The Great Art Debate

[Lost Leopard Spot]

OK, this is the result of my research. I haven’t bothered to record sources as I consulted too many and have extracted what I required out of each, suffice it to say I haven’t taken anything as gospel unless it came with proper bibliographical references and was confirmed by other sources. I’ll give the outline, then a summary of the actual facts as they stand, then my conclusion, and you can make your own mind up.

OUTLINE
The idea of painting Ulyssess Deriding Polyphemus was an early one and Turner had made preliminary pencil sketches as early as 1807 on the subject, but they do not share any characteristics with the finished painting with regard to the scenery, so we can disregard the early pencil sketches and the one oil sketch based on the pencil drawings.

It seems that Turner travelled to Italy on three occasions, an excursion south from Switzerland during the brief Peace of Amiens in 1802, a more leisurely tour in 1819 and an extended third trip in 1828. The fact that some authorities call the third trip his second is proof that there is a lot of confusion in the art world as to Turner’s itinerary.
Prior to his 1828 trip to Italy, in 1827, Turner visited and spent some time with his friend John Nash on the Isle of Wight where he painted a series of oil sketches on two rolls of canvas (divided into individual pictures well after Turner’s death) – one of these sketches show sea stacks with characteristics similar to the rocks shown in Ulysses Deriding Polyphemus. It is thought to be inspired by the view from a picnic Turner and Nash had overlooking the Needles, although it is believed to have been painted some days later back at Nash’s house on the Isle of Wight.

Places and dates on Turner’s itinerary of Italy in 1828 are hard to confirm but I am confident of these:
Paris (11-? August 1828)
Turin (September 1828)
Florence
Orvieto
Civita di Bagnoregio
[NB Turin, Florence, Orvieto, Civita di Bagnoregio, Rome are linked by the Via Cassia]
Rome (early October 1828 – early January 1829)
Mount Cenis (January 1829)
Paris (late January /early February 1829)

Some internet sources claim that on his second (sic) 1828 trip Turner visited the following places: traversing the Alps to reach Rome and Naples via Venice, Bologna, and Rimini. Not only can I find no evidence this is accurate but most of the evidence actually contradicts this. I therefore conclude that this is a confused version of his itinerary for his earlier 1819 trip to Italy. He did make sketches on his earlier (1819) trip, most of which are lost to history, and it is possible he visited Capri in that year.
Turner stayed at 12 Piazza Mignanelli, Rome between October 1828 to early January 1829. He made frequent day trips into the countryside, but no recorded trip to Naples or beyond. While there he painted at least four paintings (“view of Orvieto” – painted at least two weeks after he’d actually viewed Orvietto!; “Regulus”; “Medea” – all three of which were exhibited while in Rome; and “Palestrina” that was started in Paris, continued in Rome, and not completed, as demonstrated by the oil over craquelure where the canvas was painted, rolled and then painted again, until he was back in Paris), had started eight or ten paintings (not specified by any source), and had done numerous oil sketches – one series on two rolls of canvas (only separated into component pictures in 1914) and another set (of nine) on individual canvases, and a further set on millboards.
The first large painting on the first roll is the oil sketch for the canvas Ulysses Deriding Polyphemus exhibited at the RA in 1829. The oil sketch has all the same elements that are present in the completed canvas but is not identical, and it is unlikely that Turner used the sketch directly because it is known that the canvas was painted in England in 1929, and the Italian paintings, unfinished canvases, and sketches all suffered shipping delays having been sent back to England via sea (with the framed paintings arriving 1830-1831, and the rolls and sketches not reaching England until after the opening of the 1829 RA Exhibition).

SUMMARY
1807 Turner conceived of painting Ulysses Deriding Polyphemus
1819 Turner visited Italy and may have gone to Capri
1827-1828 Turner did a series of oil sketches on four canvas rolls: two on the Isle of Wight, and Two in Rome. There was a sketch of sea stacks similar to Ulysses Deriding Polyphemus in the first IoW roll. The first painting on the first Roman roll was a sketch of Ulysses Deriding Polyphemus. (Turner never painted on rolls again).
1829 Turner painted Ulysses Deriding Polyphemus. It was exhibited later that year at the RA.

