The 16th Century “Photograph”: A Study of British Miniatures Devin Kibbe Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts Rosanne Denhard and David Langston, Faculty Mentors Contemporary portraiture is heavily reliant on the photograph to produce mementoes and to document likeness. Starting in the 16th century, British portraiture achieved the same purposes through miniatures: small-scale paintings that can be worn around the neck, pinned to clothing, or stowed away secretly. My research during recent travel to England has opened a world of understanding both the technique and unique materials that were mastered to create a new and brilliant style. With sincere study of Queen Elizabeth I‟s favorite portrayer Nicholas Hilliard‟s prominent method I have produced my own miniatures in tribute to this purposeful art. [1] The 16th Century “Photograph”: A Study of British Miniatures During Britain‟s medieval and Renaissance periods the masters of painting were the Dutch, Italian, and other foreign artists; “At this time period English painters were rarely as accomplished as their foreign counterparts, not only because of less intensive training, but also because of a lack of institutional patronage to encourage talent” (Cooper 38). For centuries, Britain‟s art was shaped by foreign influence, leaving Britain without a distinctly British artistic history—that is until the late sixteenth century when the British miniature painting moved the concept of British paintings from products to the status of an art form. Queen Elizabeth‟s favorite portrayer, Nicholas Hilliard (1547-1619) is regarded as the first native artist of importance to the history of Britain‟s paintings. Likewise, the miniature movement greatly influenced the purpose and function of portraits in general, making portraiture more accessible and productive than full- length, life size portraits that had previously dominated the market. From the early influence of the British miniature painting, portraiture has advanced and become widely available and desirable in contemporary life; “It was not until the advent of photography that any other portrait art was to be so intimately bound up with people‟s lives” (Coombs back cover). During the sixteenth century, portraiture served primarily functional purposes, which parallel in many ways the same as contemporary photography. First and foremost portraits recorded the likeness of the sitter with great detail. These portraits were then used to memorialize important events and rites of passage such as a death, successes in careers, and marriages. Further, being easily obtainable, portraits were often traded between families and individuals during marriage negations to inform the prospective spouse about physical features when meeting in person was not possible. Through the portraits, individuals were able to assess the [2] character and social conditions of the sitter because of their clothes and other external factors, but also through their facial expressions. Lastly, portraits were also used as propaganda, when “Ownership of [monarchs‟] portraits showed loyalty to the crown” (Cooper 8-9). Though portraits were highly functional and a vital part of the society‟s functionality in the sixteenth century, they were not commissioned merely for artistic connotations. The portrait was not “inspired” but rather, “The Englishman‟s innate interest in character…and the enhanced sense of his individual importance that he had derived from the Renaissance gave an especial significance to portraiture” (Rothenstein 22). Tarnya Cooper explains further the society surrounding portraiture, “Portraits were considered curious and endearing mementoes, but in a culture that was largely attuned to the value of materials, rather than the value of skill, painted pictures did not generally command high prices” (Searching for Shakespeare 38). Portraiture had more to do with wealth and status—based on how expensive the portrayer hired was, how regally the sitter was represented—rather than the truly artistic character of a painting. Portrait sitters were also primarily nobles and it was not until the late 1560s that merchants, lawyers, and other professionals commissioned the painting of their likeness. The first miniature paintings were also attributed to wealthy patrons in the early 1500s. The word miniature is directly in correlation with its origin: „miniature‟ derives from the Latin word “miniare”, literally to color with red lead, referring to the red lettering used in coloring manuscripts since the 1400s. During the early 1500s, hand-illustrated books including miniature paintings of biblical scenes in private books of worship became desirable objects for the wealthy. Outside of Britain, “portrait miniatures first appeared in the 1520s, in the French and English courts…The earliest examples were painted by two Netherlandish miniaturists, Jean Clouet [3] working in France and Lucas Horenbout in England” (“The Origin of the Portrait Miniature”). The miniature painting elaborated on the functionality of traditional portraiture, in fact, [m]iniatures formed another category of portraiture; these small scale images tended to have a more personal function. They were popular with courtiers and were often set into elaborate jeweled cases with covers. Miniatures could be worn around the neck, pinned to clothing, or secretly concealed on the body as a way of honouring the memory of a loved one. (Cooper, Tarnya, Fraser 13) Still, the field was dominated by foreign counterparts including the Bavarian artist Hans Holbein the Younger (1497-1543) who had a great influence in Britain, and on the first notable British artist, Nicholas Hilliard. Miniaturist Nicholas Hilliard pioneered the miniature painting movement both in technique and style, eventually becoming a royal portrayer, working closely with Queen Elizabeth I and James I. Hilliard is one of the highest regarded portrayers in British history because of his unique style, skill, and influence. According to Tarnya Cooper, “at this period English painters were rarely as accomplished as their foreign counterparts, not only because of less intensive training, but also because of a lack of institutional patronage to encourage talent and specialization, for example from the church of local government” Hilliard was attuned to painting like his foreign artistic counterparts, not simply as an artificer but as an artist (Searching for Shakespeare 38). Born to a goldsmith, Richard Hilliard, Nicholas later became an expert craftsman as a goldsmith in The Goldsmiths‟ Company in 1569, from which “the experienced craftsman dominates” in his paintings (Salamon 109). Part of what distinguishes Hilliard is his [4] unique development in the technique including a delicate process to represent the many jewels and gems that he worked with as a goldsmith. For pearls Hilliard paints with real silver; rubies were simulated by applying resin with a hot needle atop of silver paint which reflects the light. Hilliard‟s miniatures are greatly influenced by his trade including, his “use of burnished metal, his love of decorative flourish and clear precise line all come from his training as a goldsmith” (Coombs 29). Yet more than his techniques, Hilliard developed a distinct style of portrait miniatures, producing a recognizable personality within all of his work. Rothenstein explains Hilliard‟s insight into character, claiming, “No English portraits of the age are equal either in accomplishment or grasp of character to those of the miniaturist Nicholas Hilliard…He had at his command a line at once severe and gracious and penetrating yet sympathetic insight to character” (25). Beyond his innate sense of character and understanding, Hilliard‟s understanding of painting was largely influenced by the French. In 1577, Hilliard traveled to France for two years, studying the art of painting portrait miniatures, or limning. His time in France solidified a concept for him that would help reshape painting in Britain: that the miniature painter should be regarded as an artist, not just an artificer. Of the first portraits that exemplified this idea was Hilliard‟s self portrait in 1577. The Victoria and Albert Museum explains, “In England painters such as Hilliard were treated as mere tradespeople. But this confident self-portrait was painted during Hilliard‟s two years in France, where painters had a higher social status”. Simply, that Hilliard Nicholas Hilliard 1547-1619, Self-portrait Aged 30, Dated 1577, Victoria and Albert Museum, Museum no. P.155-1910 [5] painted the artist as the subject signifies the artist‟s importance in society, and in a tradition that portrayed the prominent and wealthy of society. Yet looking at the portrait gives one a definitive understanding of this idea, represented by his elaborate lace collar and steady, direct eye contact. During his time in France, Hilliard further attested to the importance of the artist by writing his Treatise Concerning the Arte of Limning. The Treatise served a primary purpose, “to teache the arte of limning…as also to shewe who are fittest to be practisers thereof, for whom only let it suffice that I intend my whole discourse” (15). The Treatise can be divided into two sections, first theoretical and second directional. Theoretically, or conceptually, Hilliard approaches the idea of limning from many angles. He asserts that gentlemen should be painters since, “It is a kind of gentill painting, …sweet and cleanly to usse” (16). Hilliard is devout in insisting “a good painter hath tender sences, quite