Reproductive Prints – the Address the Bailey Collection Includes a Very
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Reproductive prints – the address The Bailey Collection includes a very fine selection of reproductive prints. Up until the invention and perfection of photo-mechanical methods of reproduction, all reproductions were done by hand by printmakers who specialised in this field. The demand was so great that it spawned a huge industry devoted to the copying and publishing of reproductive prints. This vast industry ended almost overnight in the third quarter of the 19th century when photo-mechanical methods of reproduction took over. A reproductive print is that class of print in which the image is not original but copied from another painting, drawing or even print. These are invariably found with inscriptions beneath the image. This inscription, if it contains the name of the publisher, is known as ‘the address’. The lettering for the inscription was the work of a specialist engraver and the exquisite and elaborate style of lettering, engraved as it was on copper, gave rise to that style of script known as ‘copperplate’. The inscription would always give the name of the original painter or draughtsman, the title of the work, the name of the engraver and the name of the publisher. But, in many cases, the inscription could be elaborate and contain a wealth of information as in the engraving by Edward Bell (fl. 1795 – 1810), after the painting by Sir William Beechey and titled Viscount Nelson ( after Beechey). The technique used is mezzotint, a technique much favoured by English reproductive engravers. The image itself measures 638 x 434 mm. Beneath the image is the following extensive inscription: Painted by Sir Wm. Beechey. R. A. Horatio Lord Viscount Nelson, Duke of Bronte, K. B. Vice Admiral of The White, &&& Engraved by Edward Bell. Engraved from the Original Picture in St. Andrew’s Hall, Norwich, painted by the particular request of the Corporation of that City. To whom this plate is most respectfully dedicated by their much obliged fellow Citizen & humble Servt. Jeremiah Freeman ( In the centre, the coat-of-arms of the city of Norwich) Publish’d May 1, 1806 as the Act directs by J. Freeman & E. Bell. No. 2, London Lane, Norwich. A wealth of information can be gleaned from the inscription and it can be elaborated as follows: Painted by Sir Wm. Beechey. R. A. Sir William Beechey was born on 12 December, 1753 in Burford and died 28 January, 1839. He was a pupil of Zoffany and a pupil at the Royal Academy in 1772. After working for 5 years in Norwich, he settled in London in 1787. In 1793 he became an associate of the Royal Academy and in the same year was appointed portrait painter to Queen Charlotte. In 1798 he was elected to the Royal Academy as a full member and also honoured by being knighted in the same year. Beechey, like a number of other prominent artists at the time, valued the work of the reproductive engravers and enjoyed a good relationship with engravers like Edward Bell. Horatio Lord Viscount Nelson Duke of Bronte, …….. Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson ( 1758-1805) had close ties with Norfolk having been born at Burham Thorpe in Norfolk. Nelson was made the Duke of Bronté of the Kingdom of Sicily by King Ferdinand in July 1799. After briefly signing himself as ‘Brontë Nelson of the Nile’ he signed himself as ‘ Nelson & Brontë’ for the rest of his life. Nelson’s title in the address as ‘Vice Admiral of the White’ comes from his rank as Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet when the fleet was divided into 3 divisions - red, white and blue. The original painting after which the reproductive print was made is in the Norwich Castle Museum and Art Gallery. Beechey painted a number of portraits of Nelson. There are examples in the National Portrait Gallery, London, the National Maritime Museum, London and in private collections. Engrav’d by Edward Bell Not much is known about Bell. There are records that the core of the collection for a set of catalogues compiled by James Hughes Anderdon, presented to the Royal Academy in 1875, came from the collection of Bell. However, the paucity of information on Bell is not, necessarily, a reflection of the status of the reproductive printmaker. Of course, there were many who laboured away in obscurity as mere hacks. But, there were many who were well recognised and it was the artist who sought out these printmakers, and not the other way round. A prominent society artist like Sir Joshua Reynolds was well aware of the marketing value of having his paintings reproduced and would have engaged a printmaker like John Finlayson to make reproductive copies of his painting and these copies were widely distributed at the time. Jeremiah Freeman