The Portrait Miniature Revival, 1890-1930
DISMISSED YET DISARMING:
THE PORTRAIT MINIATURE REVIVAL, 1890-1930
A thesis presented to the faculty of the
College of Fine Arts of Ohio University
In partial fulfillment
Of the requirements for the degree
Master of Fine Arts
Maryann Sudnick Gunderson
November 2003
This thesis entitled
DISMISSED YET DISARMING:
THE 20TH CENTURY PORTRAIT MINIATURE REVIVAL
BY
MARYANN SUDNICK GUNDERSON
Has been approved for
the School of Art
and the College of Fine Arts
Jody Lamb
Associate Professor of Art History
Raymond Tymas-Jones
Dean, College of Fine Arts
GUNDERSON, MARYANN S. MFA. November 2003. Art History
Dismissed yet Disarming: The Portrait Miniature Revival, 1890-1930 (112pp.)
Director of Thesis: Jody Lamb
The portrait miniature revival is examined regarding contemporary influences and artists,
during the period c. 1890-1930. Modern influences, including the philosophies of Arts
and Crafts and Art Nouveau, are defined in context of the miniature. The fine arts of
John Singer Sargent’s portraiture, as well as the abstraction and color of Mary Cassatt
and Edgar Degas, are revealed as instrumental in altering the style of the revival
miniature. Photography is examined for its influence versus eclipse of the miniature.
The miniaturist’s environment is found to be highly significant, as the city of New York
provided constant immersion in art societies, exhibitions, and studio residences where
artists coexisted while creating new styles. Focus is on the works of miniaturists Eulabee
Dix and Laura Coombs Hills. Patronage is found to be highly supportive of the portrait
miniature and essential to an understanding of why the miniature was revived during the
period.
Approved:
Jody Lamb
Associate Professor of Art History
To my husband, Steve, whose love and support have been limitless.
Acknowledgements
This thesis was completed because of the assistance of many organizations and individuals. The fact that such a minor art form could be addressed demonstrates the open-mindedness of those in Art History Department of Ohio University. Dr. Jody Lamb can be credited with seeing the possibilities behind the mystery of the Miniature Revival.
He provided many months of guidance, which allowed me to reach my destination. Dr.
Kuiyi Shen and Dr. Sharran Parkinson provided timely committee feedback, approaching the topic with genuine interest. For this I am indebted.
A number of institutions and scholars assisted with the research for this thesis.
Jordan Love and Selina Bartlett of the Worcester Museum of Art, and Courtney Peterson of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, were instrumental in allowing access to extensive files as well as first-hand observation of the Revival miniatures themselves. Similarly, the files of the late Lewis Hoyer Rabbage, now housed at the Worcester Museum of Art, broadened my understanding of the miniaturist’s intention. I also wish to thank Jo Ann
Ridley, who published the life of Eulabee Dix, the true heart to such a revival.
Finally, I want to acknowledge the support of family and friends. My husband edited in grand fashion and never forgot me during my time away. My family condoned my busy schedule, cheering me through the more difficult periods. Anne Bolen guided me through the research and writing phases with grace. The spirit of these individuals, as well as guidance from God, allowed this thesis to come to fruition. I am truly honored, grateful, and thankful for my time as a student of the portrait miniature. 6
Table of Contents
Abstract...... 3
Dedication...... 4
Acknowledgements...... 5
List of Figures...... 7
Introduction...... 9
Chapter 1. History and Techniques to 1890...... 13
Chapter 2. Contemporary influences on the Portrait Miniature...... 28
Chapter 3. The Socio-Economic Status of the Portrait Miniature ...... 73
Conclusion. The Revival Miniature ...... 101
Bibliography ...... 105
7
List of Figures
Figure page
1. Charles Wilson Peale. Mrs. Walter Stewart...... 14 2. Charles Fraser. Det. Of Francis Kinloch Huger...... 16 3. attributed to William Lovett. Rebecca and Debra Hovey...... 17 4. Hans Holbein the Younger. Elizabeth, Lady Audley ...... 18 5. Nicholas Hilliard. Elizabeth I ...... 20 6. John Singleton Copley. Reverend Samuel Fayerweather ...... 22 7. Anne Hall. Unknown Lady ...... 23 8. Unknown photographer, Unidentified woman and child ...... 25 9. Louis Comfort Tiffany. Three-panel folding screen ...... 32 10. Laura Coombs Hills. The Bride ...... 33 11. Laura Coombs Hills. The Nymph ...... 34 12. Laura Coombs Hills. The Black Mantle ...... 35 13. Alphonse Mucha. Bodice ornament ...... 38 14. John Singer Sargent. Ena & Betty, Daughters of Asher & Mrs. Wertheimer ...... 40 15. Eulabee Dix. The Sisters ...... 42 16. John Singer Sargent. Mrs. Fiske Warren and her Daughter Rachel ...... 43 17. John Singer Sargent. Sir George Sitwell, Lady Ida Sitwell and Family ...... 45 18. Eulabee Dix. Philip Dix Becker as a Baby of Six Months ...... 46 19. Eulabee Dix. Philip Dix Becker ...... 47 20. Mary Cassatt. Spring: Margot Standing in a Garden ...... 48 21. Eulabee Dix. Horace Philip Dix III ...... 50 22. Joseph Decamp. Blue Bird ...... 52 23. Leila Waring. Afternoon Tea (A Cup of Tea, Dorothy Waring) ...... 53 24. Eulabee Dix. Mark Twain ...... 55 25. Edgar Degas. Seated Woman ...... 56 26. Mary Cassatt. Margot in Orange Dress ...... 57 27. Eulabee Dix. Joan and Dix ...... 59 28. Eulabee Dix. Mrs. Harriet Cowles ...... 60 29. Thomas W. Dewing. The Evening Dress ...... 61 30. Gertrude Kasebier. The Bride ...... 65 31. Gertrude Kasebier. Dorothy Trimble Tiffany ...... 66 32. Laura Coombs Hills. Margaret Curzon Hale ...... 67 33. Laura Coombs Hills. Dorothy Stevens ...... 68 34. Gertrude Kasebier. Eulabee Dix ...... 70 35. Eulabee Dix. Gertrude Kasebier ...... 71 36. Charles Dana Gibson. Gibson Girl ...... 74 37. Pennsylvania Society Miniature Painters Annual salon photograph ...... 80 38. Laura Coombs Hills. Persis Blair...... 83 39. Eulabee Dix. Photograph of Countess of Warwick ...... 84 40. John Singer Sargent. Lady Warwick and Her Son ...... 85 8
41. Eduard J. Steichen. J. Pierpont Morgan, Esq ...... 89 42. Gallery fifteen, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, exhibition of the Morgan collection...... 90 43. John Sloan. Yeats at Petitpas...... 94 44. Robert Henri. Lady in Black Velvet ...... 95 45. Eulabee Dix in her Carnegie Hall Studio...... 98 9
Introduction
The portrait miniature is an art form that is rarely observed or discussed. It is
usually found in covered glass cases in museums or in antique shops, and is collected by
the few who are knowledgeable about its history as the portrait of keepsake and personal
adornment. Its 500-year history is easily traceable and well-published; it reveals a
timeless tradition of faces and figures captured on ivory in minute detail.
A major shift in its artistry, however, occurred about 1890. The expressed shift
included changes in color, size, shape, patronage, and even the type of artists involved.
Little is documented on this stylistic change, beyond its stated occurrence and the
eventual obscurity of the miniature. The purpose of this thesis is to define the elements
of the portrait miniature’s stylistic shift and determine its relevance to the time period.
The stylistic shift is documented as a “revival”, although the miniature had not actually
been extinguished prior to its rebirth. This is pointed out by the lone revivalist expert,
Lewis Hoyer Rabbage, who was an avid portrait miniature collector from New York.
One of the aspects that has intrigued collectors and scholars is the miniature’s
existence as both an object and a painting. It is perhaps the root of questioning the
importance of an art form which has a name half implying fine art— the portrait-- and the
other half an object or decorative piece. Traditionally, the sitter had been the primary
focus of the miniature, linking it to the fine art of portraiture. But historically it was also
treated as a decorative object: it was a keepsake, memento, and an article of adornment to
be kept in a jewelry box and worn to capture the eye of a visiting caller. Rabbage 10 compiled hundreds of pieces of information on the miniature revival, yet was unable to publish findings prior to his death in the 1990s. Based on his information, as well as my observations of the stylistic changes that occurred with the miniature, there appears to be value in determining reasons for the change in the post-1890s portrait miniature, its connection to the fine and decorative arts, and its artists who were previously uninvolved in the art form.
This study focuses primarily upon American miniatures, as the United States appeared to be the center and source of the revival. Portraits were of primary interest, as landscapes and still life were not significantly revived. Because Americans started painting miniatures from the time the Republic first evolved, it is interesting to study the evolution of the art form in a relatively new art society somewhat removed from
European academic restraints. Three fields of art dominating the United States from the
1890s to the 1930s can be examined as well for influence in the stylistic and leadership change of the miniature: the decorative, fine, and photographic arts. As this cannot be accomplished in one thesis, it is necessary to refine the areas of study into more distinct fields.
The Arts and Crafts philosophy and Art Nouveau Movement are examined as possible factors in establishing the new miniature’s color and form. These were major decorative influences of the time, although others such as the Aesthetic Movement certainly existed. The focus on the hand-crafted object of abstracted forms and colors found in these two primary movements appears to have directly impacted the revival efforts. 11
The American portraiture of John Singer Sargent and Mary Cassatt, and the
French artist Edgar Degas were chosen as clear visible influences and inspiration, especially in the areas of brushwork, new compositional devices. Sargent’s work had meaning to society he painted, while Cassatt appeared to be prominent through her level of abstraction with surroundings and props. Degas, master of brushwork especially with pastels, showed powerful ingenuity in his avant-garde practices as well.
The emergence of photography as an art form at this time is examined for its close association to small scale portraiture, as well as a fledgling pictorial art form.
Photography has long been labeled the villain, as it created a portraiture recession in the decades prior to the Miniature Revival and is said to have impacted the pre-1890s decline. It appears, however, to actually have contributed to the miniature revival at this time for more than historians have previously documented, particularly in its associations and desires to be accepted as a significant art form.
To better understand the revival’s occurrence beyond its stylistic development, the miniature revival is linked to the socio-economics of late 19th century United States.
In particular, patronage is considered as a critical source for the dependent miniature,
with the distinctive patrons defined in the form of influence they provided. The
miniature artists’ migration to New York, emerging as a key financial and artistic center
at this time, is also examined for its role at bastion of intellectual and artistic resources.
American artists are examined through their location – Greenwich Village – and the
living quarters of the time. The Portrait Miniature Revival was, in fact, to be relevant to
artists, patrons, collectors and scholars, as it developed into a late but valuable 12 manifestation of an ancient art form immersed in the modern forms of the early 20th century. 13
Chapter 1. History and Techniques to 1890
The first portrait miniatures were created by illuminated manuscript artists and watchmakers, predominantly men, in the 15th and 16th centuries. These early miniatures were of precise but naive form,1 and treated as tiny treasures, designed for intimate reflection while nestled in one’s palm or as a keepsake gift at a time when images of any
kind were rare.2 Early portrait miniatures were commonly displayed as articles of
adornment, and full-size portraits reveal they were often worn by the male or female
sitter on a chain or as a broach. (Figure 1). The wearing of a miniature, sometimes
referred to as a “jewel”, might have represented a secret or announced betrothal, a form
of promotion of oneself to a royal court, or even have designated a period of mourning,
depending on the sitter and wearer.3 Society valued the portrayal of these events and
certainly enjoyed seeing their tiny likenesses in color.
The portrait miniature, as evidenced by its name, is a small painting, typically of a
single individual. The term “miniature” originally referred to the red “minium” lead
outline used by limners4 – short for illuminators -- but later evolved to reference the size
of the standard portrait miniature, typically less than three inches in height and width.
The traditional miniature was a fresh but simple image translated through a medium to light color scheme and a subtle background. Most sitters were simply posed, adorned in
1 Katherine Coombs, The Portrait Miniature in England, 15. 2 Ibid., 13. 3 Sumner, A. and R. Walker, Secret Passion to Noble Fashion: The world of the Portrait Miniature, 11-15. 4 Katherine Coombs, The Portrait Miniature in England, 7. 14
Figure 1. Charles Wilson Peale. Mrs. Walter Stewart, 1782. Oil on canvas. Yale University, Connecticut. 15 remember one’s favorable likeness.
The miniature was meant for observance within one to two feet, thus the artist’s techniques were carefully scrutinized.5 The first miniatures were painted on a vellum
substrate, but later the preferred substrate became ivory due to its smooth, lustrous
surface. Ivory conjured luxury and exoticism as well, adding to its allure. Watercolor
paint was appropriate for use with both vellum and ivory, allowing for more minute
details than the more viscous oil-based paint favored for full-size portraiture. Brushwork
was unique to this traditional miniature; both stippling and cross-hatching were best for
applying watercolor pigment to the slightly matte, ivory surface (Figure 2). In William
Lovett’s The Hovey Sisters, for example, very few brushstrokes were discernable, mostly
in the hair and the garment details (Figure 3). The ivory, sandwiched between two thick pieces of glass, shimmers as one changes the angle of viewing, thus allowing for recognition of the object’s beauty and quality of construction simultaneously. It feels solid in the hand, perceived as worth its weight as a treasured object.
Just as important to the history of the miniature as its uses and techniques is the evolution of its artists. While the miniature tradition still is not regarded as a major art form, there were significant practitioners. Hans Holbein (1497-1543), a salaried limner of British King Henry XVIII, was an early miniaturist known for his dignified, detailed portrayals of royalty and court figures. While the art form preceded him, Holbein popularized the court miniature, subsequently giving it a stature previously unknown
(Figure 4). Nicholas Hilliard (1547-1619), inspired by Holbein, advanced the art form significantly through the use of symbolic props and by moving to a jewel-shaped, oval
5 Miniaturist E.D. Taylor, as told to Wharton, Heirlooms in Miniature, 240. 16
Figure 2. Charles Fraser. Det. Of Francis Kinloch Huger, 1825. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. 17
Figure 3. attributed to William Lovett. Rebecca and Debra Hovey, ca. 1798. Watercolor on ivory, 2 7/8 x2 3/8 in. Worcester Art Museum, Massachusetts.
18
Figure 4. Hans Holbein the Younger. Elizabeth, Lady Audley, 1564. Vellum laid on playing card, Circular, 2 ¼ in. Royal Collection, London. 19 frame much favored henceforth (Figure 5). British monarchs Elizabeth I and Victoria were avid collectors of their own miniature likenesses as well as those of their family and foes, as Elizabeth was known to have kept a miniature of Mary Queen of Scots close at hand. While Swiss, Italian, and French artists did not tend to specialize in the art form, the portrait miniature was well received on the European continent as well. Often the
Continental artists who painted miniatures were equally active in other fields, such as full-size portraiture (ex. Francois Clouet), illuminated manuscripts (Giulio Clovio), and landscape scenes (Fragonard) .
Many 18th century miniaturists migrated to and settled permanently in the United
States, often opening art schools to supplement their painting income. The schools
sponsored by Continental miniaturists were ultimately a key factor in the revival of the
miniature, as they were known to accept female pupils at the turn of the 19th Century.
Women artists were, in fact, involved in key historic advancements of the art form. As
early as 1700, Rosalba Carriera became the first known miniaturist, male or female, to
paint on ivory. The first miniaturist believed to have practiced in the United States was a
female artist named Mary Roberts (d. 1761) of Charleston, South Carolina.6 Although
men painted the majority of miniatures at this time, these women entered into the portrait
miniature artistic fold during this “golden age” of the art form, and it was soon
considered one of the few genres appropriate for women, along with still life, genre
scenes, and full-size portraiture. 7
6 Dale Johnson, American Portrait Miniatures in the Manney Collection, 15-16. 7 Ibid., 17. 20
Figure 5. Nicholas Hilliard. Elizabeth I, 1595-1600. Vellum laid on plain card, 2 1/8 x 1 ¾ in. Royal Collection, London.
21
The style of the late 18th century American miniature was predominantly the
fashionably light, airy colors and delicate expressions characteristic of British miniatures,
due to the close relationships between British and American artists that existed during
this period. John Singleton Copley led the American effort, combining distinct British-
style brushwork with the sense of realism evolving in American art at the time (Figure 6).
By the early 1800s, the miniature profession thrived throughout the United States. From
New York to Richmond, Virginia, through the mid west and as far south and west as New
Orleans, the miniature was pervasive.
The top American portraitists of the late 18th and early 19th centuries were often
miniaturists, including two generations of Peales – James, Raphaelle, and Anna
Claypoole-- Charles Frasier, and Benjamin Trott. The miniaturists Samuel Morse and
Henry Inman, co-founders of the National Academy of Design, boosted the popularity of the art form as well due to their high stature in the early 19th-Century art world. Anne
Hall (1792-1863), a miniaturist and the first woman elected to this Academy, was one of
several American women to develop the 19th-century style of idealized facial features. In
her work of an unknown woman (Figure 7), she reinforced the tiny size of the miniature
with the most delicate features of the sitter’s ringlet hairstyle, straightforward, longing
expression, and narrow profile shoulders. The smallish nose and mouth are offset by the
high lace collar which fans behind almost to the sitter’s ears. Other female miniaturists
from this period include Pamelia E. Hill, sisters Sarah and Eliza Goodridge, and Jane
Stuart, Gilbert Stuart’s daughter. Moses B. Russell and his wife, Clarissa Peters Russell both painted miniatures, teaming up so that he painted the male patrons while she painted 22
Figure 6. John Singleton Copley. Reverend Samuel Fayerweather, ca. 1760-61. Oil on gold-leafed copper, 3 x 21/2 in. Mabel Brady Garvan Collection.
23
Figure 7. Anne Hall. Unknown Lady, ca. 1825. Watercolor on ivory, 3 1/16 x 2 ½ in. Worcester Art Museum, Massachusetts.
24 the women and children.8 The portrait miniature was not lost for lack of inventive, outstanding artists of this time. Although the art form was dominated by men, women miniaturists possessed formidable presence.
As the miniature traveled west to California in the 1830s, it became more stylish and idealized, typified by the work of miniaturists such as Thomas Sully, whose records indicate he painted over 2500 full size portraits and 60 miniatures. In his depiction of his son Alfred, he emphasized the muted colors of the military uniform instead of the more traditional jewel tones. Sully then complemented the uniform with highlights of amber background, gold pin, and flushed complexion. Alfred’s glance away from the viewer was indicative of a freer miniature style as well. The typical understated, intimate portraits favored in the early 19th century did not appeal to the emerging, mid-century
middle class, however. Even before the invention of the daguerrotype was announced in
1839, the miniature was evolving. Nevertheless, photography had a major impact on the
miniature and miniaturist profession.
Early photographers based their work on the highly popular, well established
American miniature, particularly in the typical sitter’s pose, the oval shape of the image
and the framed case (Figure 8). A debate over which medium was preferable soon
emerged, particularly regarding the issue of reality. To combat this photographers hired
artists, many of whom previously were miniaturists, to colorize their black and white
photographs. Many would never return to their former profession. Another, more
8 Dale Johnson, 21-24. 25
Figure 8. Unknown photographer, Unidentified woman and child, ca. 1858. Ambrotype, two ninth plate. George Eastman House, New York.
26 serious detriment for the miniature appeared to be cost. Malbone was said to command
$50 for a miniature while a photograph cost less than $10. 9
It is widely claimed that the photograph completely eclipsed the portrait
miniature, and that practitioners of the miniature profession was either left jobless or
forced to become photographers or photographer’s assistants. The psychology of the new
middle class, however, may have dealt the harshest blow to the miniature. Victorian
society valued consistent character, closely linking it to heredity. The photograph was
believed to provide proof of this, especially through representation of one’s situation in
life with the inclusion of family members and props. Another American attitude
beginning to evolve at this time was that of the desire for individuality while maintaining
life “en masse”. According to Adele Heller, the desire for coherence while keeping an
open identity was central to Americans.10 In the case of the miniature versus the
photograph, the masses quickly embraced the photograph, as it was perceived to be a
fresh identity while adhering to the past pictorial framework of the portrait miniature.
Add to this the relative economy of the photographic process, and it is clear that the new
process was much favored over the miniature for the time period leading up to the turn of
the 20th century.
The decade of the 1890s, however, was one of rebirth for the miniature. While
portrait photography remained dominant, a few revived the miniature art form. Late 19th-
century miniaturist Eulabee Dix observed a local Grand Rapids, Michigan artist painting miniatures around 1895 and remarked on the artist’s traditional use of weak colors and
9 Martha Severens, The American Miniature Portrait Collection of the Carolina Art Association., xx. 10 Heller, A. and Rudnick, L. 1915, The Cultural Moment, 7. 27 harsh stippling. 11 The new interest is now referred to as the Miniature Revival, dating
c.1890-1930. Revival miniaturists such as Dix felt compelled to change the traditional
miniature art form. Just as the early miniature tradition was much influenced by
illuminated manuscripts and watch-making, Revival miniatures would be strongly
inspired by contemporary art and design movements.
11 Ridley, J., Looking for Eulabee Dix, 40. 28
Chapter 2. Contemporary influences on the Portrait Miniature
There were many reasons why, despite what has been written about it’s demise
following the invention of photography, that the portrait miniature experienced a revival
during the early 20th Century. The photograph, while a formidable opponent, never
completely replaced the miniature. Photographs provided a critical, black and white view of its sitters, who often felt fairer in their hearts than in photographic reality and much
preferred a more idealized image than the portrait miniature could provide. Wealthier
Americans could afford both photographs and miniatures, and commonly possessed both.
Alfred Baldry wrote in 1908 that the impact of photography on the miniature was initially
a loss in “decorative intention”, as a more realistic image developed, but a new, modern
miniature style had begun and was a part of an “aesthetic evolution”.12
Beginning in the 1890s the miniature did, in fact, develop a new manner; now
referred to as a revival. Functionally, the keepsake aspect of the portrait miniature was still present, but its use as personal adornment no longer appeared relevant. The miniatures of this time were now “…so remarkable that the effect suggested a gallery of finely studied life-size portraits seen through a diminishing-glass” as described by
Century Magazine writer Pauline King in 1900.13 By the 1930s, the portrait miniature
was referred to as a table portrait, once again reinforcing its role as a decorative and fine
art. This dual interpretation is significant, as both the fine and decorative arts were
relevant in shaping the style, artists, and substance of this modern portrait miniature.
12 Alfred Baldry, “Modern Miniature Painting.” The Studio 44, 171-9. 13 Pauline King, “American Miniature Painting”, Century Magazine V. 60, 824. 29
Small, portable decorative objects have long been in vogue. From Roman imperial coinage and portable Byzantine icons to Renaissance books of hours, love of tiny painted images lasted well into the late 19th Century and beyond. 19th Century
Victorian collectors were especially fond of small possessions. Youths were commonly
given items such as jacks, tiny books, and small doll house furnishings. All, like the
miniature portrait, slipped easily into the child’s pocket, and shared with friends.
Literally hundreds of these tiny toys were available at local five-and-dime stores. Small objects equally appealed to adults of the wealthier classes. At parties thrown for the
1890s, Gilded Age New York society of “Four Hundred”, hostesses such as Caroline
Astor provided each guest with tiny gifts—trinkets of papier mache, Dutch tiles, little fans, and other such miniature items.14 Small objects worth collecting were also the ideal
size for those embarking on the grand tour, as they required little attention, care, or space
when placed in a steamer trunk. Once arriving at their temporary or final destination,
these petite pieces needed little display room. Depending on the décor of one’s living
quarters, some small items might be displayed on walls, while others were kept in
cabinets to show to favored guests.
A taste for interior decoration had gained considerable interest by the mid 1800s.
Candace Wheeler’s writings widely popularized this interior design. Although her
influence on the portrait miniature is explored later in this paper, she is acknowledged as
a leader in determining American design, color and ornament.15 The focus on décor at
this time by artists, intellectuals, poets, and designers was advantageous for the miniature
14 J. Patterson, The First Four Hundred: Mrs. Astor’s New York in the Gilded Age, 67. 15 Amelia Peck, Candace Wheeler: The Art and Enterprise of American Design, Introduction. 30 portrait, as it was considered an appropriate decorative option to the photograph. Color and ornament were, in fact, the strong suits of the miniature, thus firmly linking the art form with the decorative arts.
