It's the end of the second week and Friday the 13th, which does not bode well. Mind you, I have a day off and I'm off to an exhibition, so it's not all bad.
Violet Hunt's cat couldn't believe The Wife of Rossetti either...
I couldn't resist including Violet Hunt's cushion-cat as I try to include that picture in any talk I give as it makes people laugh. Black cats are also not going to appear that often this Catvent as they are notoriously difficult to capture as opposed to a tabby or paler cat. There is also the connotation that black cats equal witchcraft and evil, so it is unlikely that some pretty young girl will be having a black cat on her knee. Luckily, not all painted ladies feel that way...
Jezebel (1896) John Byam Liston Shaw
Ah, Jezebel, an absolute gem of the Russell-Cotes collection and by the wonderful Byam Shaw, who I have a very big soft spot for. It is a massive painting, described as 'life size' in a report of its sale in 1916, and one with an interesting history. When it was exhibited in the 1896 Royal Academy show, the male critics definitely had opinions about the central figure - 'the straight red hair, the set of the thin scarlet lips, the gleam of the eyes, and even the pose of the limbs, breathe forth a very atmosphere of cruelty' (from The Antiquary, Vol 32), 'She is more vain-glorious than the peacock who sweeps his irridescent plumes at her feet. She is more cruel and feline than that familiar spirit that sits by her side like a witches cat in an old tale...' (Bournemouth Guardian, 1920), 'a nude figure of considerable power' (Studio, Vol 10). Hang about, nude?
Jezebel, outrageously nude under clothes, the harlot!
Yes, she's not very nude now. There is a whole conversation about how she ended up fairly well clothed but let's take it back to 1896 and the Royal Academy's May exhibition...
Whither? (1896)
Byam Shaw had three paintings in the exhibition that year; a portrait of his mom (number 206 in the catalogue), Whither? (574) and Jezebel (950). Of the three, the portrait got very little notice in the reviews, and Jezebel got (and continued to get) some gentlemen critics a little hot under the collar. It was actually Whither? that received the most notice and got the honor of being included in the picture booklet for that year, which I always feel is the ultimate accolade. To put it all in context, nothing got as much press as picture of the year, Alleluia by Thomas Cooper Gotch...
Come on now, nothing beats the golden poppet juggernaut that is Alleluia. I can imagine all the other artists turning up thinking 'I've worked really hard all year and I think this is my best and most thoughtful work,' then walking in on that great, gilded thing and wondering why they bothered. Love it or hate it, it's the sort of painting that no-one forgets. At least Jezebel had her bad-girl, boobs-ahoy charm going for her and managed to get a bit of press that way. I think the reviewers that didn't want to reward boobs turned to Whither? as a weird, fantastical piece of interest that had to be puzzled over. So, when did Byam Shaw alter his nude and why?
X-ray of Jez in all her glory...
As I've spoken about on this blog before, the Russell-Cotes in their infinite wisdom (hurrah) got Jezebel x-rayed to see exactly what was going on under her clothes (in a purely academic sense). As we can see, she was properly nude and there is also no cat that I can see, unless it was much smaller. Now, if it was a small black cat, I wonder if it was a call-back to this painting...
Olympia (1863) Edouard Manet
The red hair, the black cat and the black maid all ring true of Jezebel, where her maids were referred to as 'Egyptian' by various critics not knowing how to refer to anyone not white - God help us but a couple of reviews refer to 'dusky maidens' which gives one the ick, as my daughter would say. Without all the red and gold clothing, Jezebel would be sat on a white sheet nude, again echoing Olympia. Comment is made by some critics on how Olympia ignores the presence of her maid to stare at us, her potential client. Jezebel ignores her maids in order to stare at herself, utterly consumed by her own beauty. Actually, a bit like this...
Lady Lilith (1866-8) Dante Gabriel Rossetti
Blimey, this is a bit of a wander round, but you can see how Jezebel draws from the source material to bring you a saucy lass who is up to no good. However, none of this explains why he dressed her and made her cat bigger. According to a piece on Byam Shaw in the Studio, Byam Shaw was not 'wholly pleased' with the painting which had been 'altered considerably'. According to Rex Vicat Cole, Byam Shaw's best friend, Byam Shaw was unable to shift the painting and altered it in order to get a buyer, yet we can see by a review of an exhibition of Byam Shaw's work in 1899 at the Doweswell Gallery, Jezebel is still up for grabs. I think this was the point when Jez got dressed in order to be sold to Liberal MP and art collector Major Sir Herbert Raphael, and she was displayed on the wall of Allestree Hall near Derby. Whether or not Byam Shaw was unhappy artistically, or whether (as I discussed in this post) he was desperate to marry Evelyn Pyke-Nott, he covered up her bits and bobs and sold her. Merton Russell-Cotes is believed to have bought her at the sale of the contents of Allestree Hall (when Raphael decided he wanted to move house but couldn't be bothered to move the contents of his house, apparently), where she sold for 60 guineas. Poor old Merton R-C has always been blamed for covering her up, but I don't think he was the prude, after all he has other nudes to his name. Also, Byam Shaw wasn't put off nudes, as he painted the very nude Omphale in 1914, possibly also from the same model, Rachel Lee, who worked at Byam Shaw's School of Art...
Omphale (1914)
If he is painting Rachel Lee with boobs-ahoy in 1914, he is not going to suddenly paint over them in 1916 for Merton Russell-Cotes. Back to Jezebel...
For those lucky enough not to know the story of poor old Jezebel, she married King Ahab of Samaria. She was a devotee of Baal and smashed the altars of the golden calf cult. Her main crime seems to be that she had Naboth and his sons killed so that Ahab could have a vineyard, which is a flimsy excuse but honestly, in the Bible, anything goes in terms of business deals and it caused a prophesy that doom would come upon Jezebel and her kin. Long story short, Ahab died in battle and a whole struggle for power ensued. Fearing defeat, Jezebel dolled herself up to meet the victor only to find herself defenistrated (one of my favorite words) and then ripped apart by dogs. With that knowledge in mind, look at the maids in the painting. Jezebel is obviously in the act of getting dressed up to meet her fate, but the way the maids are pulling her hair in two different directions is definitely reminiscent of the way she will be savaged by the dogs. Incidentally, that little scene is depicted in a gilded plaster panel on the frame of this paining. Smashing.
Given her fate at the hands of dogs, I wonder about the presence of such a large cat. Is Jezebel the cat? Is she the lithe, plotting, clever creature who will eventual be no match for brutish violence? Looking again at this cat, the ears seem to be back and although it is leaning against Jezebel, it does not seem to be happy. If anything, it is cowering against her legs, as if it knows what is about to happen. Poor old Jez seems unaware of her fate and her vanity (depicted by the peacock) will not help her in the end.
See you tomorrow.