17th century; but his contemporary, Rosalba Carriera of Venice
(1675–1757), is more completely identified with it, and in her
practice of it made a European reputation which to this day is
in some measure maintained. The Dresden Museum contains
157 examples of her work in this medium, portraits, subjects
and the like. Thiele was followed by Anton Raphael Mengs
(1728–1770) and his sister Theresia Mengs (afterwards Maron,
(1725–1806), and by Johann Heinrich Schmidt (1749–1820).
When in 1720 Rosalba Carriera accepted an invitation to visit Paris, where she was received with general enthusiasm, she found the art of pastel-painting well established; that is to say, it was used to reproduce local colour with truth. She made it fashionable and combined truth with nature. Nearly a hundred years before Claude Lorrain had used coloured chalks as Dutch and Italian painters had used them, often with high finish, employing mainly red, blue and black, for the sake of prettiness of effect and not with the intention of reproducing with accuracy the actual colours of the head, the figure, or the landscape before them. This method of making drawings—rehaussés, as they were called—has remained in common use almost to the present day, especially for studies. It is necessary only to cite among many examples the series of heads by Holbein, the highly esteemed studies by Watteau, Boucher and Greuze, and of John Raphael Smith and Sir Thomas Lawrence, to indicate how general has been the employment of the coloured chalk. In 1747 Nattier (1685–1766) showed a pastel portrait of M. Logerot in the Paris Salon, and his son-in-law, Louis Tocqué (1696–1772), soon followed with similar work. Hubert Drouais (1699–1767) had preceded his rival Nattier in the Salon by a single year with five pastel portraits, and Chardin (1699–1779) followed in 1771. This great master set himself to work in emulation of Quentin de la Tour (1704–1788), who in spite of the ability of his rivals may be regarded as the most eminent pastel list France has produced. His portraits of Mme Boucher and himself appeared in the Salon in 1737; his full strength as a portrait pastel list is to be gauged in the collection of eighty-five of his principal works now in the museum of St Quentin. Then followed Simon Mathurin Lantara (1729–1778), who was one of the first to paint pastel-pictures of landscapes, including sunsets and moonlights, as well as marines, into which the figures were drawn by Joseph Vernet, Casanova and others, and Jean Baptiste Perronneau (1731–1796), the best of whose heads have been often attributed to de la Tour and whose “Jeune fille au chat” in the Louvre, though not the finest, is perhaps the best known of his works, was the last pre-eminent French pastel list of the i8th century. Since then they have been legion; of these it is needful to mention only Girodet and the flower-painters, Jean Saint-Simon and Sprendonck.
Two Swiss painters had considerable influence in spreading the use of pastel—the experimentalist Dietrich Meyer (1572–1658), one of the first to make designs in coloured chalks (and reputed inventor of soft-ground etching), and Jean Étienne Liotard (1702 or 1704–178S), one of the most brilliant pastel lists who ever lived. Two of his works are world-famous, “La Belle Chocolatierè de Vienne,” executed in 1745, now in the Dresden Museum, and La Belle Liseuse" of the following year at the museum at Amsterdam. The latter is a portrait of his niece. Mile Lavergne. In 1753, and again in 1772, Liotard visited England, where his brilliant work, portraits and landscapes, produced a great effect, almost equal to that of de la Tour twