The Gentle Art of Making Enemies

by James McNeill Whistler

Whistler's Gentle Art, a classic in the literature of insult and denigration, might well be subtitled "The Autobiography of a Hater," for it contains the deadly sarcasm and stinging remarks of one of the wittiest men of the nineteenth century. Whistler not only refused to tolerate misunderstanding by critics and the so-called art-loving public — but launched vicious counterattacks as well. His celebrated passages-at-arms with Oscar Wilde and Swinburne, the terse and penetrating "letters to the editor," his rebuttals to attacks from critics, and biting marginal notes to contemptuous comments on his paintings and hostile reviews (which are also reprinted) are all part of this record of the artist's vendettas.

Whistler's most famous battle began when critic John Ruskin saw one of the artist's "Nocturnes" exhibited in Grosvenor Gallery. "I have seen, and heard," wrote Ruskin, "much of cockney impudence before now; but never expected to hear a coxcomb ask two hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public's face." Whistler was incensed with this criticism, and initiated the famous libel case "Whistler vs. Ruskin." Extracts from the resultant trial record are among the highlights of this book, with Whistler brilliantly annihilating his Philistine critics, but winning only a farthing in damages.

The Gentle Art, designed by Whistler himself, is a highly entertaining account of personal revenges, but it is also an iconoclast's plea for a new and better attitude toward painting. As a historical document, it is the best statement of the new aesthetics versus the old guard academics, and it helped greatly in shaping the modern feeling toward art.

Genres: Art, Nonfiction, Classics, Biography, Humor, Memoir, Art History

334 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1890

About the author

James Abbott McNeill Whistler was an American artist, active during the American Gilded Age and based primarily in the United Kingdom. He was averse to sentimentality and moral allusion in painting, and was a leading proponent of the credo "art for art's sake". His famous signature for his paintings was in the shape of a stylized butterfly possessing a long stinger for a tail. The symbol was apt, for it combined both aspects of his personality—his art was characterized by a subtle delicacy, while his public persona was combative. Finding a parallel between painting and music, Whistler entitled many of his paintings "arrangements", "harmonies", and "nocturnes", emphasizing the primacy of tonal harmony. His most famous painting is Arrangement in Grey and Black No. 1 (1871), commonly known as Whistler's Mother, the revered and oft-parodied portrait of motherhood. Whistler influenced the art world and the broader culture of his time with his artistic theories and his friendships with leading artists and writers.

Reviews

[Alan · Rating 5 out of 5]

An instructive delight, which includes the artist-author's incisive testimony in his libel trial against Ruskin's condescending class-critique of Whistler as "cockney." Why, this trial ranks with the French assault on Flaubert for Madame Bovary (who won) and Baudelaire for Les Fleurs du Mal (who lost). Baronet Ruskin challenged the class of the artist, who in fact hailed from a new arguably higher class, that of international business and engineering. Whistler's father (who had died of cholera when he famously painted his mother) was an engineer moving from Lowell where the artist was born to Springfield, MA, to engineer the Boston to Albany railroad. From his success there, he was hired by the Czar to make the Moscow to St Petersburg line. Whistler famously considered St Petersburg his birthplace, with "I do not choose to be born in Lowell."
His education: Russia, West Point (to avoid his mother's preferred schooling toward English divinity), and France. Not bad for a Lowell and Springfield boy (like myself). He famously "flunked out" of West Point, then headed by Col. Robert E. Lee, and where his father had taught map making I think. After leaving he was employed making maps of the US coast.
I taught this at the Swain School of Design in the 90's, in New Bedford, in Herman Melville's sister's house, which was Swain's library. This delightful and instructive book, ranks among the best four or five ever written by an artist (Hello Vasari), but I am away from my shelf at the moment, must later add witty quotations.
From my shelf I now quote JMW, "Listen! There never was an artistic Period. There never was an Art-loving nation" (139). "This dreamer apart--was the first artist"(ibid.), whereas his antagonist Wilde says "an artist is not an isolated fact" (161). JMW talks of how ancient craftsmen making cups to drink from were artists, and people drank from them not because they were beautiful, but becasue there were none other. Then artists were replaced by manufactures, as with clothing, "Haphazard from their shoulders hang the garments of the hawker--combining in their person the motley of many manners with the medley of the mummers's closet"(154).
"False again, the fabled link between the grandeur of Art and the glories and virtue of the State, for Art feeds not upon nations, and peoples may be wiped from the face of the earth, but Art IS"(155).

