Completed Portraits: British 18th C 36 Can you confirm that this portrait is by Daniel Gardner (1750–1805)?

SYO_CAN_BMBC_CH_2357-001.jpg
Topic: Artist

Could this be by Daniel Gardner (1750–1805)? It is a small-format full-length portrait which is typical of Gardner, as are the Reynoldsian pose and somewhat overblown draperies, and the rouged cheek.

The collection recently checked its records, and found an attribution by Christie's to Gardner. It also confirmed that the painting is oil and gouache on paper. The Art UK record has been updated to include this information.

Still open is the question of whether this is merely attributable to Gardner or more certainly by him. The particular combination of media and support, as now confirmed, is highly typical of Gardner. Taking this into account alongside the overall character of the work and the handling, I suggest there can be little doubt that Barnsley's very attractive portrait is actually by Daniel Gardner.

Completed, Outcome

This discussion is now closed. Several updates have taken place since the discussion began in 2017. The artist was unknown, and the painting is now firmly attributed to Daniel Gardner. The title has been amended from ‘Adelaide Augusta Wilhelmina Dutton, Wife of Sir Henry Hunoke’ to ‘Lady Hunloke, née Margaret Roberts Coke (1752–1821), wife of Sir Henry Hunloke, 4th Baronet’ (the former title referred to the sitter’s granddaughter). The medium and support have been updated from ‘oil on canvas’ to ‘oil and gouache on paper’, pending confirmation by the collection on whether it is gouache and pastel, the latter probably combined with oil or alcohol.

Thank you to everyone who contributed to the discussion. To anyone viewing this discussion for the first time, please see below for all the comments that led to this conclusion.

35 comments

Bendor Grosvenor,

Thanks for posting. I went to see this some years ago - certainly by Gardiner in my view. I recall that Neil Jeffares also agreed. I think there's another picture by him in the same room?

Christopher Foley,

The costume looks 1770's and the pose of her head resting on her hand is typically an illustration of "Melancholia" deriving ultimately from Etruscan prototypes. Perhaps it marks death of her father Wenman Coke in 1776. Certainly by Gardner, the most idiosyncratic of artists

This portrait is absolutely typical of the work of Daniel Gardner with his highly idiosyncratic use of mixed-media on paper, and with its blatant stylistic homage to female portraiture by Sir Joshua Reynolds.

Simon Gillespie,

Having studied Gardners work I too would endorse this portrait as being by him. Gardners technique is quite unique light colours confidently applied strokes. Typical of his early to mid career .
Classic borrowing of Reynolds and Romneys poses.

Neil Jeffares,

Indeed the picture is J.338.1419 in the Dictionary of pastellists. Should it be in ArtUK which excludes pastels and gouaches? Or should that policy change?

Neil Jeffares,

The sitter however is the wife of the 4th baronet, Margaret Roberts Coke (c.1752–1824), sister of the Earl of Leicester, not her great-granddaughter Adelaide Augusta Wilhelmina Hunloke who died in 1904.

Malcolm Fowles,

1. The collection "confirms that the painting is oil and gouache on paper", the sitter's epoch does not match the artist, and the work is "attributed" - though the above discussion should change this.

2. The painting is in the Dictionary of Pastellists, with photograph. The dictionary gives none of its abbreviations for media other than pastel, nor "pstl" itself (but it is to be "understood" when absent). It also has the Φ that denotes the work is considered autograph, unqualified. The sitter's epoch matches the artist.

I ought to be confused, but Art Detectives has taught me that Art History is a decidely postmodern field, where fluid versions of reality co-exist. Indeed, that's half the fun.

As an amateur pastellist and devotee of masters of the medium, disappointed by the PCF's original exclusion of pastel works, may I ask for agreement on which sources are correct about what, please? It would also be very postmodern of us to investigate how the different versions came to be.

Neil Jeffares,

The other Gardner picture is indeed J.338.1163 in the Dictionary (you can find it by typing "Barnsley" into the search box.
In the Dictionary "gch." and "chlk" are abbreviated, but other media (which are more rarely combined with pastel) are spelled out in full

ArtUK's new policy isn't at all clear to me, since the word "pastel" is conspicuously absent from the media listed. If they intend to include pastels, there is a vast backlog of works to be added (and some of those I've previously signalled on the site returned).

