Reuniting Rubens

For the first time in over 200 years, two landscape paintings by Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640) have found themselves in the same room. Painted as a pair, The Rainbow Landscape and A View of Het Steen in the Early Morning parted ways in 1803, eventually ending up in the Wallace Collection and National Gallery, respectively. In partnership with VISITFLANDERS, the two paintings are temporarily on display at the Wallace Collection until 15th August 2021, after which they will separate once more. Attracting the likes of Jon Snow, who filmed his visit to the exhibition for Channel 4, the paintings have captured the attention of art lovers and tourists alike, providing what may be a once in a lifetime experience.

The name Rubens is usually associated with historical and mythological paintings, full of action and voluptuous women, rather than the idyllic landscapes shown at the Wallace Collection. Yet, landscape painting had intrigued Rubens since his youth and one of his first teachers specialised in the area. To succeed as an artist, Rubens needed to paint what his commissioners and buyers wanted. Landscape painting was not a respected theme where Rubens lived in Antwerp, so he focused on fleshy figures depicting historical moments in the typical Flemish Baroque tradition.

Towards the end of his career, Rubens moved away from the busy city lifestyle to devote himself to landscape painting. The majority of these Rubens produced as a hobby rather than for profit. Not many knew about the extent of his artistic talents until after he died in 1640.

In 1592, Rubens was serving as an emissary for the Spanish crown. At 53 years old and a widower, he longed to settle down in his homeland. Unlike many artists of his day, Rubens had a considerable amount of money, having worked for the Archdukes of the Spanish Netherlands, Charles I of England, Philip IV of Spain and Queen Marie de Medici of France. After completing his negotiations in England on behalf of Spain, Rubens returned home to Antwerp, where he married 16-year-old Hélène Fourment (1614-73).

Following his marriage, Rubens contented himself by painting his young wife and growing family, whilst spending time in his large garden. Rubens enjoyed painting for pleasure, unrestrained by commissions and deadlines. Throughout his career, Rubens was restricted to the preferences of his patrons and buyers, but in his retirement he had the freedom to choose his subject matter. His love of landscapes resurfaced and he longed for the countryside, away from the pressures of commercial and city life.

In 1635, Rubens purchased an eight-acre country estate in Elewijt, Flemish Brabant. The house, known as the Castle of Het Steen, cost Rubins 93,000 florins and gave him the right to the title of Lord of Het Steen. A three-hour ride (half an hour by car) took Rubens from his home in Antwerp to his “manorial residence with a large stone house and other fine buildings in the form of a castle.” It also had a garden, an orchard, a lake and extensive grassland. The family used the estate as their summer home, returning to the city during the autumn.

Built in the typical Flemish style, the manor house had gabled roofs, red-bricked walls and a crenellated tower. The latter has since been demolished, and the house has also undergone remodelling and renovation over the past centuries. Rubens captured the building as it looked during his day in the paintings, The Rainbow Landscape and A View of Het Steen in the Early Morning. 

The extensive views around Het Steen provided Rubens with the perfect backdrop for many landscape paintings. Although he had produced many landscapes before moving to the estate, his nephew Philip admitted Rubens made the purchase intending to study and paint the landscape. Rubens kept most of these artworks, displaying them at Het Steen. As a result, not many knew of the extent of his oeuvre until after his death.

“Having bought the seignory of Steen, between Brussels and Malines in the year 1630 [sic] he took great pleasure living there in solitude, in order to paint vividly and au naturel the surrounding mountains, plains, valleys and meadows, at the rising and setting of the sun, up to the horizon.” – Philip Rubens

After producing many landscapes, which explored composition, figure and animal placement, light and darkness, and so forth, Rubens finally painted his two most famous landscapes. The Rainbow Landscape and A View of Het Steen in the Early Morning represent Rubens zenith of his achievements in landscape painting, evidenced by their sheer size and panoramic content.