[Théo d'Or]

Dear Mr. Whistler,
Dear Mr. Picasso,

We regret to inform you that your paintings have been rejected by the Royal Academy of Arts.
In the case of Mr. Whistler, after some laborious research, we decided that the color of the water in your paintings must be mandatory blue, and by no means that indecipherable color you used.
In the case of Mr. Picasso, we have used the latest technology to measure the accuracy of your paintings, and we have found that they are severily lacking in this regard.
Your eyes, for example, are often misplaced , distorted or mismatched. This creates a disturbing impression on the viewer, and violates the principles of harmony and beauty that we uphold. We have attached a report with the exact measurements and deviations of your eyes from the ideal proportions, and we have also calculated the asymmetry index of your eyes, which is a mathematical formula that quantifies the degree of dissimilarity between the left and right eye. The asymmetry index is defined as follows :

AI = /frac { /sum_{i= 1} >n_xi y-i } / sum_{ i= 1} >x_i >y_

where $x < or >_i$

are the coordinates of the corresponding points of the left and right eye, respectively , and $n$ is the number of points used.
The asymmetry index ranges from 0 ( perfect symmetry ) - to 1 ( complet asymmetry ) . In rare cases, the left eye can still be placed next to the right lung, but in the situation where x >12, 9 only, and taking care that it does not affect its perfect operating parameters.
We have applied this formula for some of your most famous portraits, such as " Les Demoiselles d'Avignon " , " Girl Before a Mirror " , and we have obtained the following results :
" Les Demoiselles d'Avignon " - $ AI=0,67 $ ,
" Girl Before a Mirror " - $ AI=0,76 $
These values are far above the acceptable threshold of 0,1 , which indicates a high level of asymmetry and disharmony. We suggest that you revise your style and technique, and adhere to the classical standards, and we also advice you to study the works of our esteemed members, who have mastered the art of depicting the human face with accuracy and elegance. Until then we cannot accept your paintings for exhibition or publication.
The gentle art of making enemies is always a concept we don't deviate from.

Sincerely,

The Royal Academy of Arts

[Sharon Barrow Wilfong · Rating 3 out of 5]

While I am a fan of Whistler's work, I do not think he was a nice person. I gather this not only from this record of his letters to local papers but also from a biography I am reading of him.

On the one hand, I suppose he had a right to be angry, considering some of the atrocious reviews written about his art. He was a man ahead of his time, no doubt. But his letters are so obnoxious, so flammable that one wonders whether he got a sadistic pleasure out of creating conflict and antagonizing other people, especially since some of his nastiest letters are addressed to people who did not criticize his art, like Oscar Wilde.

Some reviews have called his writing, "witty" but to me he sounded like a middle schooler taking adolescent pot shots at all the people he hated, which apparently was most of the people in existence.

Whistler was a narcissist and his letters show a mean streak that reflect an odious character. I will continue to admire his work, but I am unable to admire the man.

