Showing posts with label John Constable. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Constable. Show all posts

Friday, September 25, 2026

Art Eyewitness Essay: Cloud Spotting with John Constable and Alfred Stieglitz

 


Cloud Spotting with John Constable & Alfred Stieglitz

Constable's Year by Susan Owens (Thames & Hudson, 223 pages, $35)

Chasing Clouds at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Thru Feb. 28, 2027)

By Ed Voves  Original photos by Anne Lloyd

On the evening of September 12, 1821, John Constable painted a dramatic view of the sunset over Hampstead Heath.  

Constable was working outdoors. He used a palette loaded with dabs of oil paint, rather than his water color box, to create Hampstead Heath, looking toward Harrow at Sunset.

 

      John Constable,  Hampstead Heath, looking toward Harrow at Sunset, 1821

In this remarkable painting, Constable reversed the order of priority of sky and ground in landscape painting. The dramatic sky above is accorded the starring role. The soil beneath Constable's feet - and of the barely visible people traveling on the path in the foreground - is almost an afterthought.

Constable would later write of this shift of perspective. "It will be difficult to name a class of landscape in which the sky is not the key note," Constable affirmed, "the standard of scale and the chief organ of sentiment.” 



Ramsay Richard Reinagle, Portrait of John Constable, c. 1799

With this remark, John Constable, born 250 years ago, launched a hugely significant dialog with nature. In due course, our perception of the world around - and above -  us would change. Constable's "refocus" continued to resonate in works by John Singer Sargent and Alfred Stieglitz over a century later.

In this Art Eyewitness essay, I will comment on a new book from Thames & Hudson, Constable's Year by Susan Owens, a former curator at the Victoria and Albert Museum and author of a superb history of drawing. Then, we will shift our focus to the just-opened exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum, Chasing Clouds. 



To these insightful surveys, several photos by my wife, Anne, will be added, showing how sky and clouds can continue to strike an artistic "key note" - even when the vantage point is a studio or bedroom window.




Anne Lloyd, Studio Window Skyscapes, 2026

By the standards of the early nineteenth century, Constable's Hampstead Heath, mentioned above, was an oil sketch, not a finished work. Painting in the open air on the following day, September 13, 1821, Constable looked-up again at the clouds swirling overhead. Then, he made a very bold decision.

Constable decided to paint the sky.



John Constable, Study of altocumulus clouds, September 13, 1821

 No distant horizon line. No misty mountains. No path through the forest. Just sky and clouds, very accurately depicted and scientifically classified. Constable entitled his first "skyscape", Study of altocumulus clouds.

On the back of this oil on paper, Constable jotted the following notation,"13 September 1821. one o'clock. Slight wind at North West, which became tempestuous in the afternoon, With Rain all the night following."



John Constable, Cloud Study, September 25, 1821

During the remainder of the early autumn of 1821, Constable continued to paint oil sketches of the cloud-laden skies. As Susan Owens points out in Constable's Year, autumn, with its fading colors and falling leaves, little appealed to Constable. The September skies, with their "peculiar tone and beauty" were a different matter.

A year later, again in September, he was back for another season of "skying" from his favorite vantage points on Hampstead Heath. Constable painted cloud-filled skies, until he could write to his friend, Archdeacon Fisher, "I am the man of clouds."

However, another Englishman of Constable's era was also directing his attention skyward. In 1803, an amateur scientist named Luke Howard (1772-1864) published An Essay on the Modification of Clouds. In this illustrated book, Howard defined and described the cloud types with terminology still in use today: Cirrus, Cumulus and Stratus.

Constable was certainly familiar with Howard’s cloud "modification" (which then meant classification). In many respects, he was more than ready to embrace such close study of nature as an integral facet of art. In an 1836 lecture, Constable asserted:

Painting is a science, and should be pursued as an inquiry into the laws of nature. Why then may not landscape painting be considered as a branch of natural philosophy of which pictures are but the experiments?

Constable's actual practice of art was notably less definitive. He remained more a man of sentiment, rather than a practitioner of "painting as a science." 



