If You're Fond of Sand Dunes and Salty Air...

I came by today's subject by a slightly roundabout route, so I'll take you through my mental process - I have mixed feelings about Henry Treffry Dunn. His account of life with Rossetti, his dislike of Fanny Cornforth and worship of Alexa Wilding, all mark him as a somewhat unreliable narrator (although there are worse, I'm looking at you Hall Caine) but I didn't realise he was another person where he's not the only artist in the family.  In fact, arguably, his sister is rather more interesting.  Meet Edith Dunn...

Now, that is a pleasent little vignette I have found, and the reason is that she was famous in her time and the newspapers ran lovely pieces on her, which will make my life easier no end.  Also, there seems to be a fair number of her paintings online, so at least we'll have some illustrations, which is not always guaranteed. Let's start at the beginning...

Sorting the Catch (no date)

Edith Dunn was born in 1841 in Truro, Cornwall.  Her father, Henry Littlejohn Dunn (1810-1870) was a grocer and tea seller. As her brother had both an autobiography and biography written, Edith's childhood is nicely recorded. In No Peacocks Allowed (1964) by Gale Pedrick, we learn that 'of all the shops in Lemon Street, Truro, the establishment of Henry Littlejohn Dunn had the nicest smell.' He was a tea and spice importer and Edith's childhood would have been filled with the smell of coffee, nutmeg, cinnamon and ginger. He also sold crystalised fruit and other sweet things that arrived in packing chests and china jars, so the shop was full of colour and the promise of the exotic. Edith was fourth of six children, her siblings being Emily (1837-1903) (grandmother of Gale Pedrick, author of a biography of Henry/Rossetti), Henry Treffry (1838-1899), Frances (1839-1932), then Edith (1841-1913), followed by Ellen (1842-1913) and finally Leonard (1845-1848).  All except Leonard managed a decent innings, even Henry who had a very colourful life and issues with alcohol. Despite that many children, even mother Frances Treffry Dunn (hence Henry's middle name) managed a very respectable 1806 to 1900, outliving two of her children.

An Afternoon Rest (no date)

As a child, Edith was artistic, but apparently all the Dunn children were, inheriting their talent from their mother who worked pictures in silks. The family was middle-class in aspiration, and the children had privileges unusual for that period, including art school for those that wanted it (although apparently their father was hoping someone would follow him into grocery, if not another proper job). Edith's sister Frances told her daughters that the siblings were all fans of jokes and pranks, but elder brother Henry was their mother's favourite, so when the children were caught being boisterous, all would be punished except Henry. This did not enamour him to his siblings, but he could always turn to Edith for a sympathetic ear.

St Patrick's Day (no date)

Studying first at the Truro School of Art, Edith won medals, including one for composition in colour aged 15, and was mentioned several times in the graduation speeches in 1857, including a second medal for shading from a cast.  When Henry also won a medal, Dr Barham stated he was glad to see that Edith's siblings shared her obvious talent (according to the glowing report in the Royal Cornwall Gazette).  She also exhibited in the 1860 Truro School of Art exhibition, showing the Madonna del Seggia and a copy of Man of Sorrows as well as The Flowers' Revenge. When she was old enough, she was allowed to travel to the South Kensington Museum School and by 1861 she was living as a boarder in Chelsea at 34 Paulton Square Court. She also went to Heatherley's School of Art...

Art Students at Heatherley's

Founded in 1845, Heatherley's was the first art school to let women into the 'life' room on equal terms to the men (according to their website) and anyone who was anyone went there, including brother Henry. Here's where things get a little confusing - I saw from her entry in the Big Book of Lady Artists that I own and rely on, that Edith was at the RA from 1862 to 1906, however I don't think that is entirely the case.  I think that she was exhibiting generally between those times but there are actually no Dunns at the RA before 1870 (I'll come to why that date is important in a sec). However, she must have been exhibiting somewhere, such as the Royal Scottish Academy, the Glasgow Institute as well as more local shows in Cornwall.  Like no doubt scores of other young women artists, I think Edith flew under the radar, and the first mention I can find about her is in 1865 when she illustrated the story 'Among the Hop Gardens' for the London Society Magazine.  She also provided 'charming' illustrations for 'Ten and Twenty' in the Belgravia Magazine in 1866, and some of her pictures were being sold as engravings in the Public Opinion magazine.

Fisherwomen at Scheveningen (c.1875)

Edith was also a contributor to the British Workwoman magazine and there is a great article on her contribution here. Her first images seem to be from the mid 1860s but continue for over 20 years. Often there are images of mothers working with the children around them, but I'm not sure how autobiographical they are (as we will see). These are both an ideal for working class women and an unfortunate reality - there are many images of Victorian women doing 'women's work' - sewing, cleaning, cooking etc - while also caring for children, and all are pictured as, for want of a better phrase, having it all, being a great mum and doing work. Everything is clean and tidy and under control. As a working mother myself, children and work are a reality, you have to manage the house and do your work and it is rarely as blissful and unchaotic as it appears, and literally no-one is wearing an apron.