The portrait miniature revival is therefore strongly connected to many late 19th and early 20th Century decorative art movements. The Pre-Raphaelites and their critical
supporter, John Ruskin, actively promoted in the mid to late-1800s the idea that fine art
and the decorative arts were synonymous,16 which strengthened the status of items such as the portrait miniature due to its dual role as art and finely crafted display item. Ruskin and the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood possessed the philosophy that the process for making art was as significant as the finished product itself. This was an indirect endorsement of the painstaking, hand-painted miniature as opposed to the “mechanically” produced photograph. This emerging Arts and Crafts movement, inspired by Ruskin and led by
William Morris, was critical of all industrial-age machine practices and encouraged handmade objects for the home, made of natural materials and created by both men and women of craft. The National Arts Club, founded in 1898 to link artists with collectors, featured the Arts and Crafts style in its first season, demonstrating their interest in Arts and Crafts philosophies.17 Miniaturist Laura Coombs Hills, an illustrator and designer of
pottery, needlepoint, and cross-stitch, was a member of the Society of Arts and Crafts in
Boston. Revival miniaturists benefited from the Arts and Crafts momentum, in particular
the dual-gender acceptance of artists in addition to the movement’s desire for hand-made
objects.
16 Paul Greenhalgh, Art Nouveau 1890-1914, 131. 17 Catherine Johnson, Stieglitz and the Photo-Secession 1902, 14-15. 31
The early 20th century gave rise to a related movement, Art Nouveau. Generated from Arts and Crafts principles, but incorporating vine-like, abstracted organic forms in architecture and interior design, Art Nouveau was an expression of the modern. Paul Greenhalgh reflected concerning the 2000 Victoria and Albert Museum exhibition of Art Nouveau 1890-1914, “It was an obvious requirement that modern objects looked modern: artists and designers had to do something that changed the look of things.”18 That philosophy was evident in the work
of Louis Comfort Tiffany (1848-1933), who created decorative glass and interiors of
fluid, saturated colors reflecting abstract forms favored by many modern miniaturists.
Tiffany first displayed his works at the Exposition Universelle in Paris of 1900, with his
leaded favrile glass, three-panel folding screen considered the key piece of his display, revealing his focus on natural form and vibrant color (Figure 9).19
Laura Coombs Hills’ colorful, pictorial style represented perhaps the obvious link
between Tiffany, Art Nouveau, and the Miniature Revival. She exhibited at the Paris
Exposition Universelle of 1900, winning a bronze medal for The Bride (Figure 10). She
subsequently created a 5 ¾ x 4 ¼ -inch work entitled The Nymph in 1908 (Figure 11), an
oval image of a young woman lost in a sea of brilliant blue and green strokes that billow
around her. The traces of the subject’s head and limbs are the only glimpse we have of
reality, while the image pulsates with activity and color. Similar Tiffany-influence is
found in Hills’ The Black Mantle (Figure 12) where the loose, painterly brushwork is
confined largely to the abstract background. Both miniatures allude to Tiffany’s
18 Paul Greenhalgh, 19. 19 Ibid., 410. 32
Figure 9. Louis Comfort Tiffany. Three-panel folding screen, c. 1900. Leaded favrile glass in bronze frame. Lillian Nassau Ltd., New York. 33
Figure 10. Laura Coombs Hills. The Bride, 1908. Watercolor on ivory, 5 1/8 x 3 1/8 in. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. 34
Figure 11. Laura Coombs Hills. The Nymph, 1908. Watercolor on ivory, 5 ¾ x 4 ½ in. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. 35
Figure 12. Laura Coombs Hills. The Black Mantle, 1906. Watercolor on ivory, 6 7/8 x 5 1/16 in.
36 production of nature-inspired color and shape, especially the Exposition Universelle folding screen with its cool color combinations, shapes of fruit and flowers, and abstracted green panels below. Hills’ sitter appears almost to be placed in front of this magnificent screen. This combination of pictorialism, sensed from Hills’ titles and theatrical sitters, and decoration through color and form punctuated the modern miniature in a striking, modern manner.
Through the work of Tiffany and others, the Art Nouveau movement inspired renewed interest in beautiful objects for the home and for personal adornment. Tiffany incorporated natural forms of orchids and irises into the design of jewelry, while Rene
Lalique (1860-1945) demonstrated “…the groundwork for the ultimate modern bijou” according to Emile Galle and others.20 Similar to Revival miniaturists, Lalique used his technical and artistic training, along with an informal study of nature he had pursued since childhood, to create original forms and color schemes. The stone of greatest use and prominence for Lalique and other prominent Art Nouveau jewelry designers was opal, known for its fiery display of sparkling colors. This may have been the impetus for
Hills’ Fire Opal in 1899, a work of soft curves and carefully placed splashes of gold and pastel colors. More compelling was Lalique’s use of ivory, revived as a precious material for jewelry in the 1890s after King Leopold II of Belgium initiated trade with the
Congo.21 Lalique began to utilize ivory in 1894, backing it with gold to create variations
of color, especially in the three-dimensional orchid carvings he designed and produced.
Ivory was valued by jewelry designers for its own color as well, and for its tactile surface.
20 Paul Greenhalgh, 237. 21Ibid., 240. 37
Along with Tiffany and Lalique, jewelry designer Alphonse Mucha (1860-1939) responded to aesthetic and craft influences by incorporating miniature portraits into his
Art Nouveau creations (Figure 13). His bodice ornaments, known as parures, connected several decorative elements with tiny chains of precious metal. Larger pendants of his design often featured miniatures of maidens of Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood inspiration not unlike Hill’s Nymph, particularly in the subjects’ serene expression. Whether his designs reached the Unites States or inspired patrons in any way to rekindle their love for the miniature of adornment is unknown, but such a clear physical link between major new and revival movements is valuable in establishing why the miniature revival occurred. It is also worthwhile to speculate upon the influence of the portrait miniature on artists and designers such as Lalique and Mucha, who had to have been aware of its historic roots.
The emerging attitude toward decorative arts, whatever the style, surely inspired young artists to revive and revise the portrait miniature while lending credence to the idea that it could be a legitimate fine arts form. The clientele of the period who purchased
Arts and Crafts or Art Nouveau jewelry would undoubtedly have been attracted to fashionable miniature paintings. Modern art was in full swing as well by the turn of the
20th Century. The more radical headlines of the day reported on Fauvist paintings or
Rodin sculptures, but the majority of fine art collectors and critics considered the greatest modern art to be the unparalleled portraiture of expatriate John Singer Sargent (1856-
1925). Full-sized portraiture, considered by many to be the “backbone of American Art”,
was typically a highly valued commission hung prominently and used as a calling card 38
Figure 13. Alphonse Mucha. Bodice ornament, c. 1900. Gold, ivory, enamel, opals, pearls, and colored gemstones. Mucha Trust. 39 for sitters and artists alike. 22 It came in various forms and media at this time including
oils, pastels, and the relative newcomer, photography. Each played a significant role in
the revival of the portrait miniature.
William Morris Hunt of Boston was one of the first artists in the mid-19th Century to break away from highly detailed, aristocratic portraits to a more realistic appearance for the more than 200 portraits he painted. Both he and Sargent were influenced by
Barbizon painter Jean-Francois Millet.23 The newly popular Sargent, known for his
personal representations while seemingly applying few brush strokes, was considered the
most fashionable of portraitists. Prominent families were compelled to enlist Sargent in
the creation of their posterity-- the Vanderbilts commissioned him for no less than six
family portraits.24 One of Sargent’s many talents was to enhance a patron’s attractiveness
or ideal nature. The attribution of confidence, which is appealing regardless of one’s
actual circumstances, was one of the expressions that many of Sargent’s patrons found
favorable in his work. His many techniques to achieve an air of self-confidence created
mass appeal for his works.25 Sargent’s painting of Ena and Betty, Daughters of Asher
and Mrs. Wertheimer (1901, 73 x 51 ½ in.) is a prime example of the confident air and
bravura style desired by and undoubtedly exuded by his sitters (Figure 14). Their
gestures, expressions, and surroundings are open and vibrant. To accentuate the notion of assuredness along with a peaceful persona, Sargent used ruddy colors especially in flesh tones, to derive a sense of general vitality. Sargent’s sitters were posed in relaxed, easy
22 Michael Quick, M. Sadik, and W. Gerdts, American portraiture in the Grand Manner: 1720-1920, 7. 23 Ibid., 52-3. 24 Rachel Carley and R. Rennicke, A Guide to Biltmore Estate, 106-117. 25 Elaine Kilmurry and R. Ormond, John Singer Sargent, 23-4. 40
Figure 14. John Singer Sargent. Ena and Betty, Daughters of Asher and Mrs. Wertheimer, 1901. Oil on canvas, 73 x 51 ½ in. Tate Britain Museum, London.
41 gestures with backdrops of sparse yet fine furnishings. The result of capturing individuals and family members in the fashion of Sargent was an air of established presence.
Sargent’s widespread popularity was emulated by many artists, including miniaturists such as Eulabee Dix. Dix had traveled to England and France since 1904, and thus was undoubtedly aware of Sargent’s influence and appeal. The aspect of capturing deeper personal qualities such as self-confidence with few brushstrokes was achievable in miniatures, where deftness was a hallmark feature. Some of Eulabee’s better works were in the Sargent style, such as The Sisters, (1908, 4 ½ x 3 ¾ in.). In this portrait (Figure 15), Dix established a unity of color, both in the sitters and the background, to express a poised, calm demeanor in the positioning of the unnamed young women. Their expressions are composed to the point of near stiffness. Their garments and props are defined, yet somewhat out of focus. In Sargent’s Mrs. Fiske Warren
(Gretchen Osgood) and her Daughter Rachel (1903, 60 x 40 3/8 in.), the same layered, obtuse expressions and postures are seen (Figure 16).
Portraits of children were a common commission for Sargent, although not typically on an individual basis but as an inclusion in family portraits. When painting the child, he could develop a second, equally desirable human quality of charm, a personal trait at least as desirable in portraiture as self-confidence. Eulabee Dix, with her limited space, often had the freedom to feature an individual child. Both artists appeared to have developed a most relaxed rendering of this subject matter. In Sargent’s Sir George
Sitwell, Lady Ida Sitwell, and Family (1900, 67 x 76 in.), Tate Britain, London, the adults 42
Figure 15. Eulabee Dix. The Sisters, 1908. Watercolor on ivory, 4 ½ x 3 ¾ in. Worcester Art Museum, Massachusetts. Gift of Lewis Hoyer Rabbage.
43
Figure 16. John Singer Sargent. Mrs. Fiske Warren and her Daughter Rachel, 1903. Oil on canvas, 60 x 40 3/8 in. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. 44 are formal and focused whereas the two children are lost in their activity as they play with the beloved family dog (Figure 17). Eulabee found an equally charming way of capturing the unaware child in miniature, as in the case of her own first-born child Philip.
In Philip Dix Becker as a Baby of Six Months (3 in. dia., 1912), Metropolitan Museum of
Art, Dix incorporates the adorable infant; it’s distant focus, and the surrounding fine accoutrements create an effective portrait of fascinating detail (Figure 18). From the blue booties to the out-of-focus painting technique as backdrop, the fuzzy morning clothes to the casually draped bib, the mood is intimate, elegant, and full of charm. Dix ultimately gained a more pronounced, personal focus in miniatures of children, such as a second rendering of her son Philip, a work 2 3/8 inches in diameter, in 1914 (Figure 19).
Historically, miniatures of adults and children alike were usually much less animated, as the Hovey sisters painted at nearly equal size by William Lovett a century prior (Figure
3).
Children were often the focus of many other early 20th Century portraits.
Compositional techniques were often similar, such as the posing of a child in vague
surroundings, encompassing the entire image by the sitter, with hands and feet almost as
an afterthought. The American expatriate Impressionist painter Mary Cassatt was
considered a master of the time in the rendering of children. In Cassatt’s work Spring:
Margot standing in a Garden (oil on canvas, 26 3/4 x 22 3/4 in.) painted in 1900, she
created a captivating yet endearing subject, demonstrating her place as the premiere artist
of the genre (Figure 20). Margot is found in the foreground focused to the distant right surrounded by an undetailed garden in the background. It is the little girl’s hat and 45
Figure 17. John Singer Sargent. Sir George Sitwell, Lady Ida Sitwell and Family, 1900. Oil on canvas, 67x76 in. Private collection. 46
Figure 18. Eulabee Dix. Philip Dix Becker as a Baby of Six Months, 1912. Watercolor on ivory, 3 in. diameter. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. 47
Figure 19. Eulabee Dix. Philip Dix Becker, 1914. Watercolor on ivory set in lid of ivory box, 2 3/8 in. diameter. The National Museum of Women in the Arts, Washington, D.C.