John Constable, Hadleigh Castle, 1829

In 1829, Constable, grief-stricken over the death of his wife, painted Hadleigh Castle. Here the sky, though memorably executed, was treated as a backdrop to land and sea and the crumbling battlements erected by man.

Owen's book - compulsively readable, even for readers familiar with British art history - traces Constable's reactions to all four seasons of the year. Owens brilliantly correlates the annual rhythms of life in Regency England to Constable's creative efforts. Predictably, winter put him in a reflective, melancholy frame of mind. 

Constable had a lot more on his mind than the weather when he looked at clouds.

During the last years of his life, Constable wrestled with issues of mortality and morality. Was the sky, merely a "standard of scale" or was it "the chief organ of sentiment?” In 1839, two years after his passing, science, in the shape of photography, seemed to settle the issue. 

"From today, painting is dead," the artist Paul Delaroche exclaimed upon seeing one of the first photographs, a daguerreotype.

Delaroche's obituary for painting was premature, especially in regards to daguerreotypes. These one-of-a-kind pictures were produced from silver-coated sheets of copper, making them unsuitable for almost anything but portraits.

One of the most fascinating works of art in the Met's Chasing Clouds directly relates to the difficulties in trying to expand the range of early photography. In 1844, a pair of French "lensmen", Marie-Charles-Isidore Choiselat and Stanislas Ratel, took-up the challenge of creating a daguerreotype landscape.



Marie-Charles-Isidore Choiselat & Stanislas Ratel, Landscape, 1844

The result of this experiment is little short of miraculous. The astonishing mirror image of the cottage is a masterpiece in its own right. 

Yet, the daguerreotype of Choiselat and Ratel is an unsettling work. It is so focused on surface detail that there is little depth to the photo. And because of the slow exposure speed of daguerreotypes, not a trace of clouds can be seen. If any were in the sky at the time, these would have been moving too fast to be captured by Choiselat and Ratel! 

For artists and the scientific-minded of the Romantic era, the allure of clouds was too great to be resisted. The process of photography was still in its adolescence, when Gustave Le Gray and Charles Marville successfully addressed the problem of focusing on landscape and skyscape. 

Gustave Le Gray (1820-1884) approached this task by combining photographic negatives. This was a process already in use in studio photos, but Le Gray audaciously took it out-of-doors. Beginning in 1855, he took photos of the shoreline and the sky along France's Mediterranean coast, especially the seaport of Sète. He joined the negatives at the horizon line, almost seamlessly.



Gustave Le Gray, The Great Waves, Sète, 1857

Images like The Great Wave earned Le Gray international acclaim. He had succeeded in creating photographs with expertly focused expanses of sky and of land & sea. Moreover, he was able to evoke the pictorial interest and emotional impact of paintings like Constable's Hadleigh Castle.

While Le Gray was preoccupied with his remarkable combination technique, Charles Marville took some time-off from photographing the architecture of Paris to do a little "cloud spotting" for himself.

Marville was anything but a "romantic" photographer. His eye for precision and expert camera work would earn him the commission from Napoleon III to document the demolition of vast swathes of old Paris by Baron Haussmann in order to make way for the boulevards and public spaces of the new "city of light" Paris.

Yet, Marville was intrigued by the masses of clouds he could see from the window of his studio on the rue Saint Dominique. With the dome of the hospital, Les Invalides, as the center point, Marville adjusted the camera lens to focus on the skies, leaving the lower reaches of the scene in shadow. Since the silhouette of Les Invalides was instantly recognizable, the photo succeeded without the need to combined negatives.


Charles Marville, Cloud Study, Paris (top)1855-56; (below)1856-57

A year later, Marville tried again. This time, he achieved a more balanced focus of cloud structure and of architectural detail in the streets below. Given, the technology of the time, this ranks as one of the great achievements of early photography.

Both Le Gray and Marville were "pushing the envelope" of what was feasible for photographers during the 1850's. Though innovations in camera design and film quality were made later, a gulf continued to exist between vision and practice for much of the nineteenth century.