Drinking in the Dunes (no date)

In 1867, Edith appeared at the Society of Female Artists exhibition - the review in the Illustrated Times is astonishing in its back-handed praise, saying what a good thing this Society has offered 'a legitimate exercise for those feminine pencils which have encroached too much of late on other galleries.' Well, thank goodness for that, can't have women getting out into other galleries! The horror. Anyway, Edith presented Wild Fruit  and Adeline which were warmly received and the newspaper remarked that they gave a better example of her work than the woodcuts that had appeared in magazines. This was the same year that her brother took up work as Dante Gabriel Rossetti's assistant at Cheyne Walk. 

Waiting for the Queen (c.1890s)

There is an intriguing passage in Gale Pedrick's book No Peacocks Allowed: Life with Rossetti. Edith met one of her brother's friends, James Shepherd and the pair fell in love. James lived at 1 Cheyne Walk and worked at the War Office, and born in 1832, so a little older than Edith. The couple decided they would marry in August of 1867, but as Edith returned to Cornwall to prepare, her beloved James died suddenly a fortnight before the wedding.  Rossetti provided sympathy and kindness to the bereaved girl, insisting that Edith and her mother stay with him when they came to London for the funeral. For this kindness, her mother embroidered Rossetti a counterpane as thanks for taking such care of the family. Harry and Edith remained in the circle of artistic London friends, although increasingly Edith remained out of the city. According to Pedrick, when their friends came down to Cornwall, they discussed such things as the opening of Elizabeth Siddal's grave. It seems that Edith was also acquainted with William Michael Rossetti as well as his brother, as when her brother turned to alcohol, William Michael wrote a kind letter to Edith about her brother's 'deplorable illness' - mind you, if ever anyone could empathises with a someone caring for an addicted sibling, William could.

Coast Scene (c.1870s)

Edith remained in mourning but not at home. Clad in black, she tripped off to the continent, loving especially the Netherlands, favouring scenes of Dutch landscapes, seascapes and scenes of family life. She appeared in the 1868 exhibition of the Bath and West of England Society (which I'm guessing is to do with the Bath and West Show which still happens every May? I have extremely fond memories of going as a child).  The Cornish Echo reported that Edith (now back in Truro) sent a portrait of Sir Samuel Spry.  She also offered a painting of Sir Samuel and his family, which was a copy of a piece she had done for the Spry family, but the Society refused it as they never exhibited copies. 

1870 brought an unexpected change - Edith got married. She married Thomas Oliver Hume (1833-1916), fellow artist, at All Souls, Langham Place, London. Thomas had already been married previously to Emma Stableford, in 1857. The couple had children - John Henry (1858-1881), Joseph Oliver (1859-1949), Edith Mary (1863-1900) and Emma (1864-1942) - so Edith was marrying into a ready-made family. Emma was born on Halloween 1864, her mother dying less than a month later, which makes me suspect complications or infection following the birth. Emma was buried alongside her parents in Leicester, her mother and father dying in 1860 and 1861. I found it interesting that Thomas did not put her in a grave that he would also in time share. Hmm, back to Edith. Some writers assumed that it was a burden for Edith to take on the family and would have hampered her career, but it isn't as simple as that. In the 1871 census only John and Joseph are living with the couple (both Thomas and Edith are pleasingly listed as artists). I am trying to see where the girls went and failing miserably, however both Little Edith and Little Emma married early and had families of their own by the 1881 census, so I am assuming they either went off to boarding school or relatives of their late mother. Joseph also married and became an inspector of Roads for the local council in London.  John Henry moved with his father and step-mother to Harting in Sussex, where they are all listed as artists in 1881 (although it looks confusingly like Edith is artist and wife or artist's wife). Sadly, John Henry died shortly after the census and is buried in the churchyard there.

Packing Fish (no date)

1883 saw Edith's debut at the May Royal Academy exhibition with The Departure of the Herring Boats. Thomas also showed A Corner of an Old Orchard. I've often wondered when husband and wife are both exhibiting artists, does that make it easier? You both understand what is happening in May and so can combine efforts to get the paintings to London, or does it become a rivalry? Thomas had begun his RA run in 1871 but as the decade went on, it's clear to see who had the greater success. 1884 saw four paintings by Edith to Thomas's one - Edith had Mending Nets, Returning Home, Etaple Shrimpers and  Fisher Chrildren and Thomas had On the Cornish Coast, all of which obviously came from their joint love of coastal life.

Visch Vrouwen (1886)

1886 saw two more paintings at the RA from Edith (nothing from Thomas). Edith had Waiting and  Visch Vrouwen which was admired in the Lady's Pictorial, which printed a line drawing illustration (above) and described it thus - 'The picturesque figures of the fisherwomen, with their white caps and woollen sabots, dividing their fish as they kneel and stand on the beach, are admirable. There is power and beauty too, in the calm sea in the distance, and the group of eager watchers, eagerly waiting for the boats to come in.'

 

The Oyster Ledgers (1887)

The Lady's Pictorial also showed a sketch of The Oyster Ledgers, 'a very clever picture' that was on show at the Institute of Painters in 1887. Edith had a year out of the RA that year but was back in 1888 with By the Old Cross. It's interesting that her Royal Academy work is not what has ended up on ArtUK or on the internet generally, hence it is quite difficult to date a lot of her paintings.  This also might be because the titles have changed over time so we might see an RA painting of some women by the sea but it is now called something different.  Edith has 29 works in public collections which is really impressive, but only three have the pictures attached, which is a shame.