48
Figure 20. Mary Cassatt. Spring: Margot Standing in a Garden, 1900. Oil on canvas, 26 ¾ x 22 ¾ in. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
49 garment which captivate the viewer, as well as her contemplative, childlike expression.
Each item is compelling for its color, dominating brushstrokes and appearance of texture and variety. Dix could have known Cassatt’s work, as she was certainly well known by the early 20th Century. Also, both were in France at similar times. Eulabee painted her
grandson, Horace Philip Dix III, (1928, 3 ¾ in. dia.) much later with a similar focus and
brushwork, creating texture and a broadened base of expression through eyes, hair, and
relation to objects (Figure 21). Horace’s ruddy complexion, fuzzy red sweater, and silky black companion are indicative of influence by Cassatt. The lack of support props, coupled with the advanced textures and colors, allowed for the cuddly innocence of the young sitter to emanate from the ivory.
The American Impressionists and contemporary miniaturists had much in common. Both spent time in artist colonies to avoid the stress of industrial society, save money, and to work in contact with each other.26 Both were especially resistant to the
traditional focus on meticulous techniques. Appropriately, Laura Coombs Hills exhibited
with Frank Weston, William Merritt Chase, Childe Hassam, and Joseph Decamp at the
16th Annual Poland Spring, Maine Exhibition.27 Although the actual works she exhibited
are not known, the link between American Impressionism and American revival
miniatures was deemed significant. Just prior to the exhibit, Hills was creating more soft
compositions such as Margaret Curzon Hale and The Bride. The Nymph was also newly
painted, demonstrating her ability to explore fresh ideas. After the exhibition, she painted
Laddy Greene, Bertha Coolidge, and Little Agnes. These works, although commissioned,
26 H. Barbara Weinberg, American Impressionists Abroad and at Home, 19. 27 Historical Society of Old Newbury, Laura Coombs Hills: A Retrospective, 41. 50
Figure 21. Eulabee Dix. Horace Philip Dix III, 1928. Watercolor on ivory, 3 ¾ in. diameter. Courtesy of Samuel M. Dix.
51 reveal the influence of Weston, Chase, and Hassam, with the blurring of garments and backgrounds, brighter highlights, Japanese prints, and peculiar shadowing of the face which Hills incorporated for years to come.
The Impressionist image was most often of a dual design: it appeared casual, yet captured formal, elegant wealthy subjects. For Impressionist Joseph Decamp (1858-
1923) and miniaturist Leila Waring (1876-1964),28 the most dominant, relative aspect to
their works was the duality of the compelling yet stark background. Decamp
demonstrates this in Blue Bird (Figure 22, 1917, oil on canvas, 32 x 32 in.). The
silhouette of the bird is secondary to the strongly lit, brocade white gown of the woman who is enveloped in a somber, sallow green room. We sense the mood of the woman,
perhaps caged in her own life, as her thoughts of the bird register in her expression. In
Afternoon Tea (A Cup of Tea, Dorothy Waring) (3 x 2.75 in., 1923), Waring produced the same dominant background, although the drama is expressed in the vibrant orange hue backing the sitter’s emerald green dress (Figure 23). The highlights of both paintings steal the viewer’s attention through aggressive brush strokes, but the shadows reveal the depth of the moment. The work captures a more dramatic moment than the traditional miniature portrait was known to express.
Another Impressionist who unabashedly ignored adornment in favor of color usage and expressive brush work was Edgar Degas (1834-1917), one of the most astute at capturing the everyday aspects of modern life, particularly in pastel. Popular with several
Impressionists, pastel was ideal for artists searching for new methods. It was portable,
28 A revival miniaturist known for maintaining tradition while simultaneously striving to modernize miniatures with direct, personal focus and vibrant color, Leila Waring was a native of Charleston, South Carolina and a distant relative of the extremely successful early 19th Century miniaturist Edward Malbone. 52
Figure 22. Joseph Decamp. Blue Bird, 1917. Oil on canvas, 32 x 32 in. Adelson Galleries, New York.
53
Figure 23. Leila Waring. Afternoon Tea (A Cup of Tea, Dorothy Waring), 1923. Watercolor on ivory, 3 x 2 ¾ in. Gibbes Museum of Art, Charleston.
54 not encumbered with the several accessories of oil painting, was quicker to dry, and possessed a wide range of colors, all similar to the needs of the miniaturist when painting at a patron’s home. Pastel painting was later compared more closely with watercolor painting, as the two arts blended techniques so much that “…it’s hard to tell which art [it is] at first”, according to a writer for Art Amateur in 1890.29
Although we may never fully comprehend the entire development of pastel by
Degas, his subjects and style were influential in key, measurable ways. He developed
more vibrant colors by chemically changing his commercially produced pastels, then
used color to bring subjects, who were socially invisible and rarely embellished, together.
This distinguished them just as revival miniaturists attempted to differentiate
compositional aspects by using rich jewel tones to entice patrons, such as Eulabee Dix’s
rendering of Mark Twain (Figure 24): Dix requested that he wear his scarlet, Oxford
robe. Degas also used dynamic crosshatching, familiar to revival miniaturists due to its
use in traditional miniatures, to add substance as witnessed in Seated Woman (Figure 25,
28 x 22 7/8 in., 1895). The large hatching provided support for the smaller, figural-based
hatch marks on the face and body.
Pastel painters and miniaturists appeared to be linked, then, both in revival fervor
and modern style. Beyond Degas’ masterly additions to the art form, other stylistic
similarities prevailed. Cassatt’s pastels compare well to many of the revival miniaturists’
watercolor techniques, mostly due to similar use of hues and visible brush strokes in her
pastels of the popular subject matter of children. In her painting of Margot in Orange
Dress (Figure 26, 28 5/8 x 23 5/8 in., 1902), the figural representation of a child donning
29 Doreen Bolger and N. Cikovsky. American Art Around 1900, 15. 55
Figure 24. Eulabee Dix. Mark Twain, 1908. Watercolor on ivory, 4 ½ x 3 ¼ in. National Portrait Gallery, Washington, D.C.
56
Figure 25. Edgar Degas. Seated Woman, 1895. Pastel on paper, 28 x 22 7/8 in. The Woodner Family Collection, New York. 57
Figure 26. Mary Cassatt. Margot in Orange Dress, 1902. Pastel on wove paper mounted on linen, 28 5/8 x 23 5/8 in. The collection of James Stillman. 58 a brightly colored dress who appears to have just climbed into a soft green chair is one solid, complete image. Although the colors may have inspired Leila Waring in her painting of Afternoon Tea (Figure 23), the softness of the strokes of color and the direction up and to the right, as the child also apparently moved in that direction, are also found in portrait miniatures of the time. The sketch-like, pastel strokes are mirrored by
Eulabee Dix in many of her works. In Joan and Dix (Figure 27, 7 ¾ x 5 ¾ in., 1918) for example, Dix uses color and diagonal, deliberate brushwork simultaneously to soften yet provide dynamicism to the portrait. The image appears more unified and less staid with this combination of techniques. Compared with Dix’s Mrs. Harriet Cowles (figure 28, 3
1/8 in. dia., 1920-25), which demonstrates the paint movement technique owed more toward watercolor, the pastel approach seems well suited to the modern miniature for its more delicate results.
Pastelists and miniaturists manipulated color to highlight and abstract details.
Pastelist Thomas W. Dewing (1851-1938) created a most dramatic example of such highlights in The Evening Dress (Figure 29, 14 ½ x 11 in., before 1926). The highlights, in fact, appear sporadic but with further study are an integral part of the composition, with the primary highlight centered on the brown paper. This was often the case for the revival miniature, as the sitter’s head and chest occupied a central spot, but the details highlighted in gold, pink, or orange brought completeness and breadth to the composition. Fellow Bostonian Laura Coombs Hills studied in her early career under the assistant to William Morris Hunt, thus her understanding of the influence and use of color was compounded. Her paintings of Bertha Coolidge (6 x 4 ¼ in., 1911) and Little Agnes 59
Figure 27. Eulabee Dix. Joan and Dix, 1918. Watercolor on ivory, 7 ¾ x 5 ¾ in. Joan Becker Gaines. 60
Figure 28. Eulabee Dix. Mrs. Harriet Cowles, ca. 1920-1925. Watercolor on ivory, 3 1/8 in. diameter, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. 61
Figure 29. Thomas W. Dewing. The Evening Dress, before 1926. Pastel on brown wove paper, mounted on cardboard, 14 ½ x 11 in. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. 62
(Agnes Mackintosh) (6 x 4 ¼ in., 1911) best exhibit the approach to highlighted color.
Coolidge, a relation to a Museum of Fine Arts, Boston trustee, is awash in neutral shades
but is balanced by highlights of pink and orange. Agnes’s sparkling blonde hair, a rare
commodity with Hills, whose body of works is primarily auburn men and women, was
striking for her several highlights including a highly-detailed white skirt and shiny black
patent-leather shoes.
Lastly, both pastelists and miniaturists allowed the substrate to emphasize their
media. Degas, for example, selected specific pretreated papers, fabrics, and even tracing
paper to showcase the color and texture of pastels, while miniaturists allowed the ivory to
provide glowing complexions. All of these pastel techniques were easier to create than
other media for Cassatt, Degas, and Monet, who all suffered from failing eyesight.30
Miniaturists had similar physical limitations. Eulabee Dix wrote of painting all day and resting her eyes at night, never reading but keeping a journal “for company”.31 Laura
Coombs Hills, whose art exhibition debut was sixteen pastels, exclaimed at a time when
her eyesight began to fail, that she “…kicked up [her] heels on a pastel. It certainly is bright.”
Alfred Stieglitz, founder of the fine art movement in American photography, was a supporter of pastel work, supporting it in Gallery “291” exhibitions and the publication
Camera Work. He, like Ruskin, believed that art should not be differentiated as “major” and “minor”, thus elevating pastels to the designations of watercolor and, more so, oil.32
30 E. John Bullard, Mary Cassatt: Oils and Pastels, 18-20. 31 Jo Ann Ridley, 48. 32Doreen Bolger, 22-3. 63
His belief may have been applicable to the revival miniature. He was additionally linked to the miniaturists through photographer Gertrude Kasebier, a friend and colleague of
Eulabee Dix.
Proponents such as Stieglitz, expressing a need to advance photography from mere documentation of life to more of an art form, loosely organized themselves to form the Photo-Secession, a Pictorialist group who first exhibited in 1902. The stark realism of the traditional photograph was de-emphasized by the Photo-Secessionists in their search for a more self-expressive, modern visual language, often based upon
Impressionism and the Barbizon School.33 Photographers such as Stieglitz, Steichen,
White, and Kasebier stressed a pictorial effect through tonal quality, appropriate use of
lines and soft curves, and suppression of details.34 They also began, as the revival
miniaturists did, to capture the same contemplative gaze found in oil portraiture of the
time. Photography and portrait miniature art were therefore linked in a period of new
freedoms of technique and subject matter unmatched since before photography’s
inception.35
Laura Coombs Hills produced works closely related to those by the Photo-
Secessionists. In her technique for capturing the essence of the sitter, a critical capability
according to revival miniaturist E.D. Taylor,36 she used a wide range of highlights and
shadows within a single hue. Her subjects were a mix of patrons and models, but
regardless of the sitter she typically focused on the facial expression and an overall
33 Catherine Johnson, Stieglitz and the Photo-Secession 1902, 29. 34 Robert Doty, Photo-Secession: Stieglitz and the Fine-Art Movement in Photography, 28. 35 Catherine Johnson, 3. 36 Anne Wharton, Heirlooms in Miniatures, 239. 64 reduction in image sharpness as though she favored Pictorialism. Hills’ miniature of The
Bride (1908, 5 1/8 x 3 1/8 in., Figure 10) and Gertrude Kasebier’s earlier photograph of the same title (Figure 30, 1905), show the similarity of the two art forms. Both seemed intent to depict beauty in a single moment, presenting not a scene but a compilation of tones highlighting a mysterious, veiled subject. Kasebier’s bridal image was focused less on the face than the veil, with a backlit profile of a serene woman in a private moment.
The other, more usual bridal accoutrements of gown, jewelry, and hairstyle were subordinated to emphasize through light and darkness the pictorial value of the image.
Hills’ bride is similar in profiled pose, yet we are aware of this subject as a whole: a portrait of a Mrs. Haywood in her own wedding gown, most probably in the act of meditation as she fingers her spiritual prayer book. The blue-gray headpiece takes its voluminous place in the light, multi-tonal painting, but all else merges into a single object save for the distinguishing lace and the small gold band on the sitter’s hand.