A View of Het Steen in the Early Morning

In A View of Het Steen in the Early Morning, usually shortened to Het Steen, the house is set to the far left, making the extensive open plains the main focus of the painting. The colours suggest it is late summer or early autumn on a sunny morning, although puddles and clouds hint at a recent rainstorm. Whilst the house is a faithful representation, Rubens elevated the view of the land between the foreground and the horizon to produce a continuous panoramic sweep.

On the left, a man drives a cart away from the house, carrying a woman and a trussed calf. Closer to the building is a group of people, which many believe represent Rubens’ family. In the foreground, a hunter and his dog hide behind a large tree stump, keeping a steady gaze on a bevy of partridges. This activity, combined with the altocumulus clouds, gives away the time of day, as does the cart, which is presumably on its way to market. In the distance, maids milk the cows in the pastures.

The Rainbow Landscape

Het Steen sits in the far distance in The Rainbow Landscape, which provides a view of the estate from the other side of the fields. Once again, Rubens raised the level of the viewpoint to encompass the many topographical features. The scene in this painting takes place later in the day after farmhands have already had time to create two haystacks. Yet, the cart carrying more hay in the left-hand corner suggests their workday is far from over. Some art historians propose Rubens based the appearance of the cart driver on his likeness, although it is unlikely he ever contributed to the farm work.

The cart driver greets two milkmaids, one who is balancing a pitcher on her head. Their smiling faces suggest happy workers, which compliments the idyllic landscape. Meanwhile, a herdsman goes about his work, herding cows along a path beside the stream, contrasting with the lively ducks playing in the water. Both the ducks and cows are similar to those in other paintings by Rubens, suggesting he did not paint them from life but memory or imagination.

Whilst there is a lot of activity in the lower half of the painting, it is the sky that captures the viewer’s attention. Spanning the width of the landscape is a double-arced rainbow, which is an unusual feature in artworks from this era. Artists were discouraged from depicting rainbows because their fleeting appearances were difficult to portray accurately. Rubens attempt is impressive, yet it is not true to nature. He chose not to represent its full-colour spectrum, obscuring sections with clouds instead.

The rainbow hints at the recent storm, whose dark clouds are still visible in the distance. The phenomenon also had religious connotations, symbolising God’s divine blessing. In the Bible (Genesis 9:11-15), God made a covenant with his people, promising never to flood the world again. This promise followed the well-known story of Noah’s Ark.

And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. (Genesis 9:12-15, NIV)

Art historians believe Rubens produced Het Steen and The Rainbow Landscape to be displayed together because they are linked by their subject matter, scale, size and composition. The English landscape artist John Constable (1776-1837) agreed, saying some years after the two paintings were separated: “When pictures painted as companions are separated, the purchaser of one, without being aware of it, is sometimes buying only half a picture. Companion pictures should never be parted…”

Both paintings have similar motifs, such as milkmaids, wagons, cows and fowl. These, along with the inclusion of the manor house, albeit almost unnoticeable in The Rainbow Landscape, suggests the landscapes depicts the same area from different perspectives. Although the paintings represent different times of day, when hung together, they complete a cycle of a late summer’s day.

Another connection between the two paintings is the way Rubens constructed the landscapes. Using X-radiography and infra-red reflectography, the National Gallery and the Wallace Collection have discovered that Rubens produced the paintings in three stages. Rubens began both compositions on a medium-sized panel, upon which he depicted the middle ground leading to the horizon. Rubens then added or commissioned someone to add extensions to the bottom and sides of the panel. Upon these, he extended the landscapes, making them more panoramic. A final extension to the top, bottom and sides, gave the landscapes a dimension of 136 cm x 236 cm (54 in x 93 in).

Careful analysis of the two paintings has revealed images below the top layer of paint, which indicates Rubens developed the composition gradually. Unlike his commissioned work, Rubens did not need to rush and had no deadline. X-rays show Rubens included a seated milkmaid and herdsman on the original panel of The Rainbow Landscape but painted over them after extending the boards. A half-rainbow decorated the sky, which tells us Rubens always intended to include it in the landscape. After increasing the size of the work, Rubens repainted the trees and added the herdsmen and cattle by a river. The ducks, horses and wagon joined the scene after the final extension.