Through the Glen (no date)

In 1890, Edith appeared at the RA with 'Is Father Coming?' which I am going to assume is a picture of a fisherman's child and I am very hopeful it's a Holl-esque scene of impending misery. 1891 Edith showed a picture of fishermen which was again admired by the Lady's Pictorial at the Royal Institute of Water Colours. In the census of that year, she was listed as an 'artist, figure painter' and Thomas was a 'artist, landscape painter' and Edith's mother was living with them. 1892 saw Les Blanchisseuses d'etretat or 'Washerwomen on the beach at Etretat, a subject covered not only by Gustave Courbet in 1869 but then also in 1894 by Eugene Bourdin. I think it was the women's habit of hanging their clothes on the cliff and on the pebble beach that caught the eye of painters. 1892 also saw Edith's illustrations appear in Told After Tea.

1896 seems to have been Edith's last visit to the RA, this time with Cleaning the Lines. In 1899, both Edith and Thomas appeared at the Sussex Artists show, Edith showing Little Friends and Thomas with landscapes. Mentions of her work, although never plentiful, definitely begin to slow from here. 1900 was a rough year for the Humes.  Firstly, in August, Thomas's daughter Edith Mary died suddenly, aged only 37 and leaving behind a husband and children. A few months later, on December 12th, Frances Dunn who had been living with her daughter and son-in-law also died, aged 95. As her favourite son, Harry, had died the year before almost estranged from the family, it could be argued that this contributed to her death, but in the grand scheme of this post, 95 is not a bad age at all. I can't find either Edith or Thomas in the 1901 census so I'm hoping they went abroad for a well deserved break.

Lunch for Two (c.1880s)

In 1903, Edith had paintings in an exhibition at the Central Hall in Bournemouth, which is interesting as her work appears in the Russell-Cotes Art Gallery, so I wonder if that is where Merton Russell-Cotes bought from there (or even loaned it to the exhibition). By this time, Edith was in her 60s and Thomas in his 70s and so I think they lived a quiet, painterly life in Sussex where they were very much liked and well known. When Edith died suddenly in June 1913, the West Sussex Gazette spoke in glowing terms of how pleasant and talented she was. Thomas followed in 1916, with his obituary in the Sussex Daily News speaking of how he was a talented sportsman in his youth and how his son Joseph had been at Gallipoli.

A Fisherman's Tale (undated)

Although Edith Hume is not the best known of nineteenth century women artists, there are some pages on her and she has a Wikipedia page which is a step up from a lot of the women we meet here. I must admit it is a little tiresome that a fair amount of her narrative is always given over to her brother Harry and Rossetti, which I admit is exciting and involves alcohol, but on the whole does not add much to Edith's own story. I also am a little dubious about how she 'had to take on the role of mother to her step-sons and put her own career aside', a common refrain in her story, as she seems to have had a great career in terms of women artists of the period and her sons were not babies when she married their father. I simply think Edith suffers from being a woman in a male dominated field, and not only that, her work is very feminine and very specific. If you are not into seaside scenes, she probably isn't for you. She might well have been an unbothered spinster and still could probably not have done as well or be remembered more than she is now, so in a way her brother does her a favour of at least keeping her name in books. There are lashings of sadness in Edith's life, not to mention the lives of her nearest and dearest, so her ability to continue working is really impressive.  The fact her husband does not have a Wikipedia page is not lost on me. I think the best we can do is keep talking about these women artists, about their lives rather than the lives of the men around them, and eventually they will slot back into the art history narrative.

Well-Behaved Women

 This is not the blog I planned to write today, but I'm ticked off and so everyone has to hear about it. It all started when I first saw this tshirt...

Possibly not this exact tshirt from the lovely Spark Company but they certainly have this currently.  The description reads "This Well Behaved Women Seldom Make History tee is an essential for any feminist's closet. Fun to wear when you're smashing the patriarchy. Because who cares about being ladylike!" and she costs £28, which I also have feelings about, but their clothes are lovely and money goes to help female charities, so here we are. The same tshirt appears in the Royal Palaces shop, A Mighty Girl shop and any number of etsy/redbubble/god, even Shein. All of them saying women have to be the feisty rulebreakers in order to matter.

However, I do not like this sentiment, for one reason - again, we are telling women what to do.

I understand the idea that we should not accept the status quo as the patriarchy does not exactly help us (rude) and so we should disobey. Smash stuff up! Slash paintings in the National Gallery (please don't)! Chain yourself to something or get trampled by the King's horse (again, please don't)! However, I don't agree that is the only way a woman makes history and also buys into the Socio-Patriarchal ideals in order to smash the system. Or something.

My contention is that again we are telling women what to do - you have to be rebellious, you can't be 'ladylike' or else you are part of the patriarchy. You must never, never be well-behaved. By whose standards? Why can't I make history in an orderly manner if that is available to me? Why would that make me a bad feminist? Also, didn't some of the top women I like not feel the need to smash stuff up? What about Eleanor Fortescue Brickdale?

