Wright made several studies
after his paintings, and these drawings are now in the Derby collection.21 He was particularly
interested in copying Hudson’s oval portraits, which are excellent sources for studying the detail of
lace and other finery. During his training under Hudson, Wright was particularly adept at drapery, to
which the great skill shown in his many drapery studies attest.22
One excellent example of this is his Study of a Lady in Van Dyck Costume, after Hudson’s
Portrait of Mrs Allanson. (Fig. 22) Derby would reuse this costume in his own portrait of Ann
Bateman, Mrs Gisborne, 1755.23 This is far from the only instance where Wright would look to
Hudson for inspiration in his own portraits. In Mrs Ann Carver, 1760, Wright directly quotes Hudson’s
Mary Panton, Duchess of Ancaster; the similarly between the two paintings being such that it can be
said that Wright outright copied Hudson’s earlier work. (Figs. 23, 24) Interestingly, this clear
influence is in despite of Wright’s strong complaints about poor instruction and ‘stiff, formal
portraits’ which he was made to study during his tutelage under Hudson. 24
The drawing Study after Macleod of Macleod is another influential drawing from the
Edinburgh collection. (Fig. 25) Its source is easily recognizable as Ramsay’s Norman "The Red Man",
22nd Chief of MacLeod, 1747. (Fig. 26) The use of red chalk is found on the face and hands, as well as
21
See Wallis, 1997.
Wallis, 1997: 6.
23
Wallis, 1997: 57.
24
Wallis, 1997: 7.
22
the ocean and landscape in the background. Unlike the source painting, Macleod’s suit and drape
are not patterned with tartan. The figure is remarkably similar to Joshua Reynolds’s portrait
Commodore Augustus Keppel from 1752.25 It is clear that Reynolds was influenced by Ramsay’s
painting for his powerful naval portrait. However, it is unlikely that Reynolds had access to the
original painting. He may instead have had access to Ramsay’s old studio drawings, which would
have included this particular drawing.26
Finally, we can look at one more drawing, this time after Ramsay, which had a similar impact
on the work of Hudson’s students. The image, according to the Edinburgh collection information, is
based on the Ramsay painting of Master John Prideaux Bassett, 1747. (Figs. 27, 28) The figure is
dressed in what is recognizable as a ‘Van Dyck’ costume, which, while already shown to have been a
popular costume for women, was equally fashionable for boys. This was because of the costume’s
association with the many examples of Van Dyck’s portrayal of Charles II as a boy. (Fig. 29) This
fashion would continue well into the later eighteenth century, most notably with Gainsborough’s
famous Blue Boy. In the drawing, the boy’s whole body and most of greyhound are rendered in red
chalk. The mirror frame in left corner is also done in with red, and touches of tassel.
While certainly the drawing and Ramsay’s portrait are thematically similar, they are in other
ways quite different. The figures are reversed, and the dog sits in the drawing while running in the
painting. The drawing is instead much closer to another Van Dyck painting, this time Philippe Le Roy
from 1630. (Fig. 30) The figure of Le Roy faces the same direction as the boy in Figure 28, and the
manner of the dog is also similar. Both Ramsay’s painting and the Edinburgh drawing influenced
Wright and Phelps. An early drawing by Wright in the Derby collection shows his practice of making
studies after engravings, this time of the Faber mezzotint of Ramsay’s Bassett. (Fig. 31) Meanwhile,
Phelps’s drawing appears to be after the Edinburgh drawing or Van Dyck Le Roy. He produces a
rather skewed drawing, stretching the boy’s figure into that of an adolescent. (Fig. 32)
25
26
This subject is discussed at length in Smart, 1992: 82.
Ribiero, 1977:838. Smart, 1992: 82.
Discuss black-chalk drawings after older portraits, presentation images, discuss again the
role of Vanhaecken’s portfolio, drawing as basis for painting, then conclusion! Awesome segue!!!
As we can see, the life of the Edinburgh after-portrait drawings did not end in the studio. They
were circulated through the studios of Hudson and Ramsay. They were used not only as influences
for future paintings by those artists, but were also models of study for their apprentices, like Wright,
Phelps and Reynolds. With the work of the main artists- face-painter and drapery-painterdelineated in red and black chalk, these drawings are not just important records of paintings by
Ramsay and Hudson, several of which may be now only known in engravings. They are also glimpses
into the studio of the artists themselves, showing another stage in the portraiture process where
drawing played a significant role.