CONCLUSION
It would appear that the sketch of Ulysses Deriding Polyphemus from its position on the roll was the first sketch that Turner did in Rome. As his route can be traced coming in from the north it is unlikely that Capri (quite a distance to the south of Rome) would have been amongst the scenery he had visited to gain inspiration for it. It would furthermore appear that he had the idea for a painting with sea stacks from his visit to the Isle of Wight the year before, although the sketches he did there were idealised versions of seastacks and not actual representations of the Needles. It is not impossible that his potential visit to the Faraglioni at Capri some nine years previously had made a powerful impression on him, but I favour him when in Rome ‘Italianising’ his more recent memory of the sketch of the Needles. As his sketch of Ulysses was not available to him when painting the actual canvas back in Blighty, but his Isle of Wight sketch roll was, the final canvas was probably derived from his memory of one sketch supplemented by the actual IoW sketch in front of him (especially if the IoW sketch was the inspiration for the Italian sketch).
The IoW sketch was the direct result of specific experiences even if not actually painted on the spot, whereas the Italian sketches and paintings, and not just the Polythemus, are essays in composition executed in a Roman studio using inspirations from the surrounding countryside but relying more on memory than direct observation.
As one author put it “Turner’s visit to Rome in 1828-9 produced [a] generally more imaginative… increasingly diffuse, atmospherically-focused style… his vision was becoming more assimilated and likely to be expressed in future through memory or imaginative synthesis”
I conclude that his seascape rocks in Ulysses Deriding Polyphemus are an imaginative Italianised rendering of the Needles.
I leave it up to yourselves whether you reach the same conclusion.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I think that emoticon was designed for that post!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Too kind, sir. Hope I was of help.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

There is of course a distinction to be made between an Italian 'trip' and a 'tour of Italy'. The Tate is very confident in describing Turner's first 'tour' in 1819. http://www.tate.org.uk/art/research-pub ... 4#synopsis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I agree that this distinction appears to have been misunderstood and that it has resulted in some confusion that is unhelpful to us.

It is fascinating that the 'Ulysses' picture had a 22-year gestation period.

It would furthermore appear that he had the idea for a painting with sea stacks from his visit to the Isle of Wight the year before, although the sketches he did there were idealised versions of seastacks and not actual representations of the Needles. It is not impossible that his potential visit to the Faraglioni at Capri some nine years previously had made a powerful impression on him, but I favour him when in Rome ‘Italianising’ his more recent memory of the sketch of the Needles. As his sketch of Ulysses was not available to him when painting the actual canvas back in Blighty, but his Isle of Wight sketch roll was, the final canvas was probably derived from his memory of one sketch supplemented by the actual IoW sketch in front of him (especially if the IoW sketch was the inspiration for the Italian sketch).
The IoW sketch was the direct result of specific experiences even if not actually painted on the spot, whereas the Italian sketches and paintings, and not just the Polythemus, are essays in composition executed in a Roman studio using inspirations from the surrounding countryside but relying more on memory than direct observation.
As one author put it “Turner’s visit to Rome in 1828-9 produced [a] generally more imaginative… increasingly diffuse, atmospherically-focused style… his vision was becoming more assimilated and likely to be expressed in future through memory or imaginative synthesis”
I conclude that his seascape rocks in Ulysses Deriding Polyphemus are an imaginative Italianised rendering of the Needles.
I leave it up to yourselves whether you reach the same conclusion.

I think this must all be right.

I suppose the question it leads me to is what made Turner think that 'Italianising' the Needles involved putting a gaping hole in one or more of them? And then I find it impossible not to speculate that he must have seen the Faraglioni in 1819, given we know he made a lot of sketched and watercolours in the Bay of Naples.

Is the formation as common as Monty says it is? He offers Canadian and Australian examples, but does this appear anywhere in the UK? I also can't find the Piombino formation you speak of.

When I have time, I will look through Turner's sketchbook from the 1819 trip, which the Tate has helpfully scanned in online. It's difficult to imagine that, if Turner did see the Faraglioni and they did make an impression him, that he wouldn't have made a sketch of them at some point.

However, it may have been that he only saw them from the deck of a boat, where he wouldn't have made a sketch from. Indeed, the Ulysess picture looks to me like the exact view of the Faraglioni I had when taking an anti-clockwise boat trip round Capri.

And if there is no sketch from Capri, that isn't fatal if there is no sketch of such a formation from anywhere.