Good old EFB (seen here with Byam Shaw) was fairly well behaved and did amazing art, although admittedly she did not exactly get remembered until recently.  Okay, how about Evelyn De Morgan...

Come on now, EDM has to count as a well behaved woman who made history as she was very successful and didn't offend anyone's sensibilities in the meantime.  Her work can be challenging but she didn't punch anyone or accost a horse. So it is possible to be well-behaved and make history!

Only, that isn't what the statement means. Let's go back to the 1970s...

Me, 1973

Okay, that's unfortunate, let's try again...

This smashing woman is Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, a Pulitzer Prize winning historian who is responsible for the phrase in question. In a 1976 article (on Puritan funeral practices), Laurel said 'Well-behaved women seldom make history,' meaning that historians have a nasty habit of overlooking women who are just getting on with stuff. 

Scotland Forever! (1881) Lady Butler (well-behaved)

The phrase, in essence, is a criticism of historians, not women. That historians have a habit of overlooking the contribution of women unless they are punching horses or showing everyone their pants. Now, I agree, almost whole-heartedly (we'll come to that) that it is a historian problem, not a woman problem, and further to that, it's become an 'everyone problem' as historians have set the standard for what is 'good' and 'noteworthy' to the detriment of everything else. I am forever haunted by a question I received on a panel at the National Portrait Gallery for the Pre-Raphaelite Sisters exhibition in 2020. A lady in the audience asked (I think seriously) if the reason women artists had been forgotten was because they were not very good. That took my breath away, especially as within the exhibition were some amazing paintings, but I hear that repeated in various forms. I have heard another feminist commentator say that women in the past weren't as good as men as they didn't have the opportunity to be so - well, the second part is sort of true but still some are insanely good. 

Fanny Cornforth (1874) Dante Gabriel Rossetti (both not well-behaved)

So, using our new best friend Laurel's quote in the sense she meant, how about the reverse of that - do naughty women always make history? It does ensure that the (normally male, let's be honest) historian sees you as your contemporaries will clock you first and flag you as a problem.  I also think historians (including me) do make the mistake of seeing bad behaviour in the past as ever-so modern and noteworthy, when it could just be bad behaviour. There is always the challenge of excusing bad behaviour because of the strictures of society rather than giving the woman the agency to be equally as awful as a man, and held equally as accountable. I would counter that plenty of badly behaved women slipped through the cracks as they were the wrong social class. Fanny Cornforth is arguably an example - judged as 'badly behaved' by her contemporaries who were in a hurry to forget her, however, threads of her still kept appearing at least until the 1930s, then again in the 1960s. She was 'badly behaved' and the historians kept her in as a warning to others, but I supose that is still making history of a type.  What about Alexa Wilding?

Alexa Wilding 1970s

Alexa had three children out of wedlock, which cannot been seen as behaving in Victorian terms, yet she is one of the most elusive of the models. Arguably, she covered her tracks so well that none of her contemporaries realised what a scallywag she was, so no-one tipped off the future historians. Also, although she is one of the most recognisable faces of the Pre-Raphaelite movement, could she be accused of 'making' history, rather than just appearing in it?  How about an artist then?

Maria Zambaco (1870) Edward Burne-Jones

By any stretch of the imagination, Maria Zambaco did not follow the societal rules set out for her. She had an affair, she left her husband, she was notorious by their standards to the point that all sorts of stories still circulate - my favourite being the attempted suicide and rolling around on the pavement until the police turned up which I very much doubt happened. Great story though. Anyway, we all know her and her amazing art, right? I mean, if riotous women make history, then Maria must be right up there! Only she's not. In fact, the only place she seems to occupy is Burne-Jones' crazy lover.  I mean, in one way, she is remembered in history but not in the way she would probably have liked...

Mary Emma Jones (1874) Emma Sandys

I will bring this ramble to a conclusion and say that I disagree with the tshirt but I agree with Laurel to a point. I think women, full stop, have a problem making history. The default is always to the man and it always has been. I'm not saying that all historians are sexist, but our ancestors held entirely different views than us on the position of women and therefore we have to get beyond that in-built sexism in order to see who in the past is worth a look at. By using the interpretation that you have to be difficult, law-breaking, and frankly appalling on the tshirt, you are part of the problem. You can be all those things (good on you) but equally, you can be the opposite (good on you as well).  Furthermore, there has to be an understanding that for most women, there were boundaries that stopped them fulfilling their potential, but that doesn't stop them being fascinating (possibly more so for people like me who like to hear what was achieved despite society). We also need to not over-compensate for women - not everything is gold and not every bad decision is fine because it isn't such a big deal now. People are complicated.

I will finish with a slightly naughty story - I recently had the pleasure of meeting a very famous male art historian who was having a very busy day and was obliged to say hello to me because of the event we were attending. He vaguely mentioned he might have heard of my work (I think he was being polite as I got the feeling he hadn't and why should he?) and I asked what he was working on-

 "I'm writing a book on [insert extremely famous male artists on which there are already thousands of books]"

"Of course you are," I replied. I didn't mean to be rude, so apologies if you are reading this, Famous Male Art Historian (I doubt you are), but in that moment I felt disappointed that you weren't going to write about a woman, or a working-class person, or a person of colour, or in fact any other artist than one that even I know a load about. Write a book about the famous male artist if you want, but how about writing a book about Mrs Very Famous Male Artist, and how she fitted into his life and work, or didn't, or what she did with the money, or the art, or even what she served him for lunch while he was painting that very famous masterpiece we all know so well.