As Chasing Clouds at the Met shows, photography did not kill painting, even when it came to depicting clouds. Many artists continued to follow Constable's lead and kept painting the skies above. 



John Singer Sargent, Clouds, 1897

One of my favorites in the Chasing Clouds exhibition is a watercolor by John Singer Sargent. Sargent's Clouds was painted in 1897, exactly one year before a major technological innovation which would change photography and cloud spotting forever.

A new hand-held camera, the Graflex single-lens-reflex, was introduced by the Folmer and Schwing Manufacturing Company of New York City in 1898. Though bulky-looking to modern eyes, the Graflex had a rapid-shutter speed and portability that Gustave Le Gray and Charles Marville could only have dreamed of using.

In the hands of a skilled photographer, the Graflex was capable of producing masterpiece-caliber pictures. In the hands of Alfred Stieglitz (1864-1946), it did. 



Clara Sipprell, Alfred Stieglitz, 1932

Stieglitz used a Graflex to create his iconic The Steerage in 1907. A decade and a half later, Stieglitz tilted his Graflex upward and began taking cloud photos. Initially, he called this series, Music - a Sequence of Ten Cloud Photographs. Then, as the number of cloud photos escalated, the title was changed to Equivalents. 



 Alfred Stieglitz, Equivalent,1924

Stieglitz prints of the Equivalent photos are prized possessions of a number of American art museums. But they cannot be shown on a long-term basis. Thus, Metropolitan Museum is doing art lovers a great service by presenting twenty-one Equivalents for their close inspection. Opportunities like this do not often occur.

In a short essay, published in 1923, Stieglitz explained his motivation for taking cloud photos:

I wanted to photograph clouds to find out what I had learned in 40 years about photography. Through clouds to put down my philosophy of life—to show that my photographs were not due to subject matter—not to special trees, or faces, or interiors, to special privileges—clouds were there for everyone. 

Thus, in looking toward the clouds, Stieglitz was grappling with Constable's dilemma. When depicting the skies, is the artist's goal to establish a "standard of scale" or to gain access to "the chief organ of sentiment?” 

Stieglitz' answer was one of ironclad certainty, nothing is "due to subject matter... clouds were there for everyone." 

Perhaps unconsciously, this assertion provides a clue for the way that the clouds became less-and-less identifiable and the images more cryptic as the Equivalent series evolved. Some of the cloud-filled skies look the ripples in a stream of water or a crust of ice on a frosted window in winter.



Alfred Stieglitz, Equivalent, 1926


Alfred Stieglitz, Equivalent, 1926

Other photos bore little resemblance to anything, including clouds. This ambiguity would lead to applause for Stieglitz from the connoisseurs of modern art and the embrace of the Equivalents as an important addition to the growing body of Abstract art. 

Stieglitz' effort to use cloud study to open a portal to personal feelings and insights was certainly a heroic endeavor. It took place over an extended period, 1922 to 1931. Over four hundred sky and cloud photos were taken, some of which were quickly presented in exhibitions such as Seven Americans in 1925 at the Anderson Galleries in New York. Others were not published or exhibited until many years later. 

Stieglitz' cloud photography was something of an on-going venture during his lifetime. Might we then interpret the Equivalents as an open-ended, never officially closed endeavor? Might we not add some of our own renderings of the ethereal realm above our heads?

Here to answer these questions and to conclude our essay is a selection of Anne's cloud studies. 


                                                                                   
                                                                                        


Anne Lloyd, Sky & Cloud Studies, 2022, 2024 & 2025  

There is no doubt in my mind, reflecting on Anne's photos, that Constable was correct in stating that the sky supplies the "keynote" of landscape art.




And clouds? Stieglitz was right, too. The clouds are "there for everyone."

