“A Philosophical Laughing”:
Representations of Natural Philosophy in Paintings by Joseph Wright
Rosemary Steck
Baltimore City College High School
Baltimore, MD
2010 NEH Seminar for School Teachers
Interpretations of the Industrial revolution in Britain
The function of art is to do more than tell it like it is — it’s to imagine what’s possible.
~bell hooks
Much argument has been made that during the British Industrial revolution the scientific
societies, like the Lunar Society and the Royal Society, did little actual productive and applicable
science in their meetings and lectures. However, Musson and Robinson (1969) reveal the extent
that “amateur science” played in the creation of a culture of advocacy for and exploration of
science. While the scientific experiments and lectures at these meetings may not have produced
what we would consider today as scientific breakthroughs, the overall emphasis placed on
science and research aided in the production of the steam engine and the fledgling pursuits of
chemistry.1 Stewart (1998) notes that “machine technology was a manifestation of a profound
intellectual shift inherent in the scientific instrumentality of the century. Cabinets of instruments
were much more than the playthings of gentrified virtuosi” (265). The demand for better and
more precise scientific instruments helped to drive technological innovation and invention,
which in turn helped to drive the innovation and refinement in manufacturing technology.
Mathias (1972) argues that “much depends on whether we are looking at the immediate
context for innovation or at the general nature of the society, and its intellectual parameters,
within which industrial advances are burgeoning” (65). The scientific societies and coffee houses
afforded their members a place to practice and act out the “scientific attitude” (as Mathias calls
it), which impacts the “mode of approach to problem solving” (66). Though these scientific
societies infrequently directly impacted technological innovation, this infrequency does not mean
1
See Musson and Robinson (1969), Landes (1969), Mathias (1972), and Mokyr (1990).
2
that the societies did not impact the way in which innovation and improvement in manufacturing
were pursued.
The seriousness with which industrialists and manufacturers viewed these scientific
societies can be seen in the manner in which they kept their own innovations and industrial
improvements outside of the sphere of the discussion. Levere and Turner (2002) note that
though industrialists and manufacturers were heavily involved in the scientific societies and
coffee houses, they protected their “intellectual property2” and patented mechanisms with some
fervor. Despite their protectionist attitude toward their own technical innovations and
knowledge, the industrialists and manufacturers were interested in the scientific endeavors of the
societies and coffee houses and “were concerned with the application of chemistry and natural
philosophy to practical purposes” (p. 8). The “exploitation of public science meant the
advancement of machines not merely as instruments of personal revelation but also as tools that
might transmute natural powers into public wealth” (Stewart, 1998, p. 267). Yet these scientific
pursuits should not be seen simply as a means to an end (the end being faster, better, more
efficient machines), these pursuits were also entertainment—play for gentlemanly, educated
men.
Nowhere can this pleasure of science better be seen than in Joseph Wright’s paintings.
The fervor with which the characters in Wright’s art embrace scientific pursuit reflects Erasmus
Darwin’s notion that experiments in natural philosophy were “a philosophical laughing.” Jenny
Uglow (2003) argues that, in particular, the men of the Lunar Society “caught at discovery with
delight, sure that every find could help them to crack the elusive codes of nature. And Nature, on
every hand, offered herself for investigation” (xv). It is this delight—this play with science—
that Wright exposes in his art. His pieces should be seen as a reflection of and comment on the
exploration and experimentation of the unknown.
Wright’s paintings form a continuum of the changing nature of science and the scientist.
At the beginning of this continuum lies Wright’s “A Philosopher Lecturing on the Orrey,” which
was completed in 1766. This painting is followed by his “An Experiment on a Bird in an Air
Pump,” which was completed in 1768,” and his scientific trio concludes with “The Alchemist in
Search of the Philosopher's Stone,” which was completed in 1771. If these three pieces are
2
As Turner notes, the industrialists and manufacturers would not have called their knowledge of mechanics and
processes intellectual property; however, their treatment of said knowledge acts similarly to the contemporary
treatment of intellectual property and intellectual property rights.
3
taken as contemporary commentary about the nature and possibilities of science in the late 18th
century, the communal wonder (whether that wonder is innocent, engaged, or horrified) present
in Wright’s early paintings become displaced by the solitary alchemist in his final science
painting. Wright’s shifting artistic renditions of science, experimentation, and scientists
highlight the shifting social perceptions of the uses and ends of science.