Women Seldom Make History.

That's a depressing tshirt, but sadly it's true and it's only a problem for us now if we don't go back and turn over the pebbles of history to see the interesting stuff underneath. We can't fix what the past historians did, but we can make a valiant effort to not repeat their prejudice and complacence.

Review: Bloomsbury in Wiltshire

 I don't feel like I've been out and about much of late - the hot weather is not my favourite and so I've been staying in, but on the way back from visiting my Dad, we popped into Salisbury Museum to visit their current exhibition, Bloomsbury in Wiltshire...

I've been to Charlston on a few occasions now and absolutely loved it, but had no idea of the relationship between the Bloomsbury set and my home county. Turns out there are plenty of links, not least Ham Spray House, home of Carrington, Lytton Strachey, Ralph Partridge and Frances Partridge. There is also Cleeve House in Seend, not far from my home-town Devizes, Mill Cottage and Brook House in the south of the county, home of Julia Strachey, Stephen Tomlin (Mill Cottage) and Henry and Lady Pansy Lamb (Brook House). There is also the Guinness family house, Biddesden House, where Carrington painted a trompe l'oeil window in 1931. Blimey, I had no idea...

Well, mercifully, Salisbury Museum, next to the glorious cathedral, has an exhibition to sort all that out. In two big rooms of glorious stuff, it tells the story of how these complex, talented people lived, loved and worked in a few beautiful houses. Starting with Strachey and Carrington, possibly the best known of this side of Bloomsbury thanks to the 1995 film, and Ham Spray House, you can see artworks from this period when they lived together with Carrington's husband, Ralph Patridge.  There is a lovely pencil sketch of Carrington by Mark Gertler...

Carrington's work is unusual and it is a treat to see it. I was particularly struck by the Lily which was made from oil, ink and silver foil on glass which made it glitter...

A Lily in Spanish Landscape (c.1928) Carrington

Now, here is a slight criticism and I completely understand the problem - Carrington is also Dora Carrington and throughout the exhibition both versions of her name are used, which is not exactly confusing but a bit inconsistent (I was very hot and slightly sun-stroked and for a few minutes thought it was two people, I admit). It is definitely not as straightforward as Gluck (Hannah Gluckstein) who was Gluck and only Gluck, but I would definitely have stuck to one and possibly 'Carrington' would have respected the artist's wishes (she hated her first name and thought it vulgar). Anyway, possibly the most touching object in the room was a lock of Carrington's hair...

There are two locks, one given to Gerald Brenan, who she painted in 1921, and one taken on the day she died, together with flowers gathered on that day. She died in a tragic manner, taking her own life after the death of her close friend, Lytton Strachey. 

Gerald Brenan (1921) Carrington

Blimey, next room please...

Bust of Julia Strachey (1928) Stephen Tomlin

A frequent visitor to Ham Spray House (which, I'm sorry, sounds like a ham-scented perfume) was Lytton's niece Julia, writer, who met sculptor Stephen Tomlin there. The couple married in 1927 and moved to Mill Cottage, Swallowcliffe. Among other visitors were more familiar names, such as Duncan Grant...

Self Portrait (1909) Duncan Grant

Duncan Grant was also a cousin of Strachey (it's a small world) and at least two of Grant's paintings were displayed at Ham Spray House. There are also beautiful paintings by other friends, such as Vanessa Bell...

Venice, Gesuati (c.1930) Vanessa Bell

as well as decorated tiles by Carrington...

Ham Spray Tile, decorated by Carrington

...and paintings showing friends working in their own interiors, making you feel this was a world within our own post-war world.

Raymond Mortimer sitting at a desk at Long Crichel (undated) Edward Le Bas

It is quite easy to forget there were more people under the Bloomsbury umbrella that just the Woolfs and Bells - in that way, it is very similar to the Pre-Raphaelites. Carrington is Bloomsbury-adjacent, and you can see the ethos and mindset of that group spreading across the southern counties, painting, writing and living in a challenging (and privileged) way. There is a romance to all that free love and heartbreak and the art is undeniably beautiful, so take yourself off to Salisbury and enjoy a thorough gorgeous exhibition of the little-known aspects of Wiltshire history.

Bloomsbury in Wiltshire is on until 27th September and more information can be found here.

Unexpectedly Modern Janet

 Often my favourite blog posts are ones where I stumble across an artist while nosing around something else. Today's subject/victim is a prime example of this - I was looking at a catalogue of the Women's Exhibition at Earl's Court from 1900 (as you do) and the second artist listed was Janet Fisher. In my ignorance, I was shocked that there were Victorians called Janet (there were a fair number) but the peak was in the mid-twentieth century, so I wasn't being a complete idiot (on this occasion). Anyway, I looked into Miss Fisher's work and liked it so much, I thought I'd show you too.

