WOBO: Search for words and phrases in the texts here...

In 1782, he was elected professor of painting, in room of Mr. Penny, but did not lecture until 1784. His Jectures, now printed, are unquestionably among the best of his writings. He had long meditated an extensive design, that of painting the progress of theology, or, “to delineate the growth of that state of mind which connects man with his Creator, and to represent the misty medium of connection which the Pagan world had with their false Gods, and the union of Jews and Christians with their true God, by means of revelation.” At the time of his death, he was employed on etchings or designs for this purpose, but made no great progress. In the mean time he published his “Letter to the Dilettanti,” a work which his biographer justly characterises as not quite so tranquil or praise-worthy.

The appointment of professor of painting, honourable as it was, and the duties of which he might have discharged with reputation to himself, became in his hands the source of misfortune and disgrace. Original, and in many respects extremely singular in his opinions, he proposed changes and innovations which could not consistently be complied with, and by these means he often subjected himself to the pain of a refusal. His great object was, to appropriate a fund, accumulated from the receipts of exhibitions, to form a gallery of the old masters, for the use of the pupils. In this, and in many other efforts which he made with the same view, he entirely failed; so that, by continual opposition, he at length rendered himself so obnoxious to the jealousy of his brethren, that early in March 1799, a body of charges was received by the council at the royal academy, against the professor of painting; upon which the following resolution was passed, “that the charges and information were sufficiently important to be laid before the whole body of academicians to be examined; and if they coincide in opinion, the heads of those charges to be then communicated to the professor of painting.” This was intimated to Mr. Barry, by order of the council. On the 19th of March, the academy received the minutes of the council respecting the charges, and referred them to a committee elected for the purpose. The academy met again the 15th of April, to receive the report of the committee, when Mr. Barry arose, and demanded to be furnished with a copy of the report. This being denied, he protested against the injustice of the whole proceeding, and withdrew, declaring in plain terms, that “if they acted in conjunction with his enemies, without giving him the opportunity of answering for himself, and refuting the charges alleged against him, he should be ashamed to belong to the academy.” Having withdrawn, Mr. Barry was removed by a vote from the professor’s chair, and by a subsequent vote, expelled the academy. The whole proceedings were then laid before his majesty, who was pleased to approve them, and Mr, Barry’s name was accordingly struck off from the roll of academicians.

, a painter, born at Paris in 1617, the disciple and friend of Poussin and Albano, was appointed professor of painting by the academy of Paris, though absent, and therefore contrary to established custom; but Blanchet was accounted deserving of this departure from the rules. Le Brun presented his picture for reception, representing Cadmus killing a dragon. He spent a part of his life at Lyons, and there died in 1689. A ceiling at the town-house of that place, in which Blanchet displayed the whole force of his talents, was burnt by fire in 1674, and the rest of his works perished in the revolutionary destruction to which that city was doomed in 1793. This painter excelled in history and portraits. His touches are bold, agreeable, and easy, his drawing correct, and his colouring excellent. Several of his pictures were formerly at Paris.

, professor of painting, and director of the electoral academy of painting at Leipsic, was born at Presburgh in Hungary, in 1717. He became a student in the academy of painting at Vienna, and his “Sacrifice of Abraham” won the first prize, when he was in his eighteenth year. He learnt modelling of Raphael Donner, the sculptor. In 1739 he went to Dresden, and acquired some celebrity by his historic pictures. When the academy at Leipsic was founded by the elector Christian, Oeser was appointed director; and his best works are in St. Nicholas church in that city, where he died March 18, 1799. Fuseli is of opinion that, had he seen Italy, studied tfoe antique with greater assiduity, and submitted less to the dastard taste of his age, he probably would have more than rivalled Mengs, whom he excelled in invention and fire. Winkleman, with whom he became acquainted at Dresden, appears to have been indebted to him for the formation of his taste. Oeser has etched some of his own compositions in a free and picturesque manner.