In the second half of the 1760s, Joseph Wright “achieved fame and fortune with his
dramatic candlelight scenes sowing groups of affluent individuals pursuing a shared interest in
science” (Solkin, 2003, p. 167). While these science paintings may have afforded Wright a foray
into notoriety, the paintings themselves offer a glimpse into different interpretations about the
merits of science and experimentation. Wright’s visual interpretation of experimentation
changes from the students’ wonder at model of the solar system to some student’s horror at the
death of a bird. Finally, Wright’s natural philosopher is relegated to a hermetic existence away
from the adoring middle class and evening lectures. Joseph Wright is noted for the use of light
and shadow in his paintings. If Wright uses light and shadow is used to create a sense of drama
in his paintings, then the use of light in his three paintings about natural philosophy offer very
different dramatic interpretations of the promises and perils of science and scientific
experimentation.
In “A Philosopher Lecturing on the Orrey” Wright uses light and shadow to create a
sense of science as an enlightening practice. In the painting, light radiates from the center of the
orrey (which shows the movement of planets around the sun) to illuminate the faces of the
watching students and eventually reaches up to the natural philosopher. The light finally
illuminates the natural philosopher who stands, self-assuredly, above all of the participants and
looks over the notes of one of the students. While the adults’ stern faces note the seriousness of
the experiment, the children’s innocent delight and awe are foregrounded in this work. It is this
delight and awe that should be noted—in Wright’s later paintings about science and
experimentation, either the children become less delighted and more horrified by the scientific
experiments or they are removed from the glow of science and discovery altogether.
If the children are read as symbols of innocence and virtue (as children often are
symbolically read in literature and art), then Wright presents us with an idyllic reaction to
science. The brightness of the light on the children’s faces and the glee with which they
encounter the experiment shows Wright’s interpretation of the possibilities of science—it is
4
innocent and new while simultaneously powerful. Even the young child with her back to the
viewer has her face bathed in the light from the orrey. No participant at the lecture is denied the
knowledge that not only the natural philosopher but also his scientific instrument has to offer.
In “A Philosopher Lecturing on the Orrey,” Wright captures via the delight of the audience, and
especially the children, the rawness and the wonder of discovery. Simultaneously he forgoes
illuminating the potential pitfalls or dangers aligned with science and scientific discovery.
Figure 1: Joseph Wright, “A Philosopher Lecturing on the Orrey” (1766)
Yet Wright is not unaware of the mortality and fear associated with and in the pursuit of
these “philosophical laughings.” In 1768, two years after he completed the raw wonder of “A
Philosopher Lecturing on the Orrey,” Wright takes a more hesitant look at the spectacles that
traveling natural philosophers presented to their audiences. In “An Experiment on a Bird in an
Air Pump,” a scientist demonstrates how a vacuum functions. In order to prove he has created a
vacuum, the chamber the cockatoo is in must empty of air resulting in the bird’s death. In this
work, the bird is not yet dead and the fate of the bird is left to the minds of the viewer. However,
the cockatoo is not the only reminder of death. In the foreground of the painting and the point
from which the light emanates is a skull in a pedestaled bowl. Both the bird and the skull remind
5
observers of the painting that a scientist has the potential to utilize and possibly destroy
everything (whether that everything is beautiful and fragile or it is a human being) that he needs
in order to complete an experiment or make a discovery.
The cockatoo is of particular significance in displaying the brashness and boldness of
science. The bird in the air pump is not a common sparrow or a pigeon; instead, it is what would
have been in the late 18th century a rare bird in England. Cockatoos are native to Australia and
nearby Asian countries. The cockatoo in Wright’s painting would have been an expensive bird
to put to death for the sake of science, yet the natural philosopher does so without, from his facial
expression, any thought or concern. Perhaps the scientist uses such a rare and beautiful bird to
create a more distinct sense of suspense and uncertainty—a sense of the power of this new
scientific enlightenment that is touring the English countryside via lectures and fairs. Neither the
characters in the painting nor he viewers of Wright’s work ever know if the bird is killed or
spared and this ambiguity emphasizes the a much different vision of science than the science
presented in Wright’s “Philosopher Lecturing.” Here science promises not only awe and wonder
but also the potential for destruction.