Gathering Firewood (no date)

Janet Caroline Fisher was born in the winter of 1862 to Frederic Colborne Fisher and Rosamond Adelin (no 'e' on the end), who were living in Walton-on-Trent. Frederic was a rector, with the family growing rapidly after their marriage in 1856. Janet was towards the end, with Rosamond Adeline (with an 'e') (1857-1932), Mary Colborne (1858-1940), Frederic Colborne  jnr (1860-1942), Charles John (1861-1947) all preceding her and only Arthur Colborne (1864-1896) and George Colborne (1867-1867) after her. In 1871, the family was ensconced in the Walton Rectory with half a dozen servants, including a governess. 'Miss Janet' as she was known to the village, was held in high regard and her career seems to have been followed in the way that successful artists from small town seem to be.  She began her training at Derby Art School, a glorious building currently on the endangered list. She then became a 'Slade girl,' taught by Alphonse Legros at the Slade School of Art during his tenure between 1867 and 1892.  I'm guessing that Janet was towards the latter end as in the census of 1881 she appears with no occupation but in 1891 she is finally declared an 'Art Student (Painting)'. To complete her tour of every art school available, she spent time at the Herkomer School at Bushey. Again, she was pushing that deadline as there were only two rules for Bushey - you had to be unmarried and under 28. Interestingly, by the time she started exhibiting, she was over thirty which is a mark of either her family situation (her mother died in 1888) or that her class and background gave her the leisure to work at her own pace.

Distant Thoughts (Day Dreams) (undated)

The first mention I could find for her in an exhibition is in 1894 at the Institute of Oils where she showed a 'clever low-toned' Study of a Head (as Lady's Pictorial called it) and Day Dreams. The former was a portrait of a gypsy child with curly hair, which also drew admiration from Queen magazine. I can't find anything until her debut at the Royal Academy in 1897 with At the Well. At this point it went past unnoticed, but that would change.

Woman Knitting (no date)

Quick note - as you will no doubt notice, it has been a struggle to find any of the pictures she actually showed and was commended for.  I have no idea why that is, but the couple of relevant ones I could find I was grateful for. Also, I wonder if there is a problem of title changes, so things might not have the same title they had to begin with.  Anyway, onwards.

 Her 1898 outing was the summer exhibition of the Dudley Art Gallery, where she showed her 'luminous and interesting' Driving Home the Geese (according to the African Critic) which was praised as perfecting 'the clear darkness of evening before the moon has gained its strength' (according to the Gentlewoman).  The year later, Janet appeared at the Crystal Palace annual exhibition with At the Well, which won a silver medal and was mentioned in many newspaper articles. She also showed  Evening in Holland at the Derby Art Gallery exhibition. She also had "I ply my Spinning Wheel" at the RA.  She also lost her father in December which might have provided her with some funds to continue her life as a single artist.

At the Spinning Wheel (I Ply My Spinning Wheel?) (no date)

The turn of the century brought Through Dutch Meadows to the RA, but that was ignored in favour of At the Well (again) which appeared at the Earl's Court exhibition. Although mainly run by men, I think we need to give some credit to the fact this was a women's exhibition but there are still shades of 'really good but not 'man good'' in the introduction.  Rosa Bonheur was the only one seen as an equal to men on canvas (sorry Lady Butler), who had died the year before. Anyway, the Fine Art Committee consisted of Cecilia Beaux (American artist), Henriette Ronner (Dutch artist), Marchioness of Granby (Violet Manners, British artist), Marianne Stokes (Austrian artist), Feodora Gleichen (British sculptor), Annie Swynnerton (British artist), Anna Lea Merritt (Anglo-American artist), Henrietta Ward (Mrs E M Ward, British artist) and Mary Watts (Mrs G F Watts, British artist). Mercifully, there were also a couple of men there to keep an eye on them, Francis Howard and S Laing Moffett (the curator). In Francis Howard's introduction to the fine art section of the exhibition, he quotes a critic who held that fine art was for manly strong hands and in lady hands it would inevitably become dangerous, which is apparently not true. The second introduction reiterated that women were, in fact, not terrible at art, so it would be a lovely exhibition. I do feel that the number of articles you need to read before actually reaching the list of paintings shown smacks of trying to convince people rather than comment on the paintings and artists. Anyway, Janet's well is the second painting listed.

Happy Holland (no date)

At the Society of women artist in 1900, Janet showed a painting of a little girl examining a chestnut, Under the Sweet Pea Hedge, mentioned in both Ladies Field and The Queen. According to her obituary (spoiler alert, she dies in the end) once her parents died, Janet was off to London to the studio she would keep for the rest of her life, but as we have seen in such articles, that isn't exactly true and is a rather simplified version of events. Janet's address in the RA catalogues (such a useful resource for between census) is the Walton Rectory until 1900. She seems to be missing from the 1901 census (as do a couple of her siblings) and so I wondered if she travelled to the continent, using the rectory (now home to her brother who had taken over the role at the church) as a base. In 1902 she was back at the RA with Angele, mentioned in Ladies Field but not described. Her painting of a fisher-girl shown at the Dudley Gallery in June reminded the Lady's Pictorial of Mrs Stanhope Forbes. I wonder if they were aware of her drawing of Polperro, Cornwall that had appeared at the Society of Women Artists in February?