[Michelle · Rating 5 out of 5]

Despite the fact that James Abbott McNeill Whistler is universally renowned today, complete with portrait of his mother in the Louvre, and works represented in Washington DC's National Gallery of Art and the Smithsonian Institution, he was once the source of much controversy. Critics like John Ruskin continually implied he was a lazy, untutored painter who produced work of an unrefined (if not incomplete) nature.
Luckily for us, Whistler never took a criticism lying down. In this day and age, he would be on Twitter, and I would actually bother to sign up just so I could follow his witty retorts. The very existence of this book provides insight into the psyche of the man, he published it himself because of how clever his musings and arguments were. In the text, Whistler takes on numerous critics and fellow painters and provides an account of several of his well-known controversies through the back-and-forth of letters to the editor of various English publications of the time. He banters with Ruskin (his nemesis to the point of a libel lawsuit), the painter Swinburne, and even onetime friend Oscar Wilde (also known for his wit).
For readers who are familiar with Whistler, and his controversies, this is a quotation goldmine. But those who are not as familiar with his biography may get confused, as little context is provided for the correspondence. If you are in the Washington, DC area, please visit the Symphony in White (The White Girl) at the National Gallery, and the Freer Gallery which houses a number of Whistler's portraits and nocturnes. They're well worth it, and you'll get a much better sense in person than from Google images.
In any case, how fitting that the man who so carefully curated his pieces, and himself, that he should put together this bit of splendid snide remarks. Well done, Jemmy.

[Dasha · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think at the time it was published it was probably a truly great book. As a first precedent of the encounter (at least to this scale) between an artist and a critic, it is a very valid artifact. But overall my perception was massively spoiled by the book's organisation (nonexistent) and incoherence of the structure. The critical haranguings were followed by Whistler's remarks, and it was irritating af to constantly untangle where is which. I guess at the time of its publication the audience didn't need such clarifications due to the close knowledge of the context, the writing style of all participants, etc. Today is not the case, though, so I would not terribly mind some in-advance knowledge of whose words am I reading right now. So, overall, I took two stars off becasue of the errors of the editors of this publication rather than the content of the book itself. I would say that I really enjoyed Whistler as a character (because he put a great deal of effort to make himself one, for instance, his moth symbol with scorpio's stingy tail is quite a statement on its own), his wittiness, his feud with Wilde (with Ruskin it was more a war than a feud), his troubled path. I admire him for his strength, his ability to stand strong under the constant and at times ridiculous grouchy critique (my favourite one was "his chiaroscuro lacks moral grounding") and to follow through with his path. Whistler's innovative decisions on exhibition space design and his views on decorations and architecture really resonated with me (maybe even more than his paintings, even though I adore the Nocturnes), I feel that the man was far ahead of his time. 5 stars to Whistler, 3 stars to this particular edition (sorry, Ad marginem, you suck).

[Bela Schwartz]

I have mixed feelings. I've worked on a research paper about one of his paintings and, naturally, I have become more familiar with his life and body of work. Whistler delves into Aestheticism and exposes art critics, authors or anyone who disagreed with his artistic approach (which I completely understand and in fact, I find it amazing). This book shows how the bourgeoisie engaged with his artworks while also bringing to light who Whistler truly was: a man who sought attention everywhere he went (and he got it). Overall, I have a love and hate relationship with him.

I find him narcissistic and yet fascinating. I unironically like his unbearably annoying personality.

And yes, I do love his art! I'm not an enemy.

[Dakota ♥️ · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm going to be honest- it took me quite some time to even understand what I was reading. But I also love how sassy J. Whistler is, go on dude tell them off for being art critics and having an opinion you don't agree with. Pop off

[Jonathan Rimorin · Rating 3 out of 5]

A quick read. The first third of the book is a report of the libel suit Whistler brought against the esteemed art critic and his former friend John Ruskin, who had written of Whistler's "Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket" (1875), "I have never seen, and heard, much of cockney impudence before now; but never expected to hear a coxcomb ask two hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public's face." Ruskin was not only criticizing the painting (which was infamously exhibited upside down at its premiere) but the entire "Art For Art's Sake" movement of which Whistler was a leading proponent, which sought to bring abstraction and non-figuration into illustration without the moral or aesthetic judgments that had hitherto obtained. Whistler sued for £1000; the first third of the book details the proceeding of the libel case, wherein notable art critics line up (the only other one I recognised was the Pre-Raphaelite Edward Burne-Jones) and ultimately agree that there is no artistry to be found in "Nocturne in Black and Gold." Whistler attacks their attacks, somewhat wittily in court, but far more nastily in print form. The court finally finds for the Plaintiff, and, as Whistler crows proudly in huge print upon the page, awards him one farthing for his trouble.