In “An Experiment on a Bird” this potential for ruin is seen not only in the cockatoo in
the air pump or the skull in the bowl but also in the reaction of the children to the experiment at
hand. Wright’s “Philosopher Lecturing” painting accentuates the innocence and playfulness of
the experiment by highlighting a look of glee in the children and basking them in light. However,
“An Experiment on a Bird” offers not nearly as much illumination and glowing adoration as his
first science painting3. In this painting only one child—the youngest child— looks directly at the
experiment—at the dying bird. Her look of horror and distress, which is fully illuminated in the
painting, shows the viewers the flipside to an awe-inspiring science which was a fear-inducing
science.
3
Of course, the orrey is a less sensational piece of scientific equipment—the threat of death from an orrey was
probably not imminent. However, both the orrey and the air pump experiments made their circuits around England
with traveling scientists. Any family interested enough to bring a child to an orrey exhibit could be assumed to
bring that same child to the air pump experiment. These experiments were not held in labs or tucked away in
colleges; they were public spectacle and, as such, were readily available for view.
6
Figure 2: Joseph Wright, “An Experiment on a Bird in an Air Pump" (1768)
While the little girl is utterly engaged, albeit in a horrified manner, with a scientific
experiment which could lead to death, the other two children turn away or move away from the
potential outcome. The older girl covers her face with her hands while the boy in the
background is either opening or closing the curtains. The girl with her hands over her face is
obviously terrified of the bird’s possible demise. Though an adult is trying to console her, he is
simultaneously trying to reengage her in the experiment. The adult’s attempt to involve the girl
in the experiment demonstrates how he has forgotten the life of the small bird and is concerned
with the experiment itself; however, the girl in her innocence remembers and focuses on the fate
of the bird.
In “An Experiment on a Bird in an Air Pump,” Wright again uses children to show how
science was potentially perceived by the British population of the 18th century. In “A
Philosopher Lecturing” the children are open and engaged with the experiment. They closely
surround the orrey and bask in the light that emits from it. In “A Bird in an Air Pump” a single
child looks in shock at a dying bird while the other two children turn away, either in horror or
7
fright. The first science painting shows science’s capacity for eliciting joy and wonder; Wright’s
second science painting shows a much different interpretation of science—an interpretation that
shows science’s potential for creating harm and possible destruction.
In his series of science paintings, Wright’s third and final painting shows a much
different type of natural philosophy than those presented in his first two. While his first two
science paintings center on what for him would have been contemporary experiments, Wright’s
third painting, “The Alchemist in Search of the Philosopher's Stone,” hearkens back to a not too
distant scientific past. While “The Alchemist” is a painting about historical natural philosophy,
Wright does not create a sense of nostalgia or wistfulness in his work; he, instead, replaces the
social nature of scientific experimentation with an almost hermetic existence. The solitary and
private science depicted in the painting creates an even greater sense of hesitancy and fear than
does the obvious horror of the children in “A Bird in an Air Pump.”
In “The Alchemist in Search of the Philosopher’s Stone” the central figure is the
alchemist who kneels in front of a flask in which he has just discovered phosphorous. Unlike the
two earlier science painting, this work does not put the alchemist in the center of an adoring
group of people who have come to see him lecture. Instead, the alchemist is by himself in a
prostrate position to his experiment. Though two young men are in the background of the
painting, they are not in the light of the experiment—they appear almost outside of the bounds of
the knowledge that science can provide. The alchemist’s deferential position is much different
than the position of the scientists in Wright’s two earlier paintings. In “A Philosopher Lecturing”
and “An Experiment on a Bird” the two natural philosophers stand above the scientific
equipment—they assume a stance of authority not only on the experiment itself but also on the
people watching. However, in “The Alchemist” the scientist takes a submissive and respectful
stance to the power of science.
This deferential attitude varies greatly from Wright’s two earlier paintings that display
man’s control and power over nature; instead, the alchemist shows respect and a slight amount of
fear. The alchemist’s attitude suggests that Wright’s views on science and a human’s ability to
control and understand nature are changing. Wright completes “The Alchemist” in 1771, three
years before his friend Joseph Priestly discovers oxygen and begins to write Experiments and
Observations on Different Kinds of Air, the scientific volumes that would eventually eradicate
the old belief theory of the four elements (Uglow, 2003). “The Alchemist” reflects and reacts to
8
the changing beliefs about science and nature. While new discoveries are both fascinating and
awe-inspiring, they also can induce a sense of fear and respect.