, a very excellent artist and professor of painting in the Royal Academy, was born in May 1761, at St. Agnes in Cornwall, a village about seven miles distant from the town of Truro. In his earliest years he was remarkable for the strength of his understanding, and the rapidity with which he acquired all the learning that a village-school could afford him. When ten years old, he was not only able to solve several difficult problems in Euclid, but was thought capable of instructing others: and when he had scarcely reached his twelfth year, he established an evening school at St. Agnes, and taught writing and arithmetic. His father, a carpenter, was desirous to bring him up in his own business; but this was by no means suitable to one whose mind had attained some glimpses of science, and still more of art. He was formed a painter by nature; and had not this been the case, he would probably have excelled in some branch of science or literature: with much comprehension and acuteness, his thirst of information was insatiable, and his ambition to excel, unbounded. But painting was his destination, and after many early and rude efforts, he had hung his father’s house with portraits of his family and friends in an improved style, when he became acquainted with Dr. John Wolcot, then residing at Truro, and since so well known by the name of Peter Pindar: who, having himself a taste for drawing, and a strong perception of character, saw the worth of our artist, and was well qualified to afford him instruction in many requisite points. He also recommended him so effectually that he commenced professed portrait" painter, and went about to the neighbouring towns with letters of introduction to the principal families resident in them, and henceforward entirely supported himself by his own exertions.

Opie having been admitted an associate of the Royal Academy in 1786, and an academician in the year following, upon the dismissal of Mr. Barry from the body, aspired to the honour of being professor of painting, but resigned his pretensions in favour of Mr. Fuseli, who was chosen. When that gentleman was appointed to the station of keeper in 1805, he again advanced his claim, and vyas unanimously received. He had previously tried his power in literary composition, with no slight degree of success; first in the life of sir J. Reynolds, in Dr. Wolcot’s edition of Pilkington’s dictionary, and again in the publication of a plan for the formation of a national gallery, “tending at once to exalt the arts of his country and immortalize its glories.” He afterwards, in 1804, read two lectures on painting at the Royal Institution, which were fraught with instructions, and were received with applause; though it has been observed by a judicious critic, that the style in, which they were composed was “abrupt, crowded, and frequently unmethodical; rather rushing forward himself, than leading his auditors to the subject.” Nevertheless, his exertions on this occasion drew upon him respect, the more, perhaps, as he was not generally known to be a man fond of literature; and the world were the more surprised to hear refined sentiments in easy and even elegant language, from one who was not unfrequently represented as coarse and vulgar in mind and manner. In fact, Opie by no means merited such an unfavourable report; he was plain and unaffected, and spoke his mind freely; was manly and energetic, yielding little to folly or caprice, and by no means adapted to gratify the vain and ignorant; but he was not wilfully offensive, and condemned warmly those who were so.

In his will, after leaving to his mistress a sufficiency to live independent, he bequeathed the rest of his property to a relation at Urbino, and to two of his scholars, Julio Romano, and Francesco Penni; appointing an intimate friend Turini da Pescia his executor. His body lay in state in the tall of his own house, and the celebrated picture of the Transfiguration, which he had just finished, was placed at the head of the room. His remains were afterwards removed with great funeral pomp to the Pantheon, where the last ceremonies were performed, and at the request of Leo X. cardinal Bembo wrote an inscription, to honour his memory, and mark the place of his interment. These particulars we have selected from the best life of this great artist that has appeared in this country, written by R. Duppa, esq. and prefixed to his splendid publication of “Heads from the Fresco pictures of Raffaello in the Vatican,” 1802, as a companion to his “Heads of Michael Angela*” Mr. Duppa concludes with a critical essay on the merits of Raphael, too long for our limits, and too valuable to be injured by abridgment. In Sir Joshua Reynolds’ lectures are many interesting and important observations on the same subject, which in truth must enter deeply into every discussion on the art. We might refer likewise to Opie’s lectures, Barry’s works, and other authors who have professedly or incidentally treated of Raphael. The present professor of painting has a note on the subject which may not form an improper conclusion to our article, as he appears to have on this occasion exerted his highest powers of discriminative criticism.