"The Gentle Art of Making Enemies:" Painter vs. Critic

In 1890, the painter James Abbot McNeil Whistler sued the art critic John Ruskin for libel.  This court case is an early example of an artist fighting for abstraction and the artist's right to say what art is.  Ruskin wrote, "I have seen, and heard, much of cockney impudence before now; but never expected to hear a coxcomb ask two hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public's face."  The well-known and respected critic claimed Whistler's Nocturne in Black and Gold was not a finished painting and Whistler had no right to exhibit or charge money for it.  The harsh criticism caused Whistler to sue.  The artist later published "The Gentle Art of Making Enemies," which detailed proceedings from the court.  In the exchange, Whistler appears very jaunty, polite, and entertaining.  He elicits many laughs from the court room.  The lawyers question him about the subject of the paintings, how long it took him to finish it, what certain paint splatters represented, and even arbitrarily asking if he left his paintings outside to dry.  

In an revealing comment on the Academy's control over art Whistler states: 

"I have sent pictures to the Academy which have not been received. I believe that is the experience of all artists."  

Whistler's statement suggests that being denied by the Academy was almost a badge of honor proving the person was an artist.  

Nocturne in Black an Gold: Falling Rocket

While being cross examined by the attorney-general, Whistler points out the subtleties of word choice in his title: 

"The nocturne in black and gold is a night piece, and represents the fireworks at Cremorne."
"Not a view of Cremorne?"
"If it were called a view of Cremorne, it would certainly bring about nothing but disappointment on the part of the beholders. (Laughter.) It is an artistic arrangement. It was marked two hundred guineas."
"Is not that what we, who are not artists, would call a stiffish price?"
"I think it very likely that that may be so."
"But artists always give good value for their money, don't they?"
"I am glad to hear that so well established. (A laugh.)"

The attorney-general attempted to nail down the value of the painting by asking Whistler how long it took him to paint it:

"Now, Mr. Whistler. Can you tell me how long it took you to knock off that nocturne?"
"I beg your pardon?" (Laughter.)
"Oh! I am afraid that I am using a term that applies rather perhaps to my own work. I should have said, How long did you take to paint that picture?"
"Oh, no! permit me, I am too greatly flattered to think that you apply, to work of mine, any term that you are in the habit of using with reference to your own. Let us say then how long did I take to--'knock off,' I think that is it--to knock off that nocturne; well, as well as I remember, about a day."
"Only a day?"
"Well, I won't be quite positive; I may have still put a few more touches to it the next day if the painting were not dry. I had better say then, that I was two days at work on it."
"Oh, two days! The labor of two days, then, is that for which you ask two hundred guineas!"
"No;--I ask it for the knowledge of a lifetime." (Applause.)"

Whistler's flourish at the end and the appreciation by the court room show the value of art is often much cheaper than the time it takes to paint.  And shows the thought artist's put into their work. 

Nocturne: Blue and Silver, 1871.

The picture called Nocturne: Blue and Silver was produced in Court and the lawyers attempt to identify where the bridge is:

"That is Mr. Grahame's picture. It represents Battersea Bridge by moonlight."
Baron Huddleston: "Which part of the picture is the bridge?" (Laughter.)
His Lordship earnestly rebuked those who laughed. And witness explained to his Lordship the composition of the picture.
"Do you say that this is a correct representation of Battersea Bridge?"
"I did not intend it to be a 'correct' portrait of the bridge. It is only a moonlight scene and the pier in the center of the picture may not be like the piers at Battersea Bridge as you know them in broad daylight. As to what the picture represents that depends upon who looks at it. To some persons it may represent all that is intended; to others it may represent nothing."
"The prevailing color is blue?"
"Perhaps."
"Are those figures on the top of the bridge intended for people?"
"They are just what you like."
"Is that a barge beneath?"
"Yes. I am very much encouraged at your perceiving that. My whole scheme was only to bring about a certain harmony of color."

Battersea Bridge today

Whistler's replies speak to the ambiguity of art and how the audience can determine the meaning.  This is my favorite aspect of art history: it can mean anything.  Art speaks to everyone, there are no language barriers, and there are multiple meanings. Art reflects life, 

With people still looking at abstract paintings and saying, "my kid could do that," we are still fighting for the acceptance of abstraction, the acceptance of the artist's right to decide what is art.  

Here Whistler bravely accepts his inability to change the Attorney-General's mind: 

"But do you think now that you could make me see the beauty of that picture?"
The witness then paused, and examining attentively the Attorney-General's face and looking at the picture alternately, said, after apparently giving the subject much thought, while the Court waited in silence for his answer:
"No! Do you know I fear it would be as hopeless as for the musician to pour his notes into the ear of a deaf man. (Laughter.)"

In the end Whistler won, but only $1.

What purpose does pointing out the negative achieve?  What does tearing down someone accomplish?  Not much. Maybe we should stop being so critical and start praising more.