With more space above the horizon to play with, Rubens expanded the rainbow to sweep across the sky. Although it remained a double-arced rainbow, only a section of the second arc is visible in the top right-hand corner. Rubens added touches of blue, pink and yellow to the trees, river and ground to suggest a reflection of the rainbow, although, in reality, the rainbow would make no such impression.

The construction of A View of Het Steen in the Early Morning has similar paint handling and attention to detail as its companion. During the first stage of the painting, Rubens filled the space with open pastures interspersed with trees. As the boards grew, so did the landscape, incorporating a bridge, stream, tree trunk and hunter. Only in the final stage did Rubens paint the house and add the other figures and cart to the composition.

Unlike The Rainbow Landscape, which developed gradually with the expansion of the boards, the painting of Het Steen changed dramatically in the final stages. During the first two stages of the painting process, the composition was typical of Rubens’ landscapes, revealing idyllic farmland and a peaceful environment. When he began the painting, he had no intention of including his house, yet it became a key feature during the latter stages. This element, with the suggestion of the building in the background of The Rainbow Landscape, is what convinces many art historians that the paintings belong together.

Shortly after Rubens died in 1640, the two paintings appeared in a sales catalogue with 312 other works of art from his collection. A version of the catalogue translated for Charles I describes the landscapes as “A great landschap after the life, with little figures in’t uppon a board,” (Het Steen) and “A great landschap where it raines with little Cowes in it” (The Rainbow Landscape). Since they were listed one after the other suggests Rubens’ family intended them to stay together, which they did for many years.

In 1691, both paintings hung in the palace of Juan Gaspar Enríquez de Cabrera, the 10th Admiral of Castile (1625-91) in Madrid, after which they appeared in Genoa in the early 18th century. Records state they belonged to a Genoese banker to the Spanish Crown, Bartolomeo Saluzzo (1651-1705), who bequeathed his art collection to his sons. Constantino Balbi (1676-1741) purchased the landscapes in 1706 and hung them in the Palazzo Balbi. In 1802, art dealers William Buchanan (1777-1864) and Arthur Champernowne (1767-1819) purchased the paintings and brought them to London, where they were displayed at an Oxdenden Street gallery. They quickly became the talking point of the artistic circle in the capital.

Despite attempts to sell the two landscapes as a pair, Buchanan and Champernowne were unsuccessful. Instead, they sold Het Steen to Lady Margaret Beaumont for £1500 in 1803. Little did they know the paintings would not appear in the same room again until 2020. Lady Margaret gave the artwork as a present to her husband Sir George, who pronounced it the “finest landscape I believe [Rubens] ever painted.” On his death in 1823, George Beaumont bequeathed Het Steen and other paintings in his collection to the National Gallery.

In 1815, Champernowne sold The Rainbow Landscape to art collector George Watson-Taylor (1771-1841), who, in turn, sold it to Horatio Walpole, 3rd Earl of Orford (1783-1858) for 2,600 guineas. Walpole hung the painting in the Principle Dining Room at Wolterton Hall in Norfolk, where many people admired it. Allegedly, George IV (1762-1830) attempted to purchase the painting from Walpole shortly before his death in 1830. The landscape remained in Lord Orford’s possession until he decided to sell it in 1856.

Sir Charles Eastlake (1793-1865), the first Director of the National Gallery, attended Lord Orford’s sale intending to reunite Rubens’ landscapes. Unfortunately, one of the wealthiest collectors in Europe, Richard Seymour-Conway, 4th Marquess of Hertford (1800-70), was also in attendance and outbid the director. Lord Hertford paid £4,550 for The Rainbow Landscape, which he hung in his London residence, Manchester House. After his death, his son Sir Richard Wallace (1818-90) inherited the house and its contents, thus becoming the new owner of the painting. Wallace extended the house to create a large gallery where he installed the landscape and other notable paintings. After his death, the collection was bequeathed to the nation. The house opened to the public as the Wallace Collection, and The Rainbow Landscape has hung here ever since.