The rest of the book are collections of nasty reviews of Whistler's work, with nasty ripostes written in the margin. There are some nice reproductions of Whistler's pieces in discussion, though they are necessarily in black and white. Whistler does come off as a bit of a dick; there's a bunch of letters from Oscar Wilde here where Whistler scores points off him -- private correspondence, as one learns from Richard Ellman's biography, that Wilde had not given permission to be published in the newspapers. This is the kind of friend Whistler was: suing Ruskin, violating Wilde's privacy (and snubbing him when he was in execration), writing countless witty, catty, discursive letters to the editor. All of them are proudly recounted here. He was a brilliant painter; and, whatever Whistler's flaws, he was not a shy man.

[kimberly_rose · Rating 3 out of 5]

People who have the balls to acerbically and confidently defend themselves and retain self-confidence in the face of criticism are amazing (e. g. Whistler, Clemens, Wilde).

But...

People who are hurt by the critics, or crushed by neglect, but who keep going, keep doing their thing, their way, are also amazing (e. g. Van Gogh).

My pathos-filled heart pounds and bleeds effusively for the second group; my fist pumps the air with a "Go, you!" for the first, even if sometimes I secretly think, "Okay, that was too far; now you're just being a dick." Truth, I prefer to read about the second group.

But the best group, the ones I aspire to, are the ones who mostly ignore the critics. Who cares how you are judged in someone else schema of the world? Live and let live. Don't take it personal. Because it never is.

So, Whistler. Yeah, he's a bit of a prideful dick at times, but entertaining and bold, despite the fact that his writing style is a tad dry for my reading sensibilities.

(I doubt we'd be friends IRL: his humility is on a "Missing" poster. A bit of fond self-depreciation is the sign of a healthy human.)

[Paul Black · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is the famous painter re: "Whistler's Mother" Whistler. He is a good writer. Lots of people call his writing "witty", but after a while I found him to be arrogant, overly sensitive, and perhaps even whinny.

This is his collection of slights, insults, and injustices, along with his counterattacks. He says only artists know enough to critic art and that art exists for its own sake. I agree that a good painting may have a balance of form and color without being a photo. And, yes, artists shouldn't merely pander to the masses. However, we all have a duty to use whatever our talent is to uplift, ennoble, and improve mankind.

[Bruce · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book, which gathers together a chronological series of published letters to the editor and like correspondence by and about the artist James McNeill Whistler, purports to be a compendium of wit a la Oscar Wilde. Indeed, Wilde is occasionally represented among the disputants.

A representative sample reads,

Sir—If it be not actionable, permit me to say that you really are delightful!!

Naïveté, like yours, I have never met—even in my long experience with all those, some of whose "agreeable literature" may be, I suppose, in the 807 cuttings [newspaper clippings] you charge me for.

Who, in Heaven's name, ever dreamed of you as an actual person?—or one whom one would mean to insult?

My good Sir, no such intention—believe me—did I, in my wildest of moments, ever entertain.

Your scalp—if you have such a thing—is safe enough!—and I even think—however great my willingness to assist you—could not possibly appear in the forthcoming Edition.

To Mr. Romeike,
April 25.