There must be some actual Turner scholar somewhere who might be interested in this question.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

He was in Naples in 1819, therefore it is very possible that he saw the Fariglioni.
But there is a major caveat: we must remember that this was not very long after the Napoleonic Wars and Italy was not Italy - it was a series of Kingdoms and Duchies.
Turner was British and, like most Brits doing the Grand Tour, approached Italy via the Alpine passes. There was a very good reason for this insofar as the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, of which Naples was the capital, did not welcome foreigners in boats. It is not impossible that a foreign might get a trip in some small local vessel, but nearly all foreigners, in the immediate aftermath of the convulsions that shook Napoleonic Italy, were discouraged from arriving in Naples by sea. In order just to sail out to Capri he would have needed a passport and passports were not only expensive but extremely difficult to get hold of. I doubt he had the clout to arrange it.

Edit: I'm talking about ninteenth century passsports - not the modern equivalent - they literally allowed you to enter or leave a port and were issued by the host nation, not the home nation.

[TANGODANCER]

Just a view for consideration:

It's years since I drew and painted (apart from technical stuff). I do know this: Painting such a work would be impossible live for many reasons, and is concocted from a series of ideas, and possibly after getting many thoughts and memories from nature and geography, obtained by sketches. I doubt few would disagree so far. The Turner work in question is a theme from Greek mythology. Nothing about it is real, but fantasy fiction based on the Illiad. It's main focus is on the ships of Ulyssess and the mythical lair of Polyphemus in the distant background mountains. Add the suggested "spirits" from mythology and atmosphere rather than detail, Turner's famous blurring of it all by several means, light, mist, sunshine etc, and added details from rock formations typical of almost any coastline around the world placed to suit his painting. Could it be that Turner had no specific location in mind, just something that fitted his idea of the subject and using his collective information to achieve a result that could be painted at leaisure in a studio.?

This isn't a statement, just an idea.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Just a view for consideration:

It's years since I drew and painted (apart from technical stuff). I do know this: Painting such a work would be impossible live for many reasons, and is concocted from a series of ideas, and possibly after getting many thoughts and memories from nature and geography, obtained by sketches. I doubt few would disagree so far. The Turner work in question is a theme from Greek mythology. Nothing about it is real, but fantasy fiction based on the Illiad. It's main focus is on the ships of Ulyssess and the mythical lair of Polyphemus in the distant background mountains. Add the suggested "spirits" from mythology and atmosphere rather than detail, Turner's famous blurring of it all by several means, light, mist, sunshine etc, and added details from rock formations typical of almost any coastline around the world placed to suit his painting. Could it be that Turner had no specific location in mind, just something that fitted his idea of the subject and using his collective information to achieve a result that could be painted at leaisure in a studio.?

This isn't a statement, just an idea.

I agree that is probable, just that his imagination was probably molded by actual seastacks both at the Needles and potentially the rocks PB is on about.
That it is not an exact scene from nature is virtually indisputable because a) it was painted in England and was therefore from either memory or from sketch and b) the actual finished painting differs from the oil sketch he did in Rome, and c) that Roman sketch appears to be mainly based on the memory of another oil sketch he did in the Isle of Wight. The Isle of Wight sketch was not of the rocks he saw before his eyes and was maybe influenced by a combination of what he saw and a memory from a trip eight years previous in a different country (Italy)
Actuality would be very diffused in that apparent chain of events.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

When I have time, I will look through Turner's sketchbook from the 1819 trip, which the Tate has helpfully scanned in online. It's difficult to imagine that, if Turner did see the Faraglioni and they did make an impression him, that he wouldn't have made a sketch of them at some point.

.

Let us know what you find.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

He was in Naples in 1819, therefore it is very possible that he saw the Fariglioni.
But there is a major caveat: we must remember that this was not very long after the Napoleonic Wars and Italy was not Italy - it was a series of Kingdoms and Duchies.
Turner was British and, like most Brits doing the Grand Tour, approached Italy via the Alpine passes. There was a very good reason for this insofar as the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, of which Naples was the capital, did not welcome foreigners in boats. It is not impossible that a foreign might get a trip in some small local vessel, but nearly all foreigners, in the immediate aftermath of the convulsions that shook Napoleonic Italy, were discouraged from arriving in Naples by sea. In order just to sail out to Capri he would have needed a passport and passports were not only expensive but extremely difficult to get hold of. I doubt he had the clout to arrange it.

Edit: I'm talking about ninteenth century passsports - not the modern equivalent - they literally allowed you to enter or leave a port and were issued by the host nation, not the home nation.

He did indeed take a boat out from Naples. There are some sketches called Naples from the sea in one of his 1819 sketchbooks, so it looks like he had enough clout to arrange a passport.
Now all we need is to find the sketch of the rocks, if one exists...