Thanks to the collaboration between the National Gallery and the Wallace Collection, the public have once again been able to view both landscapes in the same room. Unfortunately, the exhibition is ending soon, and the paintings will separate once more. There is speculation that Rubens’ two great landscapes may be reunited permanently in the future. Hopefully, we will not need to wait 200 years to make this a reality.

It is a shame that the exhibition coincided with the coronavirus pandemic. Fewer people than expected have visited the Wallace Collection to see the two landscapes in situ. Yet, the display made the national news, proving that the story of two landscape paintings, reunited, at last, has touched the hearts of thousands of people.

Het Steen, now known as Elewijt Castle or Rubenskasteel, still stands. It was briefly used as a prison in 1792 before being abandoned. In 1955, the current owner restored the building, although the tower seen in Rubens’ painting was unsalvageable.

RUBENS: REUNITING THE GREAT LANDSCAPES is open until 15th August 2021 at the Wallace Collection, London. Tickets are free with a suggested donation of £5.


My blogs are now available to listen to as podcasts on the following platforms: AnchorBreakerGoogle PodcastsPocket Casts and Spotify.

If you would like to support my blog, become a Patreon from £5p/m or “buy me a coffee” for £3. Thank You!

Forgotten Masters

Honouring overlooked artists, The Wallace Collection presents Forgotten Masters: Indian Painting for the East India Company, shedding a light on life in Anglo-Indian history. Guest curated by Scottish historian William Dalrymple (b.1965) who has lived in India on and off since 1989, the exhibition provides an opportunity to view sets of paintings from 18th and 19th century India together for the first time. The paintings reflect both the natural world and society the East India Company wished to remember.

Company Style is a term used to describe the type of Indo-European paintings produced in India by native artists for European patrons of the English East India Company. Earlier paintings were more traditional, however, over time Rajput and Mughal elements began to merge with Western ideas, particularly concerning perspective.

The British mostly settled in Calcutta, Madras, Delhi, Lucknow, Patna and Bangalore, which is where the majority of the paintings were executed. Animals were a key theme for the painters, however, they were also commissioned to produce portraits, landscapes and scenes of traditional Indian people.

Rather than display the paintings, the artworks were usually kept in portfolios or albums, which is one of the reasons the artists are not well-known today. The works were usually private commissions rather than something to show off. Unfortunately, the advent of photography brought an end to the Company Style, since a camera could easily and quickly capture the desired scenes. Also, the paintings by Indian artists were becoming increasingly westernised, making them appear as though they were produced by a European artist.

Shaikh Zain ud-Din

li_901_14-a-l

Common Crane, Shaikh Zain ud-din, 1780

Little is known about this artist’s life apart from he was a Muslim artist from the city of Patna in north-east India. Shaikh Zain ud-Din was trained as a Mughal miniature painter but is known today for the paintings he produced for Sir Elijah and Mary, Lady Impey in Calcutta. Employed in the 1770s, Shaikh Zain ud-Din produced many paintings of Lady Mary’s collection of flora and fauna.

Sir Elijah Impey (1732-1809) was a British judge and the first chief of justice of the Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal. He and his wife Mary (1749-1818) collected various birds, animals and native plants, which they employed local artists to paint – Shaikh Zain ud-Din amongst them. The paintings of their menagerie were put together to form the Impey Album, which has now been dispersed throughout the world with different art galleries each owning a few paintings.

Lady Mary Impey initially lived in Hammersmith with her husband and four children, however, when Elijah was made chief of justice of Fort William, they left the children with his brother and moved to India. Once settled, Lady Impey began collecting native birds and animals, using the extensive gardens of their estate as a place to house them.

Amongst the animals were a selection of birds, particularly cranes. Shaikh Zain ud-Din was commissioned to produce life-size paintings of these birds, which he achieved in the fairly flat style common in India. Lady Impey also requested he paint some of the birds with native plants, such as Indian Roller on a Sandalwood Branch. The exotic colours combined with the flat style caused a future purchaser to mistake it for the work of a Japanese artist.