At its rare best, as in the court transcripts documenting Whistler's libel case against the critic Ruskin that open the book, it's darned amusing. Mostly, though, the book is a litany of decontextualized writings that serve to show up the painter of Whistler's Mother as a petty, thin-skinned score settler and a literary bore besides. Doubtless, the painter intended -- and for some part of the early 20th Century may have succeeded -- in presenting himself as a wickedly incisive scalp-taker, a proto-Noel Coward, -P.G. Wodehouse, a rival to salon-buddy Oscar Wilde. I come away from this with the impression that much if not all of it is performative. I don't think this primary source material reveals much of the man, who, perhaps unsurprisingly, is a far more complicated individual. A better work for that is Linda Merrill's The Peacock Room., the story of which (the room, not Merrill's book) I have just started developing as a drawing room musical. Actually, for those interested in Whistler and his influence from an artistic point of view, I wholeheartedly recommend all of Merrill's books. You'll pick up a lot about the man in the process. She's great on subtext.

As for Gentle Art, well, it is primary source-material. If you've ever listened to Peter Schickele's hilarious spoof-by-quote of J.S. Bach (and parody of Copland's Lincoln Portrait), Bach Portrait, you'll have the sense of it in a way that is far more terse and humorous. Incidentally, no need to buy a copy of this unless you want an adornment for your shelves. The contents are public domain and available through both Project Gutenberg and Google Books. The Gutenberg version is easier to scroll through and is decorated throughout with Whistler's signature butterflies.

[Phrodrick slowed his growing backlog · Rating 2 out of 5]

The Gentle Art of Making Enemies Kindle Edition by James McNeill Whistler (Author), yuper that Whistler, the better-known painter. Thank goodness that is over. Is it a DNF if every word appears before your eyes? I certainly saw every page, but I cannot believe every word entered my mind. I came to reading this very strange collection of authorial pique after an unlimited recommendation by another writer of the period, Max Beerbohm. There is some very fine language here, but for the rest it is tedious.

Heaven forfend that you should publish an opinion of James Whistler’s work other than filled with admiration. Unlike the many artists who come to realize that once created, and released to the public, there are critics who will not like your work and say so with some vehemence. Whistler will take offence in hisown defense and create the most involved and carefully crafted defenses of his work and denial of your right or qualification to do much more than breathe. JW takes on a number of names still known to us. His personal spleen with Oscar Wilde, almost reaches the humorous, but it is all splenetic. (reading this causes you to write this way, though JW is better). Whistler is rarely above wishing violence, even suicide on his targets.

Two instances can demonstrate Whistler as petty and to his credit<?>.
Having submitted about 30 etchings and paintings to be included as American submissions to a French Academy showing he is highly insulted that the American selection committee rejected about 1/3 of his pieces. Having 20+ items included should have been enough and when you submit for display, it should be understood the committee will make itsown selection.
!. Whistler was insulted that he was not asked to pick the ten to be left out and
2. He pined his anger on the chairman of the American effort who was not even on the selection committee.
And he kept this up after having been answered and the facts made clear.

In a later exchange he responds to criticism of a particular piece by blaming the art dealer. Whistler says his intention was to efface that piece. Whistler does not remove or destroy, he effaces. Not exactly taking ownership, but an art dealer, in possession of an item is supposed to know the artist wants it effaced, how?

In the middle there is a few paragraphs that, in near poetry defends that art is art. It need have and in fact should have no meaning except itself. Good art is not of a period, a place or a message. It simple is. As an example: Most of us know Whistler for the painting Whistler’s Mother. To him it was A Study in Grey. The presence of his mother is mere happenstance.

[Bartleby · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must have for Fine Art lovers and students of art history.

Nothing like it. Hilarious and brilliant.

Nothing else provided such a window into Victorian times and art scene.

Everything surrounding Whistler and this work is extraordinary also.
What a character. What times.

In addition, all surrounding the publication of this book is fascintating.
A must have for book collectors as well.

I have come across this and his other published books, early and First Editions, within collections of the most important and wealthiest people of the times.

Fascinating what a sensation this clearly was.
Always fascinating is finding ex-libris bookplates from former sitters of other important artists of the day also within these early editions.

