“Since painting first interested me, I have been drawn to a constant tradition which I think of as central to this old European art. This implies a peculiar use of …paint; not to symbolise, not to describe the object, nor to realise an abstract image, but rather to allow the paint, while insisting upon its own palpable nature, to reconstitute the object of one’s experience: to metamorphose into the image of an apple, a sky, a human back.

… Giorgione, Titian, Tintoretto used paint this way. Caravaggio sent it on its way to Spain, to Velasquez. Rembrandt epitomised it. Turner pushed it to its metaphysical limits…

When you are painting you are trying to discover, to uncover, to reveal. I sometimes think of the activity of painting as a kind of archaeology–the archaeology of the spirit. As in archaeology, accident continually plays an important part. The painter, like the archaeologist, is a watcher, a supervisor of accident; patiently disturbing the surface of things until a significant accident becomes apparent, recognising it, conserving this as best he can while provoking the possibility of further accident…

Thus, what counts in painting is, I believe, recognition of significant accident within a larger preoccupation and not dexterity and calculated imposition.”

–Louis le Brocquy, The Head Image: Notes on Painting and Awareness

“The role of the portrait in American society derived largely from the tradition of the English colonies, where the dominance of portraiture over all other types of painting lasted well into the 19th century. Jonathan Richardson (1665-1745) articulated the function of the portrait in England in his influential 1725 treatise, An Essay on the Theory of Painting:

‘The Picture of an absent Relation or Friend, helps to keep up those Sentiments which frequently languish by Absence and may be instrumental to maintain, and sometimes augment Friendship, and Paternal, Filial, and Conjugal Love, and Duty. Upon the sight of a Portrait, the character, and master-strokes of the history of the person it represents are apt to flow in upon the mind, and to be the subject of conversation: so that to sit for one’s Picture is to have an Abstract of one’s life written, and published, and ourselves thus consigned over to Honour or Infamy.’ ”

–Meet Your Neighbors: New England Portraits, Painters & Society, 1790-1850, page 30

The format of a portrait miniature is unconventional, but the artistry is as compelling and sophisticated as that found in larger portrait paintings. In spite of the complex and personal nature of miniatures, the focus of the portrait miniature is the portrait itself, painted from life by an artist who was often academically trained, and many times painted in other media. Although commissioned for private purposes, miniatures were, from the 17th century on, held in notable collections, and exhibited at national institutions such as the Royal Academy and the National Academy. A specialist in British portraiture, Philip Mould, says of portrait miniatures: “…this arcane art seemed to belong more to the world of objets de vertu…with time this ‘smallist’ prejudice began to erode as I realised that miniatures were an opportunity to handle some of the most important records of the human visage, not only historically, but artistically.”1

Germinating from the field of illuminated manuscripts, the earliest portrait miniatures in the 16th century were small formal portraits of the royalty and aristocracy. They were painted in gouache on prepared card, and then a bit later painted in watercolor on vellum backed by card, either in oval shape or as an occasional larger cabinet miniature. With the influence of artists from the Netherlands and Europe, early miniatures were sometimes also painted in oil on copper. The technique and style of miniatures quickly gained in complexity and artistry, giving rise to works by masters like Hans Holbein, and culminating in the works of the brilliant 17th century miniaturist, Samuel Cooper. Art historian Emma Rutherford says of Cooper: “Comparisons with Lely are inevitable, but it is perhaps somewhat surprising that a miniaturist should find his equal in the most fashionable and brilliant oil painter of the day. Miniatures, however, were not then considered to be a lesser form of art.”2   Other talented artists of this era included Peter Cross and Richard Gibson.

In the late 17th and early 18th centuries two other forms of small portraits associated with portrait miniatures came into being, the plumbago and the enamel miniature. At this time a small revolution took place, and, inspired by the example of Rosalba Carriera and Bernard Lens III, miniaturists abandoned vellum and began painting instead on small ovals of ivory. By the late 18th century this new format had been mastered, and the miniatures had progressed from tiny, somewhat dark miniatures to three-inch or larger portraits. These were for the most part airily painted, with a delicate use of color, slightly idealized or mannered depictions of the sitters, and a captured luminosity from the ivory–all of which echoed the rococo and then the neoclassical culture of the time. The frames during this era began to incorporate versions of memorial hairwork, and the sitters were drawn from the middle and upper class, as well as the elite ranks of society. This period in the history of miniature art is generally considered to be the pinnacle of the art form. Once again several outstanding artists rose to the surface: Jeremiah Meyer, John Smart, Samuel Shelley, and Richard Cosway, among others.

The development of Continental miniatures generally paralleled the evolution of the English miniatures, with an equally long and rich history. The Continental miniaturists sometimes tended to apply the watercolor in an opaque manner, and the format of the ivory was occasionally round as opposed to oval, which resulted in a different atmosphere from the English and American miniatures. Other Continental miniaturists such as Peter Edward Stroely, Jean Baptist Masse, or Joseph Grassi echoed the traditional English appearance in miniatures, but with their own highly individual style.