As well as birds, Shaikh Zain ud-Din painted other tree-dwelling animals in their natural habitats, including a Malabar Giant Squirrel. Endemic to India, this is one of the largest squirrels in the world, reaching over one and a half feet in height. The squirrel rarely leaves the trees, however, in this particular painting, the animal appears to be much larger than its habitat. This was a common feature of early Company Style. The squirrel usually eats fruit and nuts, such as the type it is reaching for in the painting.

Not all of Shaikh Zain ud-Din’s artwork was “flat”. Perhaps under Lady Impey’s guidance, the artist became much more detailed in his work, using thin paintbrushes to add exquisite details to his work. Lady Impey’s Pangolin is a prime example, where each scale has been precisely drawn, making it almost appear three-dimensional. The shadow added under the feet of the creature also aids this effect.

ppp043

Lady Impey, Supervising Her Household

Attributed to Shaikh Zain ud-Din are a couple of paintings of the Impey household. Once again, the flatness of the Indian style of art can be seen in the furnishings of the house, however, shading has been added to the people in the scene to make them more life-like.

The painting suggests Lady Impey had a role in overseeing the servants of the household. Traditionally, a woman and the staff would not be seen together often, however, in this instance it appears the lady of the house had far more interaction. One suggestion for this is the servants were uneducated in the ways of the Western world and Lady Impey was helping them to learn the “correct” ways of doing things.

Shaikh Zain ud-Din also painted a scene in the nursery. Although Sir and Lady Impey had left their children in England, they had four more whilst in India. Many female servants were used as nursery nurses and helped raise the children.

Shaikh Mohammad Amir of Karriah

An English Gig Album folio with painting

English Gig, by Sheikh Mohammah Amir (copy)

Shaikh Mohammad Amir of Karriah was an Indian painter during the British Raj period, flourishing between the 1830s and 40s. Very little is known about him today, however, a few of his surviving paintings show us differences between traditional Indian and Western art.

When the British arrived in India, they brought with them their culture. Rather than adapting to the world around them, they tried to do the opposite and “civilise” the natives. As a result, India was introduced to new rules, new objects, new ideas and new modes of transport, for example, an English gig. A gig, also known as a chaise, is a light, two-wheeled cart that is pulled by a single horse. It was traditionally a more formal and more comfortable version of a village cart.

Shaikh Mohammad Amir painted one of the English gigs that had been brought to India in the early 19th century. Since it has a top, it is likely a tilbury carriage. The driver and passenger sat under the cover from where the horse could be controlled by long reigns. It is not certain why Shaikh Mohammad Amir painted this but it is likely to have been a commission. Nonetheless, he demonstrates the Indian style of painting but of an English object.

Shaikh Mohammad Amir specialised in depicting the houses and staff of his employers, however, he also painted the domestic animals. Horses were one of the main animals the British kept in India because they could be used for transport and for working the land on their estate. In one painting, A Syce (Groom) Holding Two Carriage Horses, the groom is dressed in silk clothing and a hat, which immediately identifies him as Indian. Even without the title, it is clear the horses are not used for farming. They have been prepared to be attached to a gig, like the one above, most likely by the Indian groom.

Another painting, A bay horse standing with a groom, shows a horse that must have been used on the land. With a simple rope around its head instead of strong reigns, it is being led by an Indian groom wearing far more casual clothing than the syce in the previous painting. Although Shaikh Mohammad Amir has tried to add shadow and shading to make the horse and man appear three-dimensional, they appear quite large in comparison to the background.