***

Text: Copyright of Ed Voves, all rights reserved                                                                                          

Original photography, copyright of Anne Lloyd, all rights reserved

Book Cover of Constable’s Year by Susan Owens Courtesy of Thames & Hudson

Promotional Image for the Chasing Clouds exhibition, Courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, NYC

The Equivalent photos by Alfred Stieglitz, used in this review, are from the collection of the Art Institute of Chicago. These are comparable to those on display in the Metropolitan Museum’s exhibition, Chasing Clouds. The Met’s Stieglitz photos are currently embargoed for use in Internet articles and reviews.

Introductory Image:

Anne Lloyd, Photo (2014) A cloud study made at Haworth, Yorkshire, UK, near the Bronte Parsonage Museum.

John Constable Hampstead Heath, looking toward Harrow at Sunset, 1821 Oil on paper: 24.1 x 29.8 cm. (9 ½ x 11 ¾ in.) Private collection. Courtesy of Thames & Hudson

Ramsay Richard Reinagle, Portrait of John Constable, c.1799 Oil on canvas: 76.2 cm × 63.8 cm (30.0 in × 25.1 in) National Portrait Gallery, London.

Anne Lloyd, Photo (2026) Studio Window Skyscapes, 2026.

John Constable, Study of altocumulus clouds, September 13, 1821. Oil on paper: 24.8 x 30.3 cm. (9 7/8 x 11 ½ in.) Yale Center for British Art. B1981.25.156

John Constable, Cloud Study, September 25, 1821. Oil on paper: 24.8 x 30.3 cm. (9 7/8 x 11 ½ in.) Yale Center for British Art. B1981.25.156 Courtesy of Thames & Hudson

John Constable, Hadleigh Castle, 1829. Oil on canvas: 122 x 164.5 cm. (48 1/8 x 64 7/8 in.) Yale Center for British Art. B1977.4.42Courtesy of Thames & Hudson

Marie-Charles-Isidore Choiselat & Stanislas Ratel, Landscape, 1844. Daguerreotype: 16.4 x 21.7 cm (6 7/16 x 8 9/16 in.) Metropolitan Museum of Art. #1994.417J

Gustave Le Gray, The Great Wave, Sète, 1857. Albumen silver print from two glass negatives: 33.7 x 41.4 cm (13 1/4 x 16 5/16 in.) Metropolitan Museum of Art. #1976.646

Charles Marville, Cloud Study, Paris (top) 1855-56. Albumen silver print from glass negative: 15.4 x 21 cm (6 1/16 x 8 1/4 in.) Metropolitan Museum of Art. #2005.100.353; (below) 1856-57. Albumen silver print from glass negative: 16.7 x 20.6 cm (6 9/16 x 8 1/8 in.) Metropolitan Museum of Art. #1987.1094

John Singer Sargent, Clouds, 1897. Watercolor on white wove paper: 35.6 x 25.2 cm. (19 x 9 15/16 in.) Metropolitan Museum of Art #50.130.30

Clara Sipprell, Alfred Stieglitz, 1932. Gelaton Silver Print: Image Sheet: 22.3 x 17.6 cm. (8 ¾ x 6 15/16 in.) National Portrait Gallery, Washington D.C. NPG 82.196

Alfred Stieglitz, Equivalent, 1924.Gelatin silver print: Image: 9.6 × 12.1 cm (3 13/16 × 4 13/16 in.); Paper: 10.1 × 12.7 cm (4 × 5 in.): Art Institute of Chicago. Alfred Stieglitz Collection. #1949.793

Alfred Stieglitz, Equivalent, 1926. Gelatin Silver print. Image: 11.9 × 9.3 cm (4 11/16 × 3 11/16 in.) Art Institute of Chicago. Alfred Stieglitz Collection. #1949.809

Alfred Stieglitz, Equivalent, 1926. Gelatin Silver print: Image: 11.6 × 9.2 cm (4 5/8 × 3 5/8 in.)Art Institute of Chicago. Alfred Stieglitz Collection. #1949.809

Anne Lloyd, Photos. Sky & Cloud Studies, 2022, 2024 & 2025

Anne Lloyd, Photo (2025) November Clouds, 2025.