The first few examples of miniatures painted in America were circa 1735, in oil on copper or watercolor on vellum.3   Around 1760 American miniatures were painted on ivory, and tended to be small, dark, and realistic, much like the English Modest School miniatures. During the late 18th century American miniatures-like their English counterparts-became larger, with pale, elegant colors and a pleasing transparency.
At the turn of the 19th century Andrew Robertson precipitated another rebellion, scoffing at the portraits of the reigning master Richard Cosway as “toys.”4   As Robertson experimented with technique, the results were miniatures that were often naturalistic, highly finished, richly colored and painted on large rectangles of ivory. Although there was nothing unduly revolutionary about mimicking another art form-in this case, large oil paintings-the effect this had on miniatures was insurgent. The path of miniatures veered in a different direction, one that once again echoed the manners and culture of the time, while simultaneously resulting in works that were distinctive and original. The artistic genius that flared in the miniatures of the 19th century was most prevalent in America, perhaps nurtured by the turbulence of growth in the country. John Wesley Jarvis, Edward Greene Malbone, Sarah Goodridge, and Benjamin Trott are good examples.

During the mid to late 19th century portrait miniatures, like so many other artifacts of society, were impacted by industrialization. Miniaturists were part of an itinerant artist culture, and the entire way of life in 19th century America, England, and Europe featured traveling artists and craftsmen of all types, moving from one far-flung urban area to another urban area in search of clients. The profound societal changes and burgeoning growth of cities during the latter half of the century brought about the eventual extinction of this culture, and with it, the demise of several art forms, including portrait miniatures. Additionally, the invention of photography displaced the demand for miniatures, and commissions for them seriously declined.

At the turn of the 20th century a brief resurgence in miniatures took place, known as the Revival era. Artists were captured by the perceived romance of the art form, and several interesting artists flourished, including Laura Coombs Hill, Charles James Turrell, and Minerva Chapman. Miniatures during this time reflected some of the trends and movements of the rest of the art world, such as Impressionism.
A small handful of artists paint miniatures today, but their work tends to fit more in the craftsman category, much like the first painters of miniatures, those long ago illuminators of manuscripts in England. The vision of the present-day miniaturists for the most part does not stretch to what is innovative or original.

It may be that the emotional, societal and artistic imperatives of the earlier centuries created a type of urgency, which in turn nourished the evolution of miniatures, and pushed the miniaturists to greater heights in exploring the boundaries of the art. Once that urgency waned, so too did the art form, and the sheer exuberant creativity it produced was no more.

1. Philip Mould Ltd Fine Paintings, Curated by Emma Rutherford, Edited by Bendor Grosvenor, Secret Faces: An Exhibition of Unseen Portrait Miniatures from Public & Private Collections. 2008, p. 5.
2. Ibid. p. 58.
3. Carol Aiken, “The Emergence of the Portrait Miniature in New England,” Painting and Portrait Making in the American Northeast. The Dublin Seminar for New England Folklife, 1995, p. 41.
4. Katherine Coombs, The Portrait Miniature in England. Victoria and Albert Museum, 1988, p. 111.

The June 2008 issue of the periodical Antiques Roadshow Insider has an article on portrait miniatures called “Up Close and Personal,” by Jane Viator. It is an overview of the genre and the market, with a list of sources and resources. See pages 8-9.

The Historic New Orleans Collection holds its inaugural New Orleans Antique Forum from August 7-10,  at the Williams Research Center, 410 Chartres Street.  Elle Shushan will present Les Miserables: French Emigre Miniaturists in America, 1788-1830.  For further information see www.hnoc.org.

An important loan exhibition of British portrait miniatures, curated by Emma Rutherford, will appear at the Philip Mould gallery from May 28th to June 14th, 2008.  The exhibition, “Secret Faces: Unseen Portrait Miniatures from Public and Private Collections,” will focus on portraits of major historical figures which are not usually on public display. Works will be on loan from private collections as well as from the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Ashmolean Museum, and the National Portrait Gallery.

For more information please contact  020 7499 6818, or see:  http://www.philipmould.com/. 

A print catalogue of the exhibition, beautifully written and illustrated, with several guest essays, is available for purchase.

An interesting facet to the study of miniaturists and their miniatures are the self-portraits that many painted. Each self-portrait is an intimate portrayal of the man, or woman, behind the miniatures, and gives the viewer direct insight not only into the character of the artist, but also insight into the artist’s subjective interpretation of his or her own personality.  Perhaps one day a gallery or museum can mount a full-fledged exhibition of these self-portraits. In the meantime, a few illustrative images are below. 

The June 2008 issue of the UK magazine Antique Collecting has a comprehensive article on portrait miniatures, written by collector and freelance researcher Richard Chadwick.  See pages 4-9. Mr. Chadwick also contributed content to the “Secret Faces” exhibition catalogue mentioned below.

The June 2008 issue of the periodical Antiques Roadshow Insider has an article on portrait miniatures called “Up Close and Personal,” by Jane Viator. It is an overview of the genre and the market, with a list of sources and resources. See pages 8-9.