The difference in size between the subject and background is more obvious in Two dogs in the compound of a Calcutta house. The two dogs, a male Feathered Saluki called General and a female Smooth Saluki called Aiyar, tower over the trees in the distance. Whilst objects in the background usually appear smaller than those in the foreground, the perspective is inaccurate. Perspective was not something usually dealt with in the traditional style of Indian painting. Instead, it was something introduced to them by the Europeans.

english-child

English child seated on a pony and surrounded by three Indian servants by Shaikh Muhammad Amir

Of humans, Shaikh Muhammad Amir tended to only focus on the natives, i.e. the staff of a British household. One painting, however, contains the figure of a young English child. English child seated on a pony and surrounded by three Indian servants reveals the type of jobs the servants were charged with. To take a female child on a horse, one servant was needed to lead the animal, another to make sure the child stayed safely in the saddle and a third to hold a parasol over the child’s head. Interestingly, Shaikh Muhammad Amir gives very little detail of the child’s appearance. Her face is hidden by her bonnet and her clothing covers the shape of her arms and legs. This could be a form of respect for the child and the English family; alternatively, it could be a sign of resentment that the British have overrun the country. Most scholars like to think it is the former.

Yellapah of Vellore

mughal-artist

Portrait of a Mughal artist, by Yellapah Of Vellore

One thing that is generally missing from Company Style paintings is a (self-)portrait of the artist. Yellapah of Vellore is an exception to the unwritten rule who painted a portrait of a Mughal artist, which many believe to be him. Unlike Western artists who sit at a table or stand at an easel, the Mughal artist is sat cross-legged on the floor with his tools spread out around him. A stone slab or small table is positioned in front of the artist on which his paper canvas lies. Either side are two figures, the artist’s assistants, who are ready to help in the creative process in any way they can.

indian-sepoys

Sepoys of Madras

Yellapah was good at depicting people, particularly their clothing, as can be seen in Sepoys of Madras, which shows six Indian men dressed in European-style uniforms. From left to right are men representing the Madras Horse Artillery, the Madras Light Cavalry, the Madras Rifle Corps, the Madras Pioneers, the Madras Native Infantry and the Madras Foot Artillery. Coming from Vellore, Yellapah was probably familiar with the different uniforms after witnessing the Vellore Mutiny in 1806.

Vellore is a city and district in the south of India where some of the British Military were stationed. The army employed Indian soldiers or sepoys who were stationed at the historic fort of Vellore. Initially, it appears the native soldiers enjoyed being a part of the military, however, new rules were introduced after 1800, which began to erase their identity. No longer were sepoys allowed to wear “caste marks”, i.e. religious markings on their forehead. Turbans were also prohibited and they were forced to wear a cow leather cockade, which was usually reserved for Indians who had converted to Christianity. Muslim soldiers were forced to trim their beards, even if they had grown them for religious reasons and everyone had to wear the proper uniforms.

These changes came about when General Sir John Craddock (1759-1839) became the Commander-in-Chief of the Madras Army of the British East India company. He proposed the new rules in an ambitious attempt to reform the army’s disciplinary system. Whilst sepoys were happy to wear uniforms, they were outraged at being forced to remove any religious embellishments. Many felt they were being forced to convert to Christianity but those who protested received public lashings and dismissal.

On 9th July 1806, the sepoys took advantage of a wedding to enter the fort of Vellore. The bride was the daughter of Tipu Sultan, the late leader of a south Indian kingdom who was killed by the imperial forces of the British East India Company. The sepoys ripped down the British flag and replaced it with the Royal Tiger Flag of Tipu. The following day, they ransacked the European quarters in the fort before moving on to the houses belonging to the British army. Over 100 British soldiers were killed and the mutiny only ended when the British commander, Colonel Robert Rollo Gillespie arrived from another fort with his army. Although actions were taken to resolve the situation that led to the revolt, another mutiny would occur fifty years later.

As a painter, Yellapah was not involved with the army except to document the different uniforms. As well as this, he painted Indians in traditional clothing, including people from different Hindu denominations, such as Vaishnavism.