Figure 3: Joseph Wright, " The Alchemist in Search of the Philosopher’s Stone” (1771)
The scientific and natural world that Wright knew and had been accepted as established
truth was rapidly changing and it is this respect for the rapid change that is seen in his final
science painting. The alchemist is not playing at being a scientists; he is not displaying the
mysteries of the natural world as a parlor trick in order to acquire a reaction from the crowd. The
alchemist is in a state of discovery.
Unlike Wright’s previous scientists, the alchemist experiments in what might be
considered a proper lab and he is doing what by modern standards would be considered proper,
albeit antiquated, research. In relation to the advancement of science and understanding about the
9
natural world, it is significant that Wright uses a figure from the past to note the scientific steps
into the future. The alchemist is searching for the philosopher’s stone—that mythic element that
will turn base metal into gold. Instead of finding the philosopher’s stone, he accidently discovers
phosphorous. This moment of discovery moves the alchemist from a person who is searching for
the unobtainable and the unreal and places him distinctly in the path of modern science. No
longer is the alchemist—a hermit with visions of riches and fame—an individual endeavoring to
turn base metals into gold; instead he is transformed, via Wright’s hand, into a man of
discovery—a man of science.
Over a five year period, Wright moves from celebrating the public spectacle of science to
offering a reverential treatment of antiquated scientific procedure, which looks, unlike the parlorroom science in his first paintings, closer to what the accepted mode of science would become.
Before Wright changes his muse from scientific discovery to industrial labor, his art reflects the
scientific passion, potential, and, perhaps, peril of the time.
The time period of the British Industrial Revolution was not only a revolution in terms of
industry and manufacturing but also a revolution in terms of science and technology. While the
science of the time period would seem simple by modern standards, the apparatus and scientific
method that were reinforced and refined during the period serve as a basis for modern science as
we know it. The curiosity and drive of British industrialists served to advance chemical
discoveries and lay the foundation for a society enamored with and by scientific experimentation.
While it might be romantic to imagine a solitary British industrialist working in a closed
off chamber as he4 frantically searches for how to tame the forces of nature to his own end, a
more plausible scenario of discovery is the sharing of knowledge and processes in scientific and
social societies. This is not to say, however, that these scientific societies serve as a catalyst for
technological change. These scientific societies offer a space in which individuals invested in the
improvement of manufacturing are introduced and steeped in the process of scientific
experimentation—the trial-and-error process by which much early industrial research and
development is completed. Mathias (2006) suggests “both science and technology give evidence
of a society increasingly curious, increasingly questing, increasingly on the move, on the make,
having a go, increasingly seeking to experiment, wanting to improve. This may be the prime
4
The masculine is used purposely and purposefully here. For the most part, women are outside of the bounds of
industry and invention during the British Industrial Revolution.
10
significance of the new popularizers of science and technology” (66). This increasing questing is
evident in Wright’s paintings. Not only does Wright record the scientific societies’ quests for
knowledge and experimentation but he also records his own quest for understanding about and
interpretation of the changing nature of natural philosophy during the British Industrial
Revolution.
Works Cited
Benedict N. (1968) Joseph Wright of Derby, Painter of Light, London, Paul Mellon Foundation
for British Art.
Berg, M. (1980). The machinery question and the making of political economy, 1815-1848, New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Jacob, Margaret C. (1997). Scientific culture and the making of the Industrial West, New
York, Oxford University Press.
Landes, David S. (1969). The unbound prometheus: Technological change and industrial
development in Western Europe from 1750 to the present, Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.
Levere, Trevor, and Turner Gerard L. E., editors (2002). Discussing chemistry and steam:
The minutes of a Coffee House Philosophical Society, 1780-1787, Oxford, Oxford University
Press.
Mathias (2006). Who unbound Prometheus? Science and technical change, 16001800, The transformation of England: essays in the economic and social history of England in the
Eighteenth Century, p. 45-7.
Mokyr, Joel (1990). The lever of riches: Technological creativity and economic progress,
New York, Oxford University Press.
Morrell, J. (1997) Science, culture and politics in Britain, 1750–1870, Aldershot: Ashgate.
Musson, A.E. and Robinson, Eric (1969). Science and technology in the industrial
revolution, Manchester, Manchester University Press.
Solkin, David H. (2003). “Joseph Wright of Derby and the sublime art of labor.” Representations,
83, 167-194.
Uglow, J. S. (2002). The lunar men: Five friends whose curiosity changed the world. New York:
Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.