We can surmise that Hills painted The Bride by commission due to the dress detail and the ornate frame. Kasebier photographed more standard portraits, probably commissions, providing additional inspiration to miniaturists of the time. She uniquely captured the attention of Dorothy Trimble Tiffany (Figure 31) as Dorothy turned her doll away from the camera, a pose showing happiness but reserve. The Tiffany image is similar to Laura Coombs Hills’ miniature portraits of children, which were painted later in her career but at the peak of the miniature revival. Hills’ sitters appear demonstrative in expression, as revealed in such charming images as Margaret Curzon Hale (Figure
32), 6 ¾ x 4 ¾ inches, painted in 1907 and Hills’ niece, Dorothy Stevens (Figure 33), 65
Figure 30. Gertrude Kasebier. The Bride, 1905 or before. Gum bichromate print, 10 3/8 x 7 ¾ in. The Museum of Modern Art, New York. 66
Figure 31. Gertrude Kasebier. Dorothy Trimble Tiffany, 1899. Platinum print, 8 x 6 in. Collection of Michael John Burlingham. 67
Figure 32. Laura Coombs Hills. Margaret Curzon Hale (early), 1907. Watercolor on ivory, 6 ¾ x 4 ¾ in. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
68
Figure 33. Laura Coombs Hills. Dorothy Stevens, 1893-99. Watercolor on ivory, 1 7/8 in. diameter. Private collection. 69
painted between 1893 and 1899-- a mere 1 7/8 inches in diameter. Their gazes are steady
and compelling, directly connecting with the viewer as opposed to the more bewitching
look of Kasebier’s subject. Hills was described as having a good rapport with which to
capture the sitter’s individuality and achieve this directness.37 Despite the pressure of
commissions, both artists’ works are fresh and revealing, with fore to middle ground
placement and minimal props.
Kasebier used props as essential aspects of compositions, as in a portrait of the
miniaturist Eulabee Dix (Figure 34, platinum print, 8 x 6 1/8 in., ca. 1907). Dix’s interesting face was balanced in importance by the massive, sable muff placed in her lap.
Gertrude placed her in surroundings as though she were traveling about New York City, where the two presumably met. The sable muff is echoed through the entire image by the overall image tint and the soft brown hat, scarf, and coat. Dix painted a miniature of
Kasebier as well, which is unfortunately now lost. A photograph of it reveals a guarded
Kasebier, reflective of her successful commercial status at the time (Figure 35). Dix placed her in the foreground, simply but professionally attired, highlighted and shadowed in a similar style to what Kasebier displayed in Dix’s portrait. They portrayed one another in perhaps the truest expression of themselves: Kasebier as an established businesswoman and serious artist, and Dix as a social arbiter and zealous arranger of portrait sittings. Mark Twain sat for both artists as well, signifying their mutual success at portraying society’s top personalities. Twain recognized both artists and art forms as relevant to the American art world.
37 Historical Society of Old Newbury, 31. 70
Figure 34. Gertrude Kasebier. Eulabee Dix, ca. 1907. Platinum print, 8 x 6 1/8 in. The National Museum of Women in the Arts, Washington, D.C. 71
Figure 35. Eulabee Dix. Gertrude Kasebier, 1906. Photographed copy, Lewis Rabbage files, Worcester Art Museum, Massachusetts. 72
It is evident that portraiture, whether by oil, pastel, or photograph, was a driving force in the early 20th Century art market. New techniques for creating a pictorial impression moved from the traditional portrait design to projection of an image through expression, highlight and shadow, and compositional duality. Eulabee Dix and Laura
Coombs Hills, in particular, found the impetus to express a modern miniature of dynamic energy yet refinement. When combined with the influence of the decorative arts, there is little doubt that influences for a more modern miniature, from finely crafted works of abstracted nature and color to portraits of a confident, youthful society, were readily available and thoroughly utilized. 73
Chapter 3. The Socio- Economic Status of the Revival Miniature
The fine and decorative arts were a major artistic force behind the modern style of the portrait miniature, but a primary factor in the success of the revived art form may have been the necessary marketing and financial support. Support came from the artists, patrons, and ultimately from the miniaturist’s early 20th century surroundings. The artists’ relationships to their patrons is an essential part of the revival as well, as marketing efforts were undoubtedly linked to the social situation in America and the evolution of the portrait miniature into an almost exclusively women’s pursuit.
The early 20th-century miniaturist was, according to Revival expert Lewis
Rabbage, “…a profile in ‘gentility’…all [miniaturists were] solid, comfortable, middle
class (at least) in background.”38 Adding to this profile was the overwhelming
involvement of women, even though it is established that women have always played a
role in the history of the portrait miniature. It is known that less than 10% of the
miniature revivalists were men, not only because of their shift to the more successful
photograph but also due to the wave of women’s movements promoting career, the right
to vote, and inclusion in public life overall. The Gibson Girl, an illustration based on
Charles Dana Gibson’s powerful wife, Irene Langhorne of Virginia (Figure 36), captured
the essence of the time: freedom, competence, and strength.
As the Gibson Girl indicates, public perception was beginning to change concerning what women were capable of doing, particularly after the nationwide depression of 1873 when women were needed to contribute financially to their families, or were left
38 Lewis Rabbage’s lecture notes, November 1, 1994, Washington, D.C. lecture, 8, Worcester Art Museum. 74
Figure 36. Charles Dana Gibson. Gibson Girl, 1895. Illustration, ink on paper, 9 1/3 x 6 1/3 in. Private collection. 75 homeless. Candace Wheeler created the Society of Decorative Art (SDA) in 1877 to
“…encourage profitable industries among women who possess artistic talent, and to furnish a standard of excellence and a market for their work.” The SDA sought to ease the tension of middle class women who now needed to work, and provided support when other art societies were not accepting women as members. 39 Although there is no
documentation that miniaturists were related to the efforts of the SDA, Laura Coombs
Hills was a member of the Women’s Art Club and a supporter of the Women’s
Educational and Industrial Union, both in Boston. Founded in 1877, the Women’s
Educational and Industrial Union went beyond the field of the arts to advance women in the greater workforce while providing financial, legal, and medical services for them.40
Laura Coombs Hills designed and orchestrated benefit events for the organization’s
annual pageant fundraiser, creating its program and designing costumes for several
years.41
As miniaturists attempted to initiate their careers, they experienced gender issues
within their own circle. Men continued to dominate miniaturist circles, even as a
minority. William Baer, a miniaturist and leader in the revival efforts, claimed privately
that female miniaturists were taking food from his children’s mouths.42 Isaac Josephi was elected leader of the first modern miniaturist association, a group dominated by women yet apparently yielding to the few men still involved. Perhaps, too, they felt a man’s leadership lent credibility to the group. Another stumbling block may have come
39 Peck, 26-8. 40 Historical Society of Old Newbury, 9. 41 Ibid. 42 Letter dated February 23, 1908, from Mary Tannahill to Anna Margaretta Archambault, founder of the Philadelphia School of Miniature Painting, Lewis Rabbage files. 76 from the complications of choosing between painting and raising children or managing a household, the latter two being exclusively female assignments in the late 19th and early
20th Centuries. Laura Coombs Hills remained single, crediting her sister with handling
all domestic problems while allowing her to paint, and quipped, “God bless a single
sister.”43 Rosa Hooper and Eulabee Dix each were divorced, Dix being financially cut off in “Lilly Bart”44 style, remaining a single mother and sole supporter of two children.
Motherhood did not seem to agree with Dix’s artistic output, however, as she commented on lack of painting time while her children were young. Her colleague Robert Henri, a founder of the Ash Can School of painters, encouraged her to continue, telling her to
“Keep on painting – you are too fine a painter not to keep at it.”45
Regardless of these varying opinions of men and women competing for commissions,
Rabbage pointed out that, “…there is no evidence that any [miniaturists] were above considering their art careers as fundamental, financially and otherwise, to the end of their
lives.”46 As miniaturists could no longer hope for the pre-photographic guarantee of
unlimited commissions and salaries, they were required to create patronage with
marketing strategies previously unknown. It must have been daunting to consider
painting portrait miniatures at a point when the photograph was so well entrenched and
the artists so new to the marketing of art. Previous patrons of the miniature reappeared,
but they were not the same patrons as previously supported this genre.
43 Erica Hirshler, A Studio of Her Own: Women Artists in Boston 1870-1940, 67. 44 Bart was an Edith Wharton literature character who died from financial hardship. 45 Robert Henri, Letter to E. Dix dated November 18, 1915, Lewis Rabbage files. 46 Lewis Rabbage’s lecture notes, November 1, 1994, Washington, D.C., 8. 77
Unlike the world of the traditional miniature, where monarchs commissioned portraits for personal reflection, the new money of America promoted conspicuous consumption and outward demonstration of wealth. The number of millionaires in the United States just prior to the time of the country’s Centennial anniversary numbered about forty.
Within two decades, the number had jumped to 10,000, as transportation, industrial production, and retail were lucrative: the term Gilded Age was a justification of the age.
Purchase power of the Unites States was fifteen times greater than it is today.47 The
“New York 400” spent their money on homes and their decoration, traveled to international fairs such as the Centennial (1876) and World’s Columbian (1892)
Expositions, and enjoyed lengthy Grand Tours where they learned of the great masters
and the finest creators of family portraiture.48
These new millionaires purchased art directly from artists at expositions, salons,
art society exhibitions and dealers. As Ralph Bergengren reflected in 1922, it was a time
“…when art all at once became very much alive and socially inclined in New York and
Boston, and art ‘shows’ of one kind and another became fashionable functions; in fact it
was only as they became fashionable functions that art exhibitions came to be called
‘shows’.”49 The National Academy of Design, founded in 1825 and considered to be the
preeminent art organization by both artists and patrons, sponsored such a show in 1894 entitled “Portraits of Women”.50 Over 800 portraits and 300 miniatures were displayed,
47 Rabbage, 1994, 12. 48 Ibid. 49 Ralph Bergengren, “Putting into Immediate Function a British-American Alliance in Miniature”, Boston Evening Transcript, Jan 4, 1922. 50 Rabbage, 1994, 12. 78 with the exhibition so well received that portraiture in the United States again became a strong commodity.
The miniaturists of the early 20th century undoubtedly benefited from the
“Portraits of Women” show with its strong component of the speciality. Its newly found popularity may also have helped inspire the founding the American Society of Miniature
Painters in March 1899. Based in New York City at the Knoedler Galleries, its mission was two-fold: to provide “self-protection” from poor techniques, and to educate clientele on the best miniature artistry available. The ASMP’s reputation was based on an annual, juried salon event like that of the National Academy of Design, where miniatures painted
“from life”—not from a photograph—were displayed for purchase or to lead to future commissions. Awards were given to members and invited nonmembers, but the underlying emphasis was to showcase current work while developing a successful network similar to those of other art groups such as SDA and the Photo Secession.
The first ASMP show was deemed a success by the press, but some criticism occurred regarding full-length images, as the traditional miniature was thought to be bust- length. This perception was an expected response from the academy-influenced art market of the time, but eventually the perception changed as the revived miniature style gained acceptance. Laura Coombs Hills was nominated as vice-president the year the society was founded, and was active for many years despite her permanent residence in
Massachusetts. Her reputation as a leader in color usage experimentation may have secured the nomination and maintained her status. Eulabee Dix also exhibited nearly 79 from the beginning and was a visible leader in the 1930s, most often defending the techniques and overall value of the portrait miniature.
The ASMP spawned regional societies first in Pennsylvania, whose annual salon was photographed, (Figure 37) and then in Brooklyn, Chicago, and Los Angeles.51 The event was very formal, with clusters of works hung on walls rather than in glass cases that are now used to hold miniatures in museums and galleries. In 1914 the ASMP was invited to merge its exhibitions with those of the National Academy of Design, a powerful endorsement for the miniature society and its art and perhaps the beginning of complete acceptance of the revival miniature. ASMP works circulated to museums and galleries in New England such as Worcester, MA, the Rhode Island School of Design, and Vose of Boston, and toured such mid-western cities as Indianapolis, Chicago, and St.
Louis. In 1950, the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Smithsonian American Art
Museum co-sponsored an exhibit commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the founding of the ASMP, exhibiting 50 works by 39 artists. Although the ASMP had become more than just a forum for new artwork: it was a marketing tool to reach those interested in the historical miniature and especially those wishing to invest, providing access to the best revival miniatures of the time.