   

Wednesday, May 8, 2019

Gainsborough's Family Album at the Princeton Museum of Art


Gainsborough's Family Album


Princeton University Art Museum
February 23 - June 9, 2019

Reviewed by Ed Voves

In June of 1787, the British painter Thomas Gainsborough was staggered by the death of Carl Friedrich Abel. A noted composer and master player of the viola da gamba, Abel had been one on the music-loving painter's greatest friends. In a letter to Rev. Henry Bate-Dudley, Gainsborough wrote:

We love a genius for what he leaves and we mourn him for what he takes away... For my part I shall never cease looking up to heaven - the little while I have to stay behind - in hopes of getting one more glance of the man I loved from the moment I heard him touch the string. 

Visitors to the superb exhibition, Gainsborough's Family Album, now at the Princeton University Museum of Art, will likely extend these moving words to Gainsborough himself.

Gainsborough's Family Album presents forty-four works by Gainsborough - all dealing with the subject of family: Gainsborough's family. The theme is hugely significant because Gainsborough painted his wife and daughters, siblings, niece, nephew and in-laws at exactly the moment when the concept of the modern family was taking shape. 

Earlier in history, family units were more extended and communal in nature. That of course is a broad generalization but the eighteenth century definitely saw a shift to more focused units of familial affection. Thomas Gainsborough's family, as the Princeton exhibition shows, was at the epicenter of this development, Great Britain during the reign of a noted family man, King George III. 

The facts of Gainsborough's life are essential to understanding the Princeton Museum exhibition and the greater story it tells.


Thomas Gainsborough,Self-portrait, mid-1770's, 
completed by Gainsborough Dupont, 1790

Thomas Gainsborough (1727-1788) was a native of Suffolk in the eastern part of England, directly across the North Sea from the Netherlands. John Constable (1776-1837) was born in that region too and both artists looked to the great Flemish and Dutch art traditions which had begun to depict family life as an important theme a century before. 

Gainsborough's family were devout Christians, but not of the established Church of England. They were "independents," outsiders who could not hold government jobs or commissions in Britain's armed forces. Excluded from positions of power, many Independents found scope for their talents in the mines, factories and iron foundries of the rising Industrial Revolution. A Baptist preacher, Thomas Newcomen, invented the first effective steam engine in 1712.


Thomas Gainsborough, 
Humphrey Gainsborough, the Artist's Brother, early 1770s

Gainsborough's brother, Humphrey, followed a similar path. Humphrey was the minister of the Independent congregation of Henley-on-Thames on Sunday. During the workweek, he was an engineer, who is credited with a number of inventions, including improvements to Newcomen's engine.

Very much an "independent" himself, Thomas Gainsborough directed his creative talents in a different direction - the field of art.

Another vital factor about Gainsborough was  his personality. A charismatic and contradictory man, Gainsborough's personality was cut from the "whole cloth" of human nature.

A portrait painter by necessity, Gainsborough devoted himself to painting "landskips" of the English countryside - which seldom sold. He cared little for reading but was a skillful amateur musician. Generous to his friends, Gainsborough was thin-skinned and combative in his relationship with the art establishment, often at odds with Sir Joshua Reynolds, the president of the Royal Academy. 

And then there was his family. Gainsborough was a loving, doting father to his two daughters, Mary and Margaret. He was dutiful to his wife, Margaret, respecting her good sense and financial management skills. Gainsborough, however succumbed to the sexual temptations of the "rakehell" 1700's. He nearly died in 1763 of a fever likely caused by a "dangerous liaison."

Gainsborough's infidelity was especially hurtful as Margaret was the illegitimate daughter of the third Duke of Beaufort. She received a hefty annuity from the Duke's estate which bankrolled Gainsborough's artistic career, especially during his early struggles. Thus, Gainsborough's unfaithfulness was truly a "blow upon a bruise."

By way of recognition of his wife's many virtues, Gainsborough painted a number of portraits of her later in life. This 1777 likeness of Margaret Gainsborough is surely one of the greatest portraits of a wife ever painted by a husband.  