Ghulam Ali Khan

1024px-ghulam_ali_khan_003

View of the Red Fort, from Sketches of The Delhee Palace & Delhee

Ghulam Ali Khan from Dehli was the last royal Mughal painter at the court of Akbar II (r.1806-37) and Bahadur Shah II (r.1837-58). As well as working in the court, Ghulam Ali Khan was associated with the East India Company and adopted the Company Style for his British Patrons, most notably William Fraser (1784-1835) and James Skinner (1778-1841). Most of his paintings were watercolours on gold paper with black margins.

family_of_ghulam_ali_khan_six_recruits_.width-2000

Family of Ghulam Ali Khan, Six Recruits, Fraser Album

William Fraser was a British India civil servant who joined his brother, the author James Baillie Fraser (1783-1856), in India during the reign of the last Mughal Emperor. Greatly influenced by the culture, Fraser commissioned local artists to produce paintings for what would become known as the Fraser Album. Amongst these artists was Ghulam Ali Khan who helped to fill the album with paintings of villagers, soldiers, Indian nobles and village scenes.

Work on the Fraser Album came to an end when William Fraser was killed by an assassin in 1835. He was eventually buried at St James’ Church in Delhi, which had been built by his brother’s friend Colonel James Skinner.

800px-1st_regiment_of_skinner27s_horse_returning_from_a_general_review2c_1828

The 1st Regiment of Skinner’s Horse returning from a General Review

James Skinner was an Anglo-Indian mercenary, the son of an officer in the East India Company and, so he claimed, an Indian princess. He joined the Bengal Army belonging to the Company in 1801 and became well-known for his regiment of irregular cavalry, which were nicknamed “Skinner’s Boys”. This eventually developed into a light cavalry, which still exists in today’s Indian Army.

Whilst lying injured on a battlefield, Skinner vowed he would build a church if he lived. So, in 1826, Skinner commissioned Major Robert Smith to build St James’ Church, also known as Skinner’s Church, which had three porticoed porches and a central octagonal dome.

Ghulam Ali Khan painted highly detailed paintings of the exterior and interior of St James’ Church. Before this, he had painted at least 31 buildings and monuments around Dehli, which emphasised his attention to detail. Although the minute details lend themselves towards traditional Indian art, Ghulam Ali Khan successfully achieved a sense of perspective in his paintings, which was something other painters failed to depict. This was probably influenced by British artists or tutors living in India at the time.

Sita Ram

At the end of the exhibition, the Wallace Collection features one artist whose artwork is unlike any of the others on display. Precious little is known about him other than he was a Hindu from Bengal, however, his work is now being appreciated as a master of watercolour.

The Governor-General of India Francis Rawdon, Marquess of Hastings (1754-1826) has been identified as the person who commissioned the majority of Sita Ram’s paintings. At the beginning of his term of office, Hastings spent 15 months touring the towns and cities between Calcutta and Delhi. Sita Ram was employed to visually record the sights he saw.

Looking at Sita Ram’s artwork, there is no obvious indication that it was painted by an Indian artist. The watercolour style is similar to European paintings and completely unlike the flat Indian style images shown at the beginning of the exhibition. Whether this was due to a European tutor or if Sita Ram had been influenced by paintings he had seen is unknown. It is unlikely he developed this style alone since it is so different from the types of art available in India at the time.

Since Indian artists were predominantly commissioned for private work that ended up in family albums, the world has not had a chance to learn their names. Although art galleries are beginning to focus on artists of other ethnicities, most of Asia has yet to be brought to the foreground. The Wallace Collection is paving the way forward.

Not only are visitors introduced to unknown artists, but they are also provided with an insight into a piece of history – one in which the British are now looked upon unfavourably. Colonialisation changed a country’s culture, fashions, beliefs and, evidently, art. Whilst this cannot be undone, the lives and work of those affected can still be and deserve to be appreciated.

Forgotten Masters: Indian Painting for the East India Company is open until 19th April 2020. Tickets are £12 for adults and £9 for 18-30-year-olds.


My blogs are now available to listen to as podcasts on the following platforms: AnchorBreakerGoogle PodcastsPocket Casts and Spotify.

If you would like to support my blog, become a Patreon from £5p/m or “buy me a coffee” for £3. Thank You!