The devil in the detail: Depiction of demonic figure in Joshua Reynolds artwork re-emerges after conservation efforts removed at least SIX layers of varnish and extra paint

• The portrait depicts the death of Cardinal Beaufort in Henry VI Part 2
• Sir Joshua Reynolds created the work at the end of his career in 1789 

It is a well-worn phrase that is likely to evoke the demon in us all when used.

But, thanks to conservation efforts by experts, the devil really is in the detail.

Work by National Trust conservators has seen a depiction of a fiend in a painting by Sir Joshua Reynolds re-emerge after more than two centuries of being obscured.

The portrait scene depicts the King witnessing the death of Cardinal Beaufort in William Shakespeare’s play Henry VI Part 2.

Created at the end of Reynolds’ career in 1789, the painting had been covered by at least six layers of varnish – as well as more paint – which had almost totally obscured the fanged imp on the right 

Work by National Trust conservators has allowed a depiction of a fiend in a painting by 18th century artist Sir Joshua Reynolds to re-emerge

In the play, Henry implores a peaceful death for the Cardinal – his uncle – by declaring: ‘O! Beat away the busy meddling fiend.’  

The inclusion of the fiend was controversial at the time because it did not align with the artistic style of the period. 

John Chu, the Trust’s senior curator for pictures and sculpture, said: ‘It didn’t fit in with some of the artistic rules of the times to have a poetic figure of speech represented so literally in this monstrous figure. 

‘When it was first shown at the Shakespeare Gallery in 1789 it generated more controversy than any other work on show.

‘While it was considered acceptable in literature to introduce the idea of a demon as something in the mind of a person, to include it visually in a painting gave it too physical a form.

‘There were even people who argued that it should have been painted out, although records of conversations with the artist show he resisted such attempts to alter the work.’

One critic noted in a newspaper article in 1789: ‘The Imp at the Cardinal’s bolster cannot spoil the Picture, but it does no credit to the judgement of the Painter. 

‘We rather apprehend that some Fiend had been laying siege to Sir Joshua’s taste, when he determined to literalise the idea. 

‘The license of Poetry is very different from that of Painting; but the present subject itself is complete in itself, and wants not the aid of machinery from Heaven or Hell. 

‘In this enlightened period astonishment and pity wait upon it.’ 

The painting was produced by Reynolds as a special commission for the Shakespeare Gallery in London’s Pall Mall.

Early copies of prints of the painting that were produced for export showed the presence of the fiend.

The conservation work brought the fiend back into sharp focus. It boasts evil eyes and sharp fangs 

Born in Plympton, Devon, in 1723, Reynolds spent his early career as an apprentice London portraitist Thomas Hudson

But, after Reynold’s death, a second print run in 1792 showed an attempt to remove it. 

And, in the original painting, the appearance was so degraded it gave the impression of having been removed from there too.

Dr Chu added: ‘It perhaps isn’t a surprise that it had receded so far into the shadows of the picture. 

‘It appears it was misunderstood by early conservators. 

‘Some decades after the painting was done, that area seems to have deteriorated into small islands of paint and become less clear due to the constituent parts of the paint. 

‘Degradation of successive varnish layers over the years made it even less visible.’ 

The experts found that the work had also had paint added to it since Reynolds’ death, a factor which further obscured the devil image.  

Becca Hellen, the trust’s senior conservator for paintings, said the amount of overpaint was considerable.

‘Reynolds is always difficult for conservators because of the experimental way he worked, often introducing unusual materials in his paint medium, striving for the effects he wanted to achieve,’ she said. 

‘The painting was lined, with an extra layer of canvas applied to the back, in the 19th century and at that time too much heat would have been applied.

‘The area with the fiend was especially difficult. Because it is in the shadows, it was painted with earth browns and dark colours which would always dry more slowly, causing shrinkage effects. 

‘With Reynolds’s resinous and waxy mediums and pigments not aiding drying of the paint, it was no surprise that the area of the fiend was a challenge. 

‘With the layers added by early restorers it had become a mess of misinterpretation and multiple layers of paints.’

Returned to display at Petworth House, West Sussex, after conservation, Sir Joshua Reynolds’ painting The Death of Cardinal Beaufort

The painting has now gone back on display at Petworth House in West Sussex.  

Hugely eminent during his lifetime, Reynolds was the first ever president of the Royal Academy of Arts.

Born in Plympton, Devon, in 1723, Reynolds spent his early career as an apprentice London portraitist Thomas Hudson.

Although he quickly established himself as a leading portrait painter, he was not popular with King George III.

One of his most famous works is the Portrait of Omai, which depicts the first Polynesian to visit Britain in 1774.

It is regarded as the first great British painting of a person of colour.

Omai became the toast of 18th-century London after coming to England with Captain Cook, who brought him from Tahiti.

Omai had seen his father killed by rival warriors and been taken prisoner himself before escaping.

The painting was saved for the nation this year after a £50million fundraising campaign.

It was previously owned by a company controlled by Irish billionaire John Magnier, who had wanted to take it to Ireland.

The Government made it subject to an export ban last year after an appeal by art historians and academics. 

Source: Read Full Article