Thomas Gainsborough, Margaret Gainsborough, the Artist's Wife, 1777

For all the excesses and contradiction in his life, Gainsborough was shrewd and perceptive in the way he portrayed his family. He both loved his family as individuals and grasped their strengths and weaknesses. In doing so, Gainsborough had to have reflected on his own character and character faults. Only a person with strong self-awareness could have painted the incredible portraits which we see in the special exhibition gallery at Princeton. 
  

Thomas Gainsborough, 
The Artist' with his Wife Margaret and Eldest Daughter Mary, 1748

One of the first paintings on view in Gainsborough's Family Album is a very early work, painted in 1748. It shows a dapper Gainsborough and his wife, Margret, wearing a billowing, blue silk dress. Gainsborough's family was engaged in the clothing trade and he was extremely skillful in depicting a variety of textiles. This is a very fashionable painting, a conversation piece in the style of Gainsborough's teacher, Francis Hayman.

The Artist with his Wife, Margaret and Eldest Daughter Mary is also a somber, sorrowful work. The little child died before it was finished and the expressions of her parents reflect their emotions. Gainsborough had been attempting to establish his painting business in London at this time. In order to protect his wife and future children, he made the courageous and risky move to leave London for the more healthy environment of Sudbury in Suffolk and then the spa resort of Bath.

Gainsborough and his wife were blessed with two surviving daughters. The eldest was also named Mary, born in 1750, with Margaret following a year later. Gainsborough called them "Molly" and "the Captain."




Anne Lloyd, Photo (2019)
 View of the entrance to the Gainsborough's Family Album exhibit

While the girls were still very young, Gainsborough painted them chasing a butterfly, one of the great treasures of British art. This enchanting work appeared in the first presentation of Gainsborough's Family Album at the National Portrait Gallery in London. It is not on view in the Princeton show but a spectacular, over-sized copy welcomes visitors at the entrance to the exhibition gallery.

In 1760-61, Gainsborough painted a pair of double-portraits of his daughters which pose a number of questions. Gainsborough devoted exceptional skill to the faces of Mary and Margaret, yet both pictures of the adolescent girls remained unfinished. The most likely answer is that these were experimental paintings, tests of Gainsborough's ever-developing technique.


Thomas Gainsborough, Mary and Margaret Gainsborough,
 the Artist's Daughters, c. 1760–1 

The portrait of Mary reaching out to Margaret was originally painted on a single canvas, with Mary positioned slightly above Margaret. Later, the painting was cut into two separate portraits. Restorers, at some point in more recent times, reunited and touched-up the two parts, albeit in a way that was never intended. Had this been a finished painting, none of this would likely have occurred.


The unfinished nature of the double portrait of Molly and The Captain which introduces this review provides more insight into Gainsborough's technique. The cat they are playing with is barely sketched-in. Even more startling is the minimal attention given to the texture of the girls' dresses. For an artist who devoted enormous effort to getting the sheen and crinkle of silk and satin "just right," Gainsborough seems almost negligent in the way he painted his daughter's clothing. He just gives the impression in both of these portraits of everything but the faces of Mary and Margaret.

The word Impression is key to understanding Gainsborough. In many ways, he was the first "impressionist" though Velazquez could claim that honor too. It was not an accident either. Gainsborough often tied his painting brush to a long stick and painted at a considerable distance from his canvas. The effect was what you would expect in a Renoir or Van Gogh.

Sir Joshua Reynolds, speaking of Gainsborough after his death in 1788, directed the attention of his audience to how "all those odd scratches and marks… this chaos, this uncouth and shapeless appearance, by a kind of magick at a certain distance assumes form."

This "kind of magick" is less noticeable in Gainsborough's grand manor portraits - though it is certainly there. British artists - and more to the point, their aristocratic patrons - were enamored of the magnificent portraits of Charles I and his court painted by Anthony van Dyck. Every rich detail - exactly true to life. That was expected of Gainsborough and he complied, as can be seen in several formal likenesses he painted of his daughters as they matured into young ladies.