Malcolm Fowles,

In this fine scholarly study, which I recommend reading just for pleasure, a conservator at the NY Met Museum goes into great detail on the working methods of La Tour and Perronneau, two of the greatest pastellists: https://www.metmuseum.org/pubs/journals/1/pdf/20320647.pdf.bannered.pdf. It sheds light on some of the issues here.

1. Before painting, they stuck the paper onto lightweight linen on a wooden strainer. The back of the work could therefore look like an oil canvas.

2. Among their highest goals was to make the work appear painted. (The details of how they did it, I find jaw-dropping.)

3. The term "gouache" to them more normally meant powdered pastel mixed with a binder such as gum, rather than what it conjures up today. It was especially used for detail. [I must try it myself!]

This makes me lean towards the Dictionary's version of reality at present, because without examination out of the frame one might well mistake a master's pastel for a oil.

Neil Jeffares,

We're straying somewhat beyond this discussion here (not least because Gardner's technique was utterly idiosyncratic and nothing to do with other pastellists of the era). On general techniques you can find great deal more at http://www.pastellists.com/Misc/Prolegomena.pdf.

Bruce Trewin,

While the attribution and sitter appear to be clarified, I believe Malcolm was questioning whether or not the it has been incorrectly described as oil, when it might be "powdered pastel mixed with gum".

Bruce Trewin,

I should proof read before firing off a post in future. I wish we had a capability to edit a post after having hit the 'submit' button.

Malcolm Fowles,

Thank you Bruce. If I strayed beyond the discussion to try to correctly identify the technique and hence confirm the artist, I apologise. If not, part of our recommendation ought to include it.

Neil's link (on pp. 98-9) says "By scraping pastel sticks to a powder which he mixed with alcohol Gardner recreated gouache, and his works look much more like gouache than pastel."

My deduction about "gouache" seems to have been right, except for alcohol rather than gum. In the present day some pastellists - especially in the US, and especially for underpainting - lay down pastel first and then dissolve it (their word) by brushing with alcohol. See http://www.artistsnetwork.com/articles/art-demos-techniques/pastel-pointers-the-effects-of-alcohol for a discussion. I am intrigued that different types of alcohol have different effects.

I wonder if we know for certain that Gardner powdered and mixed off-canvas, or whether he too brushed alcohol; or indeed if we can tell the difference.

But what about the "oil"? A strange surface wrongly interpreted, or really there? I'd feel happier if the collection were to examine the medium physically.

My hypothesis would be that they'll find most of the painting is pastel-gouache, with the face in dry pastel, said by the Dictionary to be Gardner's favoured method. The face does looks different in our image, don't you think?

Agreement seems to have been reached with regard to the authorship (firmly Daniel Gardner) and subject (Lady Hunloke, née Margaret Roberts Coke [c.1752-1824], wife of Sir Henry Hunloke, 4th Baronet). In order now to make a recommendation to the collection we need to suggest a revision of the media description. It would be ideal, in the longer term, if a paper conservator could examine the work. However, to bring the discussion to a close perhaps something along the lines of the following could be proposed: ‘gouache and pastel, the latter probably combined with oil or alcohol, on paper.’ This is necessarily subject to whatever views Neil might have, but I offer it as a starting point for further refinement.

Jacinto Regalado,

If this is at least attributed to Daniel Gardner, then "The Coke Sisters" (previously mentioned in this discussion) in the same collection and from the same source can surely be attributed to Gardner as well. It is currently listed as by "unknown artist."

Hello, thank you so much for contributing all this invaluable knowledge on the Gardner works. Happily these artworks, formerly part of a loan, have recently been given to the Museum, and we are in the process of fully cataloguing them and having them assessed for conservation. So the above conversation was extremely helpful for this work. We will be submitting the updated attributions and titles as per the above conversation for the ArtUK records, along with our new catalogue information as well. And if we manage to raise the conservation funding we will be able to update on the conservator's findings too. Many thanks again.

Louis Musgrove,

Just to probably restate the obvious, but the adult lady in "The Coke Sisters" is almost certainly the sitter (stander) in this portrait.

Jacob Simon,

Richard Green on 18 March 2017 summed up this discussion, which the collection welcomed on 7 August 2020. Has the time come to close this discussion if Bendor as group leader agrees?

Bendor Grosvenor,

Very much agree Jacob, thanks everyone - and especially Neil - for your input.

Jacob Simon,

I don't understand why Art UK does not find a way to close this discussion.