On the Breezy (no date)

In 1903 Janet again appeared at the Society of Women Artists with Little Bo-Peep which the Ladies Field called 'quaint'. It is described by the Queen magazine as 'a child seated, asleep among lambs and primroses,' an illustration for the nursery rhyme. At the Society of Oil Painters, she showed Old Normandy Shepherdess which was deemed 'very good' by the Northern Whig newspaper. 1904 saw another continental picture, Weighing Figs on Santa Margherita at the Dudley Gallery. She also sent A Procession to the Derby Art Gallery autumn exhibition, showing a boy leading geese as he plays his pipe. It is interesting that when Janet was not at the RA, she seemed to garner far more attention which I suppose is due to the difference in critic.  For something as establishment as the RA, I bet they send their Jonathan Jones-type but for the smaller or less formal galleries, they get someone else who actually likes art. 

The Little Shepherdess (c.1915)

In 1905 the Dudley Gallery had to move out of the Egyptian Hall due to its demolition (shame) and found refuge in the Alpine Club in Mill Street (which sounds lovely). The World claimed the cleverest drawing in the whole exhibition was Janet Fisher's A Venetian Silhouette. Janet was also one of two new members of the Dudley Gallery and had two pieces displayed, the second being an evening sky with tall poplars and a flock of sheep, which might be The Little Shepherdess (although the Wilson gallery who own it have it as c.1915) but the description mentions the sheep are coming towards us, so possibly something similar. At the Women's International Art Club at the Grafton Galleries, she appeared with another sheep-y picture, Counting the Flock mentioned in the Black and White journal as being notable. Most importantly, Janet had her first one-man show at the Ryder Gallery in Mayfair, showing around sixty works described by the Manchester Evening News as displaying 'much charm and spontaneity of feeling.' The works were all landscapes, with only a few being native, the rest from Normandy, Venice, San Remo and Bordighera.

Picking Bluebells (Bluebells ?) (no date)

The 1906 Dudley Art Show, again at the Alpine Club, was exceptional only for the inclusion of Japanese artist Ishibashi Kazunori.  The Daily News didn't find Mr Ishibashi very Japanese though, feeling that Whistler did better Japanese stuff, which is a bold assertion. Janet's landscape painting, Bluebells, was one of the few others that were felt to be acceptable in an otherwise rough review. Despite not appearing at the RA again, she had a strong showing at the Oil Institute with Knitting, and also showed a profile of a child entitled Evening Primroses and The Goatherd at the Society of Women Painters, which were admired by the Lady's Pictorial. She also showed Counting the Flock at the Dore Gallery in March, Little Bo Peep (again) at the Bristol Fine Arts Academy in February and Homeward in an autumn show in London. On the whole, you can see Janet's profile rising gradually, her pictures being mentioned, maybe not as the highlight of the show but always as an honourable mention.

Girl Knitting (no date)

1907 and still not RA, but again off to the Dudley Gallery with The Little Virgin of the Lilies, where the Western Daily Press felt that Janet tackled the problem of sunlight in order to get brightness on the red hair of her figure. At the Dore again she had two paintings Cup of Coffee and Noonday Heat. Her work at the Society of Women Painters was decidedly 'above average' according to the London Daily Chronicle, but by 1906 standard it was a quieter year.

1908 found her back at the RA with Breakfast and the first notice of her new address, 9a Joubert Mansion, Jubilee Place where she would remain for many years.  Her painting of sheep in The Flock for the Dudley was felt to be poetic by the London Evening Standard, and she was mentioned in connection to the Gentlewoman's Art Exhibition, opened by the Countess of Bective (Lady Alice Maria Hill). Her painting of a butterfly at the Society of Women Artists was seen as 'sure to please the average viewer' (according to the Lady's Pictorial, not sure if that's a compliment).  Interestingly, The Queen praised her work and felt it demonstrated French training in its restraint, which is possible although I've found no further reference to her training abroad, nor to her being in France much, but they might just be referring to Alphonse Legros.

In the 1909 review of the Society of Women Artist's exhibition, the tagline was 'much industry but little inspiration.' The reviewer from the Daily News bemoaned that most of the work did not rise above imitation, although Janet did get off lightly as her work, Noonday Heat was seen to be interesting, and was also singled out in The Queen. Again she appeared at the Dore with the other female artists, and was seen as one of the strongest workers with her Moonrise in Normandy.

Donkey at the Green Gate (no date)

1910 seemed to be filled with re-runs, including the ever-popular Little Virgin of the Lilies.  I was very excited by 1911 as she seemed to be getting a lot of newspaper coverage, but unfortunatly the Janet Fisher that got the most headlines was the sister of the Australian Prime Minister who married a British constable. Otherwise, our Janet was getting good reviews still for her work; The Fish Market at the Society of Women Artists was praised for the portrayal of older women, bartering for produce. Her canvas The Blind Beggar was seen as an effective picture at the Royal Academy in May and her picture of a pig market raised a few smiles at the Old Dudley Gallery in the autumn. In the 1911 census, Janet was living alone in her Joubert Mansion, aged 48, with the occupation of 'painter (artist)'.