Thomas Gainsborough, Mary and Margaret Gainsborough,
the Artist's Daughters at their Drawing, C. 1763

The 1763 oil on canvas, subtitled The Artist's Daughter, at their Drawing is especially evocative of Van Dyck's influence. Looking at this marvelous work helps us understand why Gainsborough spoke of the Flemish master with his dying words, "Van Dyck was right."

Gainsborough looked at much more than surface details as we see in the portrait he painted of his sister Sarah, around 1777-79. Sarah Dupont (1715-1795) was well into her "sixties" by the time her brother painted her. The bloom had long faded from her looks, but perceptive intelligence, dignity and integrity beam from her eyes.


Thomas Gainsborough, Sarah Dupont, the Artist's Sister, c. 1777–9

All these traits in combination make for a lively and aware person - a person of inner beauty. This is the person Thomas Gainsborough saw and painted nearly two and a half centuries ago.

What he saw in his sister, Sarah, Gainsborough saw and painted in his other family members. Their portraits, on display at the Princeton University Museum of Art, speak to human values which may be glimpsed on the faces of those we know and love, if - like Thomas Gainsborough - we look hard enough to see.

***
Text: Copyright of Ed Voves, all rights reserved
Original photo by Anne Lloyd, all rights reserved
Images courtesy of the Princeton University Art Museum, the Art Institue of Chicago and the Yale Center for British Art

Introductory Image: Thomas Gainsborough( British, 1727-1788) The Painter’s Daughters, Playing with a Cat, 1760-61. Oil on canvas: 75.6  x 62.9cm. (29 3/4 × 24 3/4 in.) National Gallery, London. Accession Number: NG3812

Thomas Gainsborough (English, 1727–1788), completed by Gainsborough Dupont, (British, 1754–1797) Self -portrait, mid-1770s and 1790. Oil on canvas: 76.6 × 63.5 cm (30 3/16 × 25 in.) The Samuel Courtland Trust. The Courtauld Gallery, London

Thomas Gainsborough (English, 1727–1788) Humphrey Gainsborough, the Artist's Brother, early 1770s. Oil on canvas: 59.7 × 49.5 cm (23 1/2 × 19 1/2 in.) Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection

Thomas Gainsborough (English, 1727–1788) Margaret Gainsborough, the Artist’s Wife, ca. 1777. Oil on canvas: 76.6 × 63.8 cm (30 3/16 × 25  1/8 in.) The Samuel Courtauld Trust. The Courtauld Gallery, London

Thomas Gainsborough( English, 1727–1788) The Artist with his Wife Margaret and Eldest Daughter Mary, 1748? Oil on canvas: 92.1 × 70.5 cm (36 1/4 × 27 3/4 in.) The National Gallery, London. Acquired under the acceptance-in-lieu scheme at the wish of Sybil, Marchioness of Cholmondeley, in memory of her brother, Sir Philip Sassoon, 1994

Anne Lloyd, Photo (2019) View of the entrance to the Gainsborough's Family Album exhibition,  Princeton University Museum of Art, 2019.

Thomas Gainsborough (English, 1727–1788) Mary and Margaret Gainsborough, the Artist's Daughters, c. 1760–1. Oil on canvas: 40.6 × 58.4 cm (16 × 23 in.) Victoria and Albert Museum, London. Bequeathed by John Forster

Thomas Gainsborough (English, 1727–1788) Mary and Margaret Gainsborough, the Artist's Daughters, at their Drawing, c. 1763–4. Oil on canvas: 127.3 × 101.7 cm (50 1/8 × 40 1/16 in.) Worcester Art Museum, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA. Museum purchase, 1917.181


Thomas Gainsborough (English, 1727–1788) Sarah Dupont, the Artist's Sister, c. 1777–9 Oil on canvas: 77.2 × 64.5 cm (30 3/8 × 25 3/8 in.) The Art Institute of Chicago, Charles H. and Mary F. S. Worcester Collection; through prior gifts of Mr. and Mrs. Denison B. Hull, Mr. and Mrs. William Kimball, and Mrs. Charles McCulloch, 1987.13