I'll try, quoting Richard Green's conclusions of 18 March 2017: "Agreement seems to have been reached with regard to the authorship (firmly Daniel Gardner) and subject (Lady Hunloke, née Margaret Roberts Coke [c.1752-1824], wife of Sir Henry Hunloke, 4th Baronet). In order now to make a recommendation to the collection we need to suggest a revision of the media description. It would be ideal, in the longer term, if a paper conservator could examine the work. However, to bring the discussion to a close perhaps something along the lines of the following could be proposed: ‘gouache and pastel, the latter probably combined with oil or alcohol, on paper.’ This is necessarily subject to whatever views Neil might have, but I offer it as a starting point for further refinement."

Barnsley Museums,

The portrait of Jane Dutton and two of her daughters is going for conservation very soon so we will have more comments available about that piece in the next few months. I will talk to the conservator about his thoughts on the technique and whether he thinks these are the same for the portrait of Lady Hunloke. We may be able to refine the description of the media after this.

Jacob Simon,

In a day or two this discussion will be six-years old. The question, "Can you confirm that this portrait is by Daniel Gardner (1750–1805)?" was answered with a resounding "YES" on the very first day of the discussion.

Asd Richard Green concluded on 18 March 2017 (i.e. almost six years ago): "Agreement seems to have been reached with regard to the authorship (firmly Daniel Gardner) and subject (Lady Hunloke, née Margaret Roberts Coke [c.1752-1824], wife of Sir Henry Hunloke, 4th Baronet)."

The collection has said that it can refine the media description in due course (28/02/2022). Bendor supports closure (31/05/2021).

Could Art UK very kindly indicate what more it requires before it will act on closure?

Jacob Simon,

Could Art UK very kindly respond to my question above?

Kieran Owens,

The identity of the sitter as being Adelaide Augusta Wilhelmina Dutton, and the date of 1781, has been included in this 2021 technical study paper by Samantha Ziegler (currently a cataloguer of 20th Century & Contemporary Art at Phillips in NY) and Sarah Benson at the Courtauld:

https://courtauld.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Siegler_Besson-Final_Report.pdf

Perhaps these authors could be consulted before the discussion is closed so as to establish the evidence upon which they based their conclusions.

Kieran Owens,

Auto-spellcheck is at it again - Samantha Siegler

Marcie Doran,

The record set ‘Westminster Baptisms’ (City of Westminster Archives Centre) on Findmypast shows that Margaret Coke was born on 8 June 1752 and baptized on 16 June 1752 in the parish St George, Hanover Square, Middlesex. As expected, the record shows that the first name of her father was “Wenman” and the first name of her mother was “Elizth” [Elizabeth]. I’m not permitted to post images from that website. I’ve attached Margaret’s marriage record from 1769 and her burial record from 1821 as well as several extracts from newspapers. Her dates are 1752-1821.

Thanks. It's good to have that information, particularly the precise birth and death dates of Margaret Coke, Lady Hunloke. Although her father was born Wenham Roberts, adopting his wife's family name Coke on the death of an uncle (thepeerage.com), it would seem that 'Roberts' was not part of Margaret Coke's baptismal name, as has previously been assumed in our discussion. Marcie, please could you confirm this from the records your are not allowed to post?

Margaret was a Coke of Holkham but she was not, strictly speaking, the sister of the Earl of Leicester (see 28/02/2017) - that is, not in her own lifetime. Her slightly younger brother Thomas William Coke became 1st Viscount Leicester and 1st Earl of Leicester of Holkham but not until 1837, sixteen years after Margaret's death.

For confusion between 'Margaret Roberts Coke' and 'Adelaide Augusta Wilhelmina Dutton' see here:
https://artuk.org/discover/curations/when-spencer-met-stanhope-family-portraits-at-cannon-hall-museum/slide-page/1

Adelaide Augusta Wilhelmina FitzClarence-Hunloke, neé Sidney (1826-1904), was a great-granddaughter of Margaret Coke, Lady Hunloke:
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Sidney-100

Marcie Doran,

The transcript shows the following:

First name(s) Margaret
Last name Coke

I’m seeking permission from Findmypast to post the transcript.

Although I try to look at discussions daily, there is so much other work associated with our vast collection network that this isn't always possible. Keeping on top of daily new updates and queries arriving at Art Detective has to be a priority because I am the only staff member here to respond to them. If it is obvious that a discussion has been overlooked, please email me.