Jeremiah Freeman (c1791 – 1811) operated as a publisher and supplier of artists’s requirements at No. 2 London Lane from 1795 to 1822. This is the Norwich coat-of-arms. In heraldic terms it is described thus: Blazon: Gules, a Castle triple-towered and domed argent, in base a Lion passant guardant Or. Publish’d May 1, 1806 as the Act directs… This part of the inscription is particularly interesting and has a rich history which goes right back to William Hogarth (1697 – 1764). At the age of 34 Hogarth painted the first of his ‘modern moral subjects’, The Harlot’s Progress, a series of paintings which he regarded as mere preliminaries to a planned series of prints of the paintings and it would be the sales of the prints which would provide the major source of income.i He noted that he expected to receive revenue ‘ by small sums from many by means of prints which I could engrave from my Pictures myself.’ii Interestingly, in his style and method of engraving these prints, he did not bother ‘ with great correctedness in drawing or fine Engraving, which would set the price out of reach of those for whom they were chiefly intended.’iii Before publishing the prints Hogarth cannily solicited subscriptions for the prints which amounted to the sizeable sum of 1240 guineas. Later, when he auctioned the six original paintings he only received 84 guineas. However, the sales of his prints after publication suffered from the eight pirated copies of the series. The most successful of these pirated copies were by Elisha Kirkall who rushed out a series of copies in mezzotint.iv Hogarth realized that if he wanted to continue receiving the majority of his revenue from the sales of the reproductive prints rather than from the original paintings he had to find a means of stopping pirated copies. Accordingly, he persuaded Parliament to enact the first copyright for ‘Designers, Engravers, Etchers,&.’ As Hogarth himself wrote, ‘ …after my plates had been exploited in nearly every size I turned to the parliament in 1735 with the request for help which was granted to me so generously that it not only fulfilled my own purpose but gave prints a considerable commercial status in our country.’v The first prints, protected for 14 years, were Hogarth’s series titled The Rake’s Progress and were inscribed ‘Publish’d ye. 25 June, 1735. According to Act of Parliament.’ In order to benefit from the new act Hogarth delayed the publication of The Rake’s Progress. However, in an ironic twist, the paintings were viewed by spies in his studio, copied from memory and pirated versions were already on the street before the act was passed and Hogarth’s own series published!vi The pictorial copyright act did for artists what the writer’s act of 1709 had done for writers like Defoe and Dr. Johnson – it secured a guaranteed income and enabled them to work independently. Hogarth came to understand the print market so well that he adapted different styles of engraving for different subjects and their intended audience. So, for example, for the elaborate and refined Marriage à la Mode of 1745, he employed the subtle French engravers, Ravenet, Scotin and Baron who produced polished and expensive plates, as the series was aimed at a sophisticated and informed clientele. By contrast, for the more didactic and down-to-earth Gin Lane and its companion piece, Beer Street of 1750 to 51, Hogarth made his own bold engravings, working in a simple and direct manner to ensure that the execution would not ‘take them out of the reach of those for whom they were chiefly intended.’vii In France commercial prints were marketed and inscribed differently. Commercial prints were required to be marked ‘ Avec Privilège du Roy’ , abbreviated to APDR , or Cum Privilegio Regis’, abbreviated to CPR from 1685 to 1790, to certify that the publisher had deposited a stipulated number of impressions at the Bibliothèque Nationale and secured authorisation to publish.viii Latin, often in abbreviated form, was regularly used instead of English in the inscription to indicate the artist, the method and the name of the engraver. Some of the most common terms include the following: Caelavit, cae. - engraved Delineavit, delin., del. – drew Excudit, excud., exc. – brought out, published Fecit, fec., fe., ft., f. – made ( by the engraver) Incisit, inc. – engraved Invenit, inv. – conceived, used to indicate the original artist Pinxit, pinx., pinxt., p. – painted Sculpsit, sculpt., sculp., sc. – engraved John Finlayson c. 1730 – c. 1776 The Earl of Buchan (after Reynolds) Mezzotint Inscribed lower left: J Reynolds pinxt Inscribed lower right: J Finlayson fecit This is a very good example of the ‘copperplate’ script. i Hyatt Mayor,A. Prints & people. A social history of printed pictures. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1980.