Attendance at ASMP exhibits was considerable, and patronage persisted well into the 20th century. But revival miniaturist needed to be her own, individual marketing
agent as well in the modern art market. New marketing concepts were being widely
tested in retail at the time. According to the successful retailer John Wanamaker of
Philadelphia, who often displayed his collection of Reynolds, Turner, and Manet
51 Rabbage files. 80
Figure 37. Pennsylvania Society of Miniature Painters early exhibition, Worcester Art Museum archives, Massachusetts. 81 masterpieces for his early 20th Century clients, “Everything that is lovely, everything that
is worthwhile needs the eyes of the merchant…to show it off to best advantage.”52
Although the concept of marketing art by art dealers such as Samuel Avery and Michael
Knoedler was becoming commonplace by the early 1880s, the American artist was given
several marketing sources for his or her own use, many of which the revival miniaturist
considered. Clubs for wealthy gentlemen, such as the Century Club, the Union League
Club, and the Lotos Club, were venues where male artists who could mingle directly with
possible patrons. These venues, however, were off-limits to women.53 Galleries and museums, such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art founded in 1870, selectively purchased modern art and were premiere palaces of recognition for the deemed
“successful” artist. Patrons of miniatures utilized many of these venues, and appeared to have been one of at least three possible descriptions: the commissioning patron, the collector, and the socially-compelled investor. The first type of patron was similar to that of full-size portraiture; the second and third were wholly unique to the portrait miniature art form.
The traditional commissioning patron was an industrialist of ample means but relatively obscure, with wealth and a need to commemorate, memorialize, or just capture oneself or a family member at a certain point in life. After a single member of a family was depicted in miniature, other family commissions often followed. Laura Coombs
Hills painted many successful yet little known families, including Georgiana and Harriet
Perkins, Suzanne and Mary Bigelow, Mr. And Mrs. Gardner Hammond and their son
52 William Leach, 137. 53 Annette Blaugrund, 84-5. 82
Frances. Two generations of the Hale family were painted by Hills: she even painted the daughter Margaret twice, ten years apart (Figure 32). Although the younger version of
Margaret is charming, the later one is especially appealing due to Hills’ choice of appealing highlights in orange contrasted by the sitter’s shaded face. In one of Hills’ most compelling circumstances of patronage, she painted Persis Blair (Figure 38) just months before the child’s death. For undocumented reasons, Hills -- not the Blair family
--sold the miniature to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1913. She painted a second miniature of Persis from the original miniature and presented it to the family in an emerald green, triptych style case, where it was eventually bequeathed to the Museum of
Fine Arts, Boston, by the Blair family.54 It is evident that family patronage was available and highly lucrative for those miniaturists who performed satisfactorily or made the correct first impression.
Publicly known sitters were also important in the revival of the miniature. This included celebrities of the stage or society pages who were particularly sought after by miniaturists for the publicity they provided when their image was recognized at exhibits.
This type of sitter was also often able to afford a sitting of two to three hundred dollars.
Eulabee Dix told of how, through her entire career, she was asked repeatedly in reference to celebrities, “Who [sic] have you painted?”55 Dix, along with John Singer Sargent and
early revival miniaturist Amalia Kussner all painted the Countess of Warwick, England
(Figures 39 and 40), a woman of beauty, property, and title who was well known in
England and desired the same status in the United States for herself. Dix received the
54 Persis Blair file, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. 55 Dix memoirs, Lewis Rabbage file. 83
Figure 38. Laura Coombs Hills. Persis Blair, 1903. Watercolor on ivory, 7 x 5 ½ in. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. 84
Figure 39. Eulabee Dix. Photograph of Countess of Warwick, 1905. Watercolor on ivory. Archives of The National Museum of Women in the Arts, Washington, D.C. 85
Figure 40. John Singer Sargent. Lady Warwick and Her Son, 1905. Oil on canvas, 106x60 ¼ in. Worcester Art Museum, Massachusetts. 86 commission after the Countess observed a miniature by Dix of her friend, Lady Paget
(who was painted by Kussner as well) and insisted on being painted herself.56 The Dix
and Sargent renderings, both painted in 1905, are similar in general environment and
costume, as the Countess appears in an outdoor venue wearing an off-the-shoulder gown
which softens her stately, solid features. The portraitists varied in their depiction of the
Countess’ demeanor, however, through her expression. Dix introduced the Countess of
Warwick to Mark Twain when she visited New York as a return favor for the Countess
sitting for Eulabee. Twain then sat for Dix as well, demonstrating savvy marketing on
Dix’ behalf as one sitter begot another. Eulabee painted Twain-- his last sitting for any
artist before his death in 1910 – as well as stage personality Ethel Barrymore, both of
whom Dix admired immensely. Neither Twain nor Barrymore commissioned their
miniatures, a situation precipitated by Dix (i.e. “let me paint you”) as these portraits
undoubtedly were candidates for the ASMP annual shows and viewed by attendees and
art critics reporting on the exhibits for their readership. The Twain miniature was also
used for postcards published in Meridian, Connecticut, possibly available for purchase
after tourists visited the Clemens homestead.57 Dix also painted Twain’s only grandchild,
Nina Gabrilowich, on speculation.58 Celebrities certainly brought a level of prominence
to the art, but they did not guarantee commissions.59
Less prevalent than the traditional patrons of miniatures were the socially-
compelled patrons of the portrait miniature, most similar to the patronage of the
56 Ridley, 79-80. 57 One such postcard observed in the Lewis Rabbage files, Worcester Art Museum. 58 Ridley, 226. 59 Dix memoirs. 87 traditional miniature. American women of high society were candidates, as they sought to be acceptable to society and high profile as with membership in clubs, benefit affairs, and art events. Candace Wheeler was known to have sought as organizer of the Society of Decorative Art a Mrs. David Lane purely for her social connections to the Choates,
Fields, Astors, and Belmonts.60 Laura Coombs Hills was a recipient of such social
commissions, as Boston socialites commemorated themselves through her works. Out-
patronizing even the socialites, though, was an admirer of female socialites named Mr.
Peter Marie. Documented by Lewis Rabbage as commissioning more than 200
miniatures of his favorite debutantes and socialites, Marie may have single-handedly
initiated the portrait miniature revival. He seems to have claimed the patronage position
of “monarch” in a post-colonial, democratic society when much of America could only
observe and/or criticize them from afar. His motivation for such commissions -- yet to be
revealed -- may have been internally driven, or precipitated by activities in New York
where he resided. He could display his miniatures just as his trinkets from abroad or family heirlooms. Regardless, Marie’s commissions qualify him as a leading patron of the post-1890 miniature and give a more candid, pragmatic explanation for the revived
interest in the art form.
Similar to the efforts of Marie were the collecting patrons, who did not
necessarily commission portraits, but did collect, display, and ultimately bequeath pre-
20th century miniatures, thus indirectly supporting and promoting the art form. By doing
so, the collector of miniatures kept the public interested in them, especially through
museum exhibits. The collector also placed emphasis on the miniature as an object,
60 Amelia Peck, 27. 88 giving it a discreet level of importance separate from fine art. Collecting was most prevalent at times of abundance and middle-class prominence, providing them with the ability to imitate the wealthy and its possessions. In western society this practice can be traced to the Dutch merchant class of the 17th century.61 Although many of the late-19th
Century wealthy citizens such as Peter Widener, Isabella Stewart Gardner, Henry Clay
Frick, and Benjamin Altman held private collections which would have included portrait miniatures, the most influential of these collectors was John Pierpont Morgan (1837-
1913) (Figure 41), who in 1890 inherited $15 million-- equal to $225 million today-- from his father’s estate.62 His amassed wealth coincided with the shift in world finance from London to New York, allowing him to purchase entire European collections of art which had been placed on the auction block due to Great Britain’s financial crisis63.
Morgan spent half of his inheritance collecting items from all periods, including Assyrian reliefs, rare books, paintings from masters such as Rembrandt, Rubens, Vermeer, and hundreds of portrait miniatures.64 As chronicler Cass Canfield reported, “…[Morgan’s]
countless fine miniatures and small objects…testify to his delight in the delicate and the minute.”65 The diversity of his collection is captured in a 1914 photograph of the posthumous exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Figure 42) arranged by his son,
J.P. Morgan, Jr. Some of his miniature collection was acquired by the Walters Art
61 Jonathan Israel, “Adjusting to hard times: Dutch art during its period of crisis and restructuring.” Art History 20 (September 1997), 449-57. 62 Jean Strouse, “Collectors, Collections, and Scholarly Culture”ACLS Occasional Paper, No. 48, 28. 63 Ibid. 64 Cass Canfield, The Incredible Pierpont Morgan: Financier and Art Collector, 104-167. 65 Ibid., 104. 89
Figure 41. Eduard J. Steichen. J. Pierpont Morgan, Esq., 1903. 90
Figure 42. Gallery fifteen of the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s exhibition of the Morgan collection in 1914.
91
Museum, Baltimore, MD,66 furthering his public influence on the art form and helping to
maintain its momentum.
The commissioned portrait miniature, however, remained a bit elusive, requiring
ingenuity and long hours in pursuit of patronage throughout a miniaturist’s career.
Revival miniaturists were often in need of more steady income, despite occasional
referrals, annual exhibits, and the infrequent but generous patron like Peter Marie. They
ultimately turned to their colleagues and surroundings for inspiration and patron-
generation, finding support in the largest city for artistic and commercial endeavors, New
York.
Prior to the 1850s, New York had shared the artistic spotlight with other
prominent eastern cities from Charleston to Boston. Charleston, the home of great
American miniaturists Edward Greene Malbone (1777-1807) and Charles Fraser (1782-
1860), was severely impacted by the Civil War, with the production of all types of art
virtually stopped from the 1860s to the 1890s.67 The war brought New York citizens
significant wealth which was available for investment in the art market. Boston had been
a center for fine arts, with the historic Athenaeum and portraitists such as John Singleton
Copley and Gilbert Stuart. But Boston had increasingly become a literary center, known
more for its historic contributions to art. Its artistic stance was also more conventional
66 Walters Art Gallery, A Selection of Portrait Miniatures, foreward. Researching date of acquisition. (Forty percent of the Morgan collection 6000-8000 items was bequeathed to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY, as per Cass Canfield research.) 67 Francis Bilodeau, Art in South Carolina 1670-1970, 162. 92 than the newer, commercially paced art world of New York, which was the world center for finance after London’s slump.68
New York’s enviable status as financial center enabled its citizens to provide an
environment promoting the freedom to experiment in politics, society, and the arts. The outcome of such freedom was a simultaneous acceptance and collaboration of various art forms.69 The Armory Show of 1913, competing with academic art that was still popular
with patrons, was a culmination of modern art and theories. The period seemed destined
to accept both old and new art, which was ideal for the miniature’s shift from traditional
to modern form. The New York audience was receptive to such experimentation, as
attendance at art events revealed. Artist receptions, auctions, constant exhibitions, and the influence of the press were all outstanding features of New York.70 This was the
ideal environment for revival miniaturists like Eulabee Dix to pursue patronage while
experimenting with the techniques and appearance of the traditional miniature. Dix
moved to New York in 1899 at age twenty-one. She moved because, “A neighbor’s
daughter, who lived in New York, …persuaded my parents that some study in New York
was in order; …It seemed logical that if I could paint miniatures, I would make money
and study later for large canvases.”
Artists settled in Greenwich Village, an area of New York identified as the
artistic colony of the city. Within blocks of each other were the National Academy of
Design, the Society of American Painters in Pastel, Mathew Brady’s photographic
gallery, Stieglitz’ 291 Gallery where the Photo- Secession was initiated, and the National
68 Trevor Fairbrother, The Bostonians: Painters of an Elegant Age, 1870 – 1930, 1. 69 Adele Heller and L. Rudnick, 1915, The Cultural Movement, 4. 70 Annette Blaugrund, 34. 93
Art Club. As William Howe Downes commented in 1904, “Eminent artists did not live in New York City for its beauty or for the peoples’ appreciation for art, but for the association with fellow craftsmen”.71 The area fostered intellectual and artistic sharing in many ways. Thomas Bender reported when researching the area of “…meeting places such as the Liberal Club, Polly’s Restaurant, Albert Boni’s bookstore, and, finally,
Petitpas, where the painter John Butler Yeats …assured the Young Intellectuals that in
America, too, ‘the fiddles are tuning up.’”72 Eulabee Dix was an integral part of this
artistic camaraderie, frequently dining with artists and literary figures at Petitpas.73 She recalled that, “I was mostly atmosphere. I’m sure had I realized the profound intelligences there I should never have ventured. It never seemed profound, but
casual.”74 Dix was memorialized with the group by John Sloan, a painter of the Ash-Can
School, in Yeats at Petitpas, Painted in 1910 (Figure 43).75
Dix’s association with Ash-Can leader Robert Henri was even more compelling.