On the Shore of the Lake (no date)

In 1912, Janet tours some greatest hits again, for example The Fish market appearing in Hull. We've seen before artists sending out popular paintings and hoping for a municipal art gallery or town hall to snap them up.  I wonder how much luck Janet had on this front of looking at her ArtUK entry, she has 11 paintings in public collections in this country, the majority of them in the Wilson in Cheltenham, which makes some sort of sense as I think they were gifted to the museum after Janet's death by her brother Frederic, which I will come to. In 1912, Janet had two paintings at the RA, The Statue by the Lake: Fontainebleau and The Sleeping Child, the former getting some notice as a good landscape.

1913 saw Janet back at the RA with two more paintings, Moonlight by the Lake and Carnac Church. The latter was felt to be 'truthful' by the West Sussex Gazette. She also showed The Pig Market and Fontainebleau again to positive reviews, and I'm wondering if she travelled consistently as her pieces were all based in either the Netherlands, France or Italy. This also might explain why in some years she has a couple of new pictures but others are reruns of greatest hits. It also suggests that, although popular, she wasn't selling the pictures.

Garden with Two Fountains (no date)

My guess that she travelled is possibly backed up by her 1916 Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society entry (the only one she had) which was Old Houses in Florence which was for sale for £1 1s. If you haven't had a good look through an Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society catalogue before, I can recommend them as they are a fascinating look at this group of artists and you can find a lot on Archive.org. There was a rather scathing review of the Society of Women Artists of the same year - they said they were being kind as good (male) art was at a premium what with the war going on, but visitors to the exhibition had to have patience in order to 'sift the gold from the dross' (ouch). However, as the Lady's Pictorial stated, it's worth the effort as there are some modestly priced pieces that are good as birthday or wedding presents, which is quite the backhanded compliment. Janet's Harvest in Sussex (a British subject!) was commended for being 'sunny'.

Gotherd (no date, possibly 1906)

A year later, Janet showed The Blind Beggar from 1911 at the Winter Exhibition of Graphic Art in aid of the Red Cross and St John's Ambulance Society. She also appeared at the Women's International Art Club exhibition in aid of British Prisoners of War, with The Pig Market (which still made the critics laugh) and Fountainebleau. Towards the end of the decade, post war, Janet showed Under the Chestnut Tree at the RA, described in the Gentlewoman as a group of children in dappled shade.  She also showed Chalk Pit on the Arun at the Society of Women Artists exhibition, another piece of what the Gentlewoman called her plein air art.

1920 brough Janet's last appearance at the RA with Snowdrops, a pretty portrait of a child with flowers. She also had The Mixed Posy at the Lyceum Club exhibition which I wonder is around the same subject. I can't seem to locate her or her older sister on the 1921 census (it is the census I struggle with most) so they might well be travelling as both were single ladies with some money (when Rosamond died in 1932, she left £16,579 to her surviving sibling, so she was well off). There are a few years of silence in the newspapers, but in 1925 her woodcut of The Procession appeared in the Little Gallery exhibition and Janet was seen as the leading English proponent in the woodcut art.

The Procession (thank you Bridgeman)

In 1926, Janet appeared in the Society of Women Artists exhibition in March with Waiting Ox Cart noted by The Queen as an interesting piece and it would be her last in her lifetime. The next time she was mentioned was after she died on 27th July that year. She died in Kemerton, a village in Gloucestershire where Rosamond lived (and died six years later), aged 63. She was buried near her parents and brothers in Walton graveyard. The funeral was held in Walton, with both vicars of Walton and Kemerton presiding over a large gathering testifying to 'their great esteem and love for "Miss Janet"' as she was known in the villages. The obituary in the Burton Observer reported her woodcuts, for which she had become a British pioneer, had been shown in Japan and America. She had learned on her deathbed that two more of her pictures had been accepted into the Paris Salon which had given her great pleasure. The piece ended saddened by the loss of someone so talented and loveable.

The Snow Storm (no date)

I'll end this post with a question - where did Janet go? The pictures that are on ArtUK are mostly left by her brother when he died. These were possibly the impetus for Cheltenham having a retrospective for Janet in 1991 where much was made of the fact that no-one respected women artists so that is why she was forgotten, but I think that isn't exactly true. Obviously, we see from the way women artists are spoken about, their art is seen as not quite as good as mens, but that does not explain why modern curators and art historians don't reevaluate this. We all have eyes and apparently no prejudice now (work with me here) and so surely Janet should become part of the conversation. I think her status as a pioneer is probably not helping her as she is a person on her own in terms of woodcuts. Arts and Crafts have not had their renaissance yet, unlike the Pre-Raphaelites, so maybe that is also why she has not become part of the conversation. I also suspect that she did not do art for money - possibly therefore she didn't sell many and those she did remain with her purchasers' families. I tackled Janet on a whim because she was in the Women's Exhibtion at Earl's Court and I liked her woodcuts, but otherwise I'm not sure I would have picked her out to write about and that might be her problem. When the Arts and Crafts renaissance comes (and it will, if I have anything to do with it) then I think Janet will become a part of the narrative. Until then, she will have to wait.