Imagining this (and other) books on the shelves within some wealthy Downton Abbey mansion's library is fascinating to me as well.

At the end of his life he became better known for this book and his antics apparently rather than his artwork.

What it's all about here.
Great stuff and must have for the art lover.

PS: I would urge everyone to seek out the Monty Python sketch on the infamous exchanges and battels of wits (and pretnetiousness), between Oscar Wilde and Whistler.
(Can be found on UTube).

One other I quickly remember:

Whistler to Wilde: I walked by your house today..
Wilde replied: Thank you..

[Srđan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ako ste zaljubljeni u Vislera, ovo će biti šlag na tortu. Ako niste (kao ja), pola ove knjige će biti smaračko ali uporno pljuvanje po medijima (preko pisama) svih onih koji su mu se nekako zgrešili. Celo to veličanje njegove duhovitosti i viktorijanskog jezika otkriva zapravo jednu jako povređenu i ljutu osobu.

Pozitivne strane: Suđenje sa Raskinom je zanimljiva celina, Ten o’clock lecture i popis utisaka iz štampe za svaku njegovu sliku do tada.

[Bird Barnes · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ebook.

A book by 19th century artist John McNeill Whistler attacking his critics and their profession. The beginning of this book was kind of interesting and made me laugh but then it got repetitive after about 30% in.

Extra wordy 19th century writing style. I like his paintings/prints but he also seems like an asshole. Which is only entertaining about 30% of the time.

[Sean · Rating 5 out of 5]

"The gentle art of making enemies, as pleasingly exemplified in many instances, wherein the serious ones of this earth, carefully exasperated, have been prettily spurred on to unseemliness and indiscretion, while overcome by undue sense of right."

[Georgina · Rating 5 out of 5]

Highly amusing read, and gives great insight into whistler’s life and the contemporary art market/criticism at the time. The printing was formatted by whistler himself and the reflections, asides, and variations of his butterfly really add to the book as not just a book but a kind of art.

[Dave · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is helpful to pull up Whistler's works online while reading the vituperation he fought against in England.

[Lilly Jane · Rating 3 out of 5]

hilarious

[Persephone Abbott · Rating 3 out of 5]

"How to be a Successful Artist to Spite your best Critics" should be the subtitle. My, how Whistler drove the waves. He was relentless in his pursuit of art reviewers. Witty, rancune, it's an enjoyable read of the art of fine distempered correspondence, a great sporting event by all accounts. One wonders if the critics drew straws to see who would have the pleasure of reviewing Whistler's paintings and become the object of the artist's exhibitions.

[Reuben · Rating 4 out of 5]

Whistler's advocacy and wit in defense of his work often comes up to literary sketching, something many accused his art of during his life. That he has been vindicated as classic shows, in some ways, that his intellect for the craft was not just fancy. Worth reading for anyone who has been subject to critique, or to offering it.

[Jen · Rating 3 out of 5]

This collection of criticism, insult and spirited jibes proves Whistler to be a literary genius.

I'd say this is a must read for art history readers, if not for interest in Whistler then at least to wind up critical thinking of art criticism and historicism.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was sold on this from the moment I read on the back cover that it is "a classic in the literature of insult and denigration." I wish there were more letter collections like this.

[Kim]

just got it from the library.

[Alisa · Rating 5 out of 5]

I purchased this book following a Whistler exhibition. For anyone who appreciates well-worded, biting criticism, this is a must read.

[Charles · Rating 5 out of 5]

A CLASSIC.

[Ian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well, one has to start somewhere, doesn't one?

[Nadia · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have the old hard cover and the typography is amazing so I'd give that 5 stars. The banter is entertaining and scything especially for art world people. Haven't read the whole book.

[Tony Gualtieri · Rating 5 out of 5]

Artist bites back!

[Carol · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book is wonderful at times but Whistler's ego is hard on the nerves.