[TANGODANCER]

One of the most frustrating things after drawing/painting a picture of something/someone
was always the question, to me, " Who is it supposd to be?" "Where is it supposed to be?", when in fact it was painted without that need of being either. Turner's title itself would eliminate the need for that question as it wasn't a landscape/seascape as such, but a mythical event. This is why I think a specific location would be largely unimportant in the context of the work. The Illiad was mythological and, as such, would surely have some quality of fantasy about its setting, which would effectively be Greek anyway if reality were a consideration ? Ther are masses of rock formations off Greece and its islands, this just one example:

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

One of the most frustrating things after drawing/painting a picture of something/someone
was always the question, to me, " Who is it supposd to be?" "Where is it supposed to be?", when in fact it was painted without that need of being either. Turner's title itself would eliminate the need for that question as it wasn't a landscape/seascape as such, but a mythical event. This is why I think a specific location would be largely unimportant in the context of the work. The Illiad was mythological and, as such, would surely have some quality of fantasy about its setting, which would effectively be Greek anyway if reality were a consideration ? Ther are masses of rock formations off Greece and its islands, this just one example:

Absolutely Tango - I'm not saying that the painting is 'supposed' to be depicting anywhere in particular. In fact I am 100% certain it is not.

But that rock formation isn't that common, and I know some residents of Capri who would be quite proud to think that it was a view of their island that 'inspired' Turner's painting of rocks looking like that and indeed I have been encouraged to look into this after mentioning my theory to someone from the island I stay in touch with.

I popped into the National Gallery at lunchtime and had a look at the painting. It occurred to me that painting rocks with one, central, gaping hole might subconsciously have felt appropriate as part of a story about a cyclops who'd just had his eye gouged out!

[TANGODANCER]

I popped into the National Gallery at lunchtime and had a look at the painting. It occurred to me that painting rocks with one, central, gaping hole might subconsciously have felt appropriate as part of a story about a cyclops who'd just had his eye gouged out!

In a painting where a cyclops is a focus, just about anything is possible.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Is the formation as common as Monty says it is? He offers Canadian and Australian examples, but does this appear anywhere in the UK? I also can't find the Piombino formation you speak of.

Ah, well the UK. In addition to the Needles, there are the Old Harry Rocks in Dorset, the Old Man of Hoy (Orkney), Clach Bheag and Clach Mhor (Durness), the Butt of Lewis, MacLeod's Maidens on Skye, Portland Bill, etc. etc. You can see many pictures here.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

double post

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Mummy... I've found powerful evidence that they are the Needles...
Here is the first painting Turner exhibited at the RA (Fishermen at sea)
Note the hole in the rock

It was exhibited in 1794, before Turner went to Italy.
This is what the Tate says

The first oil painting Turner exhibited at the Royal Academy, this is a moonlit scene in the tradition of Horace Vernet, Philip de Loutherbourg and Joseph Wright of Derby. These painters were largely responsible for fuelling the 18th-century vogue for nocturnal subjects. The sense of the overwhelming power of nature is a key theme of the Sublime. The potency of the moonlight contrasts with the delicate vulnerability of the flickering lantern, emphasising nature’s power over mankind and the fishermen’s fate in particular. The jagged silhouettes on the left are the treacherous rocks called ‘the Needles’ off the Isle of Wight.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

He obviously felt a powerful overwhelming need to put holes where holes didn't exist.

[Montreal Wanderer]

He obviously felt a powerful overwhelming need to put holes where holes didn't exist.

It could be the angle of sight - both gaps being between two Needles.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Mummy... I've found powerful evidence that they are the Needles...
Here is the first painting Turner exhibited at the RA (Fishermen at sea)
Note the hole in the rock

I agree that that is compelling.

It's strange, because I can't find any of the Needles with a hole in, but have found these in the South West, which Turner could very well have seen:

http://www.captivelandscapes.com/lands-end" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durdle_Door" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

He obviously felt a powerful overwhelming need to put holes where holes didn't exist.

It could be the angle of sight - both gaps being between two Needles.

This is also possible...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

He obviously felt a powerful overwhelming need to put holes where holes didn't exist.

It could be the angle of sight - both gaps being between two Needles.

This is also possible...

I disagree. There are three rocks at the Needles, none with holes. The nearer two might be perspective, but there is at least one hole that is pure imagination.