Their initial meeting is undocumented, but they were especially close and hailed from the same part of the Midwest. Henri painted Dix on two occasions, once in her wedding
gown as a gift to her, and a second time as the Lady in Black Velvet 76 (Figure 44). Henri
showed this second painting in an international exposition in 1911, then at the
MacDowell Club in New York, where a writer from The Globe described it as “…full of
character, and a quite remarkable rendering of flesh and blacks, so subtle and so refined
71 Trevor Fairbrother, 64. 72 Thomas Bender, New York Intellect, 228-9. 73 Lionel Lambourne, The Aesthetic Movement – see Yeats info 74 Ridley, 128. 75 The painting also featured Van Wyck Brooks, John Butler Yeats, Alan Seeger, Dolly Sloan, Celestine Petitpas, Robert Sneddon, the artist Sloan, Vera Jonston, and Frederick A. King. Dix is to the right, wearing a hat. 76 Ridley, 126. 94
Figure 43. John Sloan. Yeats at Petitpas, 1910. Oil on canvas, 26 3/8 x 32 ¼ in. Corcoran Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.
95
Figure 44. Robert Henri. Lady in Black Velvet, ca. 1911. Oil on canvas, 77 x 37 in. High Museum of Art, Atlanta. 96 as to rank with the good portraiture of modern times.”77 He acted as a confidante as well:
they corresponded long after Dix’s wedding to Attorney Alfred Becker in 1910, when she
left New York.
Dix survived in New York as many young artists did: she was sent small but
regular amounts of money on which to live, and planned to learn from the art instructors
of New York, expecting to retain commissions and sell her works. She also relied
heavily on her social and artistic connections in New York. William Merritt Chase, an
instructor and acquaintance of Dix, was a master of the commercial side of art, using gentlemen’s clubs, world’s fairs and expositions to achieve greater exposure; he entered the 1889 Universal Exposition in Paris where he was awarded a silver medal.78 His
strongest tool for prominence and creative inspiration, however, may have been his
residence. He lived and worked for eleven years in New York in the Tenth Street Studio
Building, an apartment building uniquely designed with studio exhibition space for artists
living there. The Tenth Street Studio Building was the first of many architectural
projects favoring the artist, and proved a critical marketing tool as it was a select, private location for clients to meet artists and discuss commissions or purchase works of art. It was also a symbol of taste, culture, and success for the artists living there, as well as the location where they could teach, study, influence and support each other, encouraging progress and artistic evolution. Eulabee Dix described the environment and relevance of the studio building: “Around 1900 art had a definite place in the social life of New York
City; with studio buildings, the Tenth Street Studios, The Sherwood, Van Dyke, and
77 Article referred to, retyped, and enclosed with Henri letters to Dix, Worcester Art Museum. 78 Annette Blaugrund, 94. 97
Carnegie Hall, where artists opened their doors to friends and received on certain days.
Such an address, an artist’s workshop with a steady north light, was now urged upon me.”79 Chase painted his dwelling and studio space several times, capturing its prominence in the early 20th Century period.
When the Tenth Street Studio Building opened in 1857, among the first tenants –
the only woman to reside there—was miniaturist Anna Mary Freeman. Although her
works have not surfaced in research, she was a link to future revivalists who, like all artists of the time migrating to New York, needed a place to live and wished to be part of the camaraderie of the time. As author Thomas Bailey Aldrich commented early in the use of such dwellings, “Here they all are together…historical, figure, portrait, landscape, marine, animal, fruit, and flower painters.”80 In 1903 Eulabee Dix moved into the
Carnegie Hall Towers, a similar residence of studio design.81 (Figure 45) Living aside
composer Edward MacDowell, illustrator Charles Dana Gibson, actor David Belasco,
photographer Gertrude Kasebier, and Miniaturist Theodora Thayer, Dix was able to
converse, paint and show her works to visiting and shared patrons including the Countess of Warwick and John Butler Yeats, philosophizer and father of poet William Butler
Yeats. A typical artist’s day included roaming from room to room, painting in one another’s studios, having dinner with artists and writers of all genres, and ending with late-night conversations.82 Dix referred to her residence with an artist’s focus, saying
“My east windows looked over the mansions of people I longed to paint…A bride-to-be
79 Eulabee Dix memoirs, 40. 80 Annette Blaugrund, 27-8. 81 Dix lived in the Sherwood artist’s cooperative as well, as noted in her memoirs. 82 Annette Blaugrund, 27. 98
Figure 45. Eulabee Dix in her Carnegie Hall Studio, ca. 1904. Albumen print, 7 ½ x 9 3/8 in. The National Museum of Women in the Arts, Washington, D.C.
99 and lovely ladies came to be painted. Gradually I became a better painter and with more originality.”83
Dix’s relationship to her artistic neighbors is sporadically documented. She did describe the tragic death that befell successful fellow miniaturist Theodora Thayer, as well as the influence of Charles Dana Gibson and his “tremendously vogue” subject matter. Her relationship to Kasebier is documented artistically more than with words.
They were subjects of each other’s works-- Eulabee may even have been a model for
Kasebier-- thus possibly supplementing Dix’s income or returning a favor. Kasebier’s first portrait of Dix dates in 1905. One of several photographs Kasebier photographed of
Dix in this manner (Figure 46), it is in Kasebier’s typical style of documenting wardrobes, as she did for sisters Virginia and Minnie Gerson, friends of Dix and sister-in- law to William Merritt Chase.84 Kasebier and Dix most likely encouraged each other, assisting one another’s works and associations as needed.
Dix’ studio living arrangements and association with others were indicative of the relationships of various artists to one another, but also demonstrated the miniaturist’s life in society and attempts to thrive, independently and with others’ assistance. She was not content to marry quietly or even wait for commissions to find her, so she immersed herself in the life and activities of New York, home to the largest, most powerful art community of the time. Then she pursued relationships through weekly dinners at
Petitpas, memberships in the ASMP, and networking through other fledgling but powerful groups such as the Photo-Secession. These relationships, coupled with the
83 Eulabee Dix memoirs, 41. 84 Barbara Michaels, Gertrude Kasebier: The Photographer and Her Photographs, 117-18, 127. 100 advances in fine arts portraiture, movements like Impressionism, and the strength of the decorative arts, were strong allies while the Revival Miniaturist searched for her next patron.
101
Conclusion. The Revival Miniature
The portrait miniature found a way to reinvent itself in the 1890s through the
entrenchment in American art and design and the fact that many artists and collectors
were aware of and charmed by its past virtues. Those that continued to paint miniatures
were talented and savvy, described as constantly seeking commission opportunities at a
time when portrait options were many for the American patron. A lack of patronage was
evident to nearly all artists, but was especially problematic for the miniaturist who
invested in ivory, painted directly from the paint tube, and specially ordered frames and
cases from the goldsmith.85 Most miniaturists painted first, then sold, then used the
earnings to buy supplies and exhibit again: a relentless cycle to the very end of one’s
career. Laura Coombs Hills, who seemed to have constant commissions, still possessed
many unsold miniatures, donating fifteen of them to the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
prior to her death. The overarching theme of the early 20th century was ultimately
ingenuity, from business and politics to the arts.
The question is, then, which factor was most vital to the ingenuity and reinvention
of the miniature, as we desire to summarize this remarkable occurrence while removing
the photograph from the scholar’s focus. The answer lies in the miniaturists themselves, as these artists were ultimately driven to lead and revise. From the moment the photograph did demand the best of the miniature artists, to the period of the ASMP foundation to ensure the miniaturist’s livelihood, following the revival miniaturist was key to determining what influences played a part. Revival miniaturists were available for
85 Article of unknown source dated January 2, 1921, L.C. Hills file, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. 102 research, as names were documented in ASMP catalogs and compiled by Lewis Rabbage, but the artist’s position on miniature art seemed lost, with only vague newspaper accounts of exhibit information and society page notes to tell the deeper story of the revival.
Although the revival involved nearly 2000 artists86, those such as Hills and
Eulabee Dix, responsible for transforming the post-1890 miniature to its revived but very
different form, have works and information best preserved by family, friends, and
museum archivists. It was Dix who best bridged the gap between the old and new style of miniature painting, essentially working in two worlds at once. Her works, usually the traditional oval in shape, found a place of treasure in both object and portraiture categories. Her subjects were a bit more subdued, with more deliberate expressions and
gazes that were a strong reflection of the miniaturist’s struggle at the time. Dix aptly
encompasses the revival movement not only in her works but also in her personal life.87
Her career encompassed a wide array of contacts, revealing the many possible influencers of the overall portrait miniature revival. It was revealing to plot the dynamics of Dix’s life--her determination to learn an art form many thought already extinct, to uproot herself from Midwest comfort in exchange for life in America’s largest city, and to pursue a career despite marriage and motherhood-- versus the context of the early 20th
Century to learn the fundamental nature of the portrait miniature revival at its final period of strength. This included sitters who were now shown in a more direct stance and children posed more naturally, with no reference to a lost loved one or one’s own mortality. Portraits could be developed for overall harmony and decorative flair beyond
86 Rabbage estimate, based on ASMP membership. 87 Amanda Kussner is also known to be highly instrumental, personally and professionally, in the advancement of the early revival period. 103 the deliberate use of pre-20th Century props.88 The highly valued ivory substrate was still used, but techniques were softened or exchanged for more casual brushwork of an impressionistic or pastel nature. The essence of the miniature had changed, as determined miniaturists found new inspiration and acted upon it accordingly.
Despite these dynamics, by the late 1930s the miniature revival effort had begun to wane. Eulabee Dix moved to California, then to Spain to paint florals and famous homes as her skills for close, minute miniatures were lost with age. She was not alone in her retirement, as the ASMP terminated its operations in 1965 and donated twenty miniatures of its ownership to the Smithsonian Museum’s National Collection of Fine
Arts. Rosina Boardman, a talented late revivalist and the ASMP president for the years prior to the dismantling, noted in her communication with the museum that members
were too old to continue meeting.89 This was an obvious sign of movement away from the miniature as either a thriving form for artistic endeavor or as a desired commodity by exhibition attendees and patrons. The miniature has survived to the present through artistic societies in Florida, New Mexico, Canada, and Great Britain, but the
commissioned miniature, traditional or revival, has nearly ceased to exist. Contributing factors to this final period include the creation of the income tax, the stock market crash of 1929, and two world wars with the stark realism each brought to the art world.
The overarching theme to these occurrences was not the absence of talented artists but a lack of stable patronage, a situation precipitated by the loss of monarchical power in the 19th and 20th centuries in all areas of the world, and furthered by democratic, societal
88 E. D. Taylor as told to Wharton, 241. 89 Rabbage notes. 104 focus of the past four decades. The underlying irony remains, that although this art form was considered extinct by the 1890s, the revitalization, which is a much more satisfying story, was nearly always overlooked.
Despite its loss as an art form and absence of revival miniaturists, the miniature does continue to generate interest for one of its key revival patrons: the collector.
Auction houses periodically feature miniatures singly or in collections. A miniature of
George Washington recently aroused major interest when it sold for over one million dollars.90 Museums in New Orleans, Cincinnati, New York, and London are finding
improved methods for miniature display and thus continue the tradition of admiring the
tiny, treasured art form for many visiting their venues. With this continued interest
comes new research and information to further demonstrate that the influences of time,
place and, most importantly, person cohesively created the miniature revival that once
existed.
90 Christie’s Auction House, London, January 19, 2001. 105
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adelson Galleries. The American Impressionists. New York, 1996. Auchincloss, Louis. The Vanderbilt Era: Profiles of a Gilded Age. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1989. Baldry, Alfred. “Modern Miniature Painting.” The Studio 44 (1908): 171-9. Balsan, Consuelo Vanderbilt. The Glitter and the Gold. Kent: George Mann Books, 1973. Baltimore Museum of Art, The. Two Hundred and Fifity Years of Painting in Maryland. Baltimore: John D. Lucas Printing Company, 1945. Bardo, Pamela. English and Continental Portrait Miniatures: The Latter-Schlesinger Collection. New Orleans: Franklin Printing Company, 1978. Baumann, Felix, and Marianne Karabelnik. Degas Portraits. London: Merrell Holberton, 1994. Beard, Rick and Leslie Cohen Berlowitz. Greenwich Village: Culture and Counterculture. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1993. Beckett, Jane, and Deborah Cherry. The Edwardian Era. London: Phaidon Press, 1987. Bender, Thomas. The New York Intellect: A History of Intellectual Life in New York City. New York: Knopf, 1987. Bilodeau, Francis, Ed. Art in South Carolina 1670 – 1970. Charleston: Carolina Art Association, 1970. Biographical Sketches of American Artists. Michigan: Michigan State Library, 1924. Blaugrund, Annette. The Tenth Street Studio Building: Artist-Entrepreneurs from the Hudson River School to the American Impressionists. Los Angeles: Perpetua Press, 1997. Boggs, Jean and Anne Maheux. Degas Pastels. New York: George Braziller, 1992. Bolger, Doreen and Nicholai Cikovsky, Jr. American Art Around 1900. Hanover: University Press of New England, 1990. Bolton, Theodore. Early American Portrait Painters in Miniature. New York: Frederick Fairchild Sherman, 1921. Bullard, E. John. Mary Cassatt: Oils and Pastels. New York: Watson-Guptill, 1976. 106
Burns, Sarah. Inventing the Modern Artist: Art and Culture in the Gilded Age America. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996. Canfield, Cass. The Incredible Pierpont Morgan: Financier and Art Collector. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1974. Carley, Rachel and R. Rennicke. A Guide to Biltmore Estate. Ashville: Biltmore Company, 1994. Carson, Marian. “Early American Watercolor Painting.” Antiques (January, 1951): 54-56. Carter, Katy, Ed. Miniatures at Kenwood: The Draper Gift. London: English Heritage, 1997. Cheney, Liana, Alicia Faxon, and Kathleen Russo. Self-Portraits by Women Painters. Vermont: Ashgate Publishing, 2000. Cleveland Museum of Art. Portrait Miniatures: The Edward B. Greene Collection. Cleveland: Artcraft Printing Company, 1951. Collins, Jim. Women Artists in America: Eighteenth Century to the Present. Chattanooga: University of Tennessee, 1973. Coombs, Katherine. The Portrait Miniature in England. London: V&A Publications, 1998. Cooper, Nicholas. The Opulent Eye: Late Victorian and Edwardian Taste in Interior Design. New York: Watson-Guptill Publications, 1976. Crossman, Carl. “Little Treasures.” The Magazine Antiques 134 (October, 1993): 527-29. C., E. “Studio-Talk.” The International Studio 39 (1909-10): 331-333. Denis, Rafael, and Colin Trodd. Art and the Academy in the Nineteenth Century. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2000. Dixon Gallery and Gardens. Mary Cassatt and the American Impressionists. Memphis: Murdock Printing Company, 1976. Doty, Robert. Photo-Secession: Stieglitz and the Fine-Art Movement in Photography. New York: Dover Publications, 1978. Duncan, Frances. “The Miniatures of Miss Laura Hills.” The International Studio 61 (August, 1910): XLVI-VIII. Duncan, J. Alastair. The Art Work of Louis C. Tiffany. Poughkeepsie: Apollo, 1987. Dwight, Eleanor, and Viola Winner. Edith Wharton’s World. Washington: Smithsonian Institution,1997. 107
Fairbrother, Trevor. The Bostonians: Painters of an Elegant Age, 1870 – 1930. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1986. Falk, P. Who Was Who in American Art 1564-1975, Vol. II. New York: Sound View Press, 1999. Ferber, Linda and Gallati, Barbara. Masters of Color and Light: Homer, Sargent, and the American Watercolor Movement, Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1998. Fisher, Alexander. “Portraits in Enamel”, The Studio 46 (1909): 184-193. Forbes, John. J. P. Morgan, Jr. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1981. Frank, Robin. Love and Loss: American Portrait and Mourning Miniatures. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. Frankel, E. “The Modern Miniatures of Fifty-one Artists.” The Art News 20 (February, 1936): 8. French, Bryant. Mark Twain and the Gilded Age. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1965. Friedlander, Max. Landscape, Portrait, Still-Life: Their Origin and Development. Oxford: Bruno Cassirer, 1949. Gere, Charlotte and Lesley Hoskins. The House Beautiful: Oscar Wilde and the Aesthetic Interior, Hampshire: Lund Humphries, 2000. Gillon, Edmund. The Gibson Girl and Her America: The Best Drawings of Charles Dana Gibson. New York: Dover Publications, 1969. Greenhalgh, Paul, Ed. Art Nouveau 1890-1914. London: V&A Publications, 2000. Hennessey, William. The American Portrait. Worchester: Worchester Art Museum, 1973. Heller, Adele, and Lois Rudnick. 1915, The Cultural Movement. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1991. Heslip, Colleen. But Were They Good Likenesses? New York: Hirschel & Adler Folk, 1989. Hirschler, Erica. A Studio of Her Own: Women Artists on Boston 1870-1940. Boston: MFA Publications, 2001. Historical Society of Old Newbury. Laura Coombs Hills: A Retrospective. Farmington, ME: Knowlton & McLeary, 1996. 108
Homer, William. Alfred Stieglitz and the Photo-Secession. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1983. . An American Vision: John G. Bullock and the Photo-Secession. Baltimore: John D. Lucas Printing, 1989. . Stieglitz and the Photo-Secession 1902. New York: Penguin Putnam, 2002. Hunt, James. “Miniatures in the Pierpont Morgan Collection.” The Studio 71-72 (1917- 1918): 60-62. Johnson, Catherine. Stieglitz and the Photo-Secession 1902. New York: Penguin Group, 2002. Johnson, Dale. American Portrait Miniatures in the Manney Collection. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1990. Kilmurray, Elaine and Richard Ormond. John Singer Sargent. London: Tate Gallery Publishing, 1998. Kardon, Janet, Ed. The Ideal Home 1900-1920: The History of the Twentieth-century American Craft. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1993. Kelby, William. Notes on American Artists. New York: The New York Historical Society, 1922. Lambourne, Lionel. The Aesthetic Movement. London: Phaidon Press, 1996. Leach, William. Land of Desire: Merchants, Power, and the Rise of a New American Culture. New York: Vintage Books, 1993. Ledes, Allison Eckardt. “Current and Coming: Laura Coombs Hills, Miniaturist and Levin, Gail, Alexandra Comini, and Wanda Corn. American Women Artists 1830-1930. Wisbech: Balding and Mansell, 1987. Lewis, Arnold, James Turner, and Steven McQuillen. The Opulent Interiors of the Gilded Age. New York: Dover Publications, 1987. Ledes, Allison Eckardt. “Current and Coming: Laura Coombs Hills, Miniaturist and Flower Painter.” The Magazine Antiques (June, 1996): 804-5. Levetus, A. “The Recent Exhibition of Miniatures at Vienna.” The Studio 36 (1905-06): 316- 327. 109
. Portrait Miniatures from the Dumas Egerton Collection. Over Wallop: BAS Printers, 2002. Loring, John. Louis Comfort Tiffany at Tiffany and Co. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 2002. Lubin, David. Act of Portrayal: Eakins, Sargent, James. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985. Metropolitan Museum of Art. American Pastels in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York: Harry S. Abrams, 1989. . Catalogue of an Exhibition of Miniatures Painted in America. United States, 1927. . In Pursuit of Beauty: Americans and the Aesthetic Movement. New York: Rizzoli, 1986. Michaels, Barbara. Gertrude Kasebier. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1992. Miles, Ellen. Portrait Painting in America, The Nineteenth Century. New York: The Main Street Press, 1977. Murrell, Jim. The Way Howe to Lymne. London: Victoria and Albert Museum, 1983. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. New England Miniatures, 1750-1850. Boston: T. O. Metcalf Company, 1957. Nelson Gallery. The Starr Collection of Miniatures. Kansas City: Atkins Museum, 1971. New York Historical Society, The. Notes on American Artists 1754-1820. New York: The New York Historical Society, 1922. Norgate, Edward. Miniatura or the Art of Limning. Hong Kong: World Print Ltd., 1997. Olson, Stanley. John Singer Sargent: His Portrait. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1986. O’Neill, J. ed. In Pursuit of Beauty: Americans and the Aesthetic Movement. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1986. Quick, Michael, Marvin Sadik, and William Gerdts. American Portraiture in the Grand Manner: 1720-1920. Los Angeles: Alan Lithograph, Inc., 1981. Parker, Barbara. New England Miniatures 1750-1850. Boston: T.O. Metcalf Co., 1957. Patterson, Jerry. The First Four Hundred: Mrs. Astor’s New York in the Gilded Age. New York: Rizolli, 2000. Peck, Amelia. Candace Wheeler: The Art and Enterprise of American Design. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2001. 110
Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts. The Paintings and Drawings of Cecilia Beaux. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania Academy, 1955. Pisano, Ronald. Idle Hours: Americans at Leisure 1865-1914. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1988. . The Tile Club and the Aesthetic Movement in America. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1999. Reynolds, Graham. The Sixteenth and Seventeenth-Century Miniatures in the Collection of Her Majesty the Queen. London: Royal Collection Enterprises, 1999. , and Katharine Baetjer. European Miniatures in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1996. Ridley, Jo Ann. Looking for Eulabee Dix. England: Balding and Mansell, 1997. Rinhart, Floyd. and M. American Miniature Case Art. New York: A. S. Barnes and Company, 1969. Sawitzky, William. Paintings and Miniatures in the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: The Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1942. Schwarz Gallery. American Watercolor and Pastels. Philadelphia: Piccari Press, 1991. Scottish National Portrait Gallery. Portrait Miniatures from the Clarke Collection. Over Wallop: BAS Printers, 2001. . Portrait Miniatures from the Dumas Egerton Collection. Over Wallop: BAS Printers, 2002. Sinclair, Andrew. Corsair: The Life of J. Pierpont Morgan. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1981. Severens, Martha. The American Miniature Portrait Collection of the Carolina Art Association. Charleston: Carolina Art Association, 1984. . The Charleston Renaissance. Spartanburg, SC: Saraland Press, 1998. Smithsonian Institution. Portrait Miniatures from Private Collections: June 25, 1976 – January 9, 1977. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Spencer, Edwina. “Contemporary Miniature Painting.” Creative Art (April, 1933): 266-271. Strickler, Susan. American Portrait Miniatures. Worchester: Worchester Art Museum, 1989.
111
Strouse, Jean. “The Collector J. Pierpont Morgan.” Collectors, Collections, and Scholarly Culture (May, 2000): 25-34. Sumner, Anne, and Richard Walker. Secret Passion to Noble Fashion: The World of the Portrait Miniature. Over Wallop: BAS Printers, 1999. Swan, Mabel. The Athenaeum Gallery 1827-1873: The Boston Athenaeum as an Early Patron of Art. Boston: The Merrymount Press, 1940. Tappert, Tara. Cecilia Beaux and the art of Portraiture. Washington: Smithsonian Institute Press, 1995. Traxel, David. 1898: The Birth of the American Century. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998. Veblen, Thorstein. The Theory of the Leisure Class. London: Macmillan and Company, 1899. Virginia Museum of Fine Arts. An Exhibition of Virginia Miniatures. Richmond: Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, 1942. Walker, Richard. Miniatures: A Selection of Miniatures in the Ashmolean Museum. Singapore: Craft Print, 1997. . Miniatures: 300 Years of the English Miniature. London: National Portrait Gallery, 1998. Walters Art Gallery. A Selection of Portrait Miniatures. Baltimore: Walters Art Gallery, 1966. Wehle, Harry. American Miniatures 1730-1850. New York: Garden City Publishing Company, 1937. Weinberg, H. Barbara. American Impressionists Abroad and at Home. New York: American Federation of Arts, 2000. Wharton, Anne. Heirlooms in Miniatures. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippencott Company, 1898. Wheeler, Candace. Yesterdays in a Busy Life. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1918. Wildenstein and Company, The Child Through Four Centuries. New York: Gallery Press, 1945. Williamson, George. “Miniatures in the Pierpont Morgan Collection.” The Studio 71-72 (1917-18): 60-62. . The Miniature Collector. New York: Dodd, Mead and Co., 1921. 112
, and Percy Buckman. The Art of the Miniature Painter. London: Chapman and Hall, 1926. Wood, T. Martin. “The Buccleuch Miniatures at the Victoria and Albert Museum.” The Studio 69-70 (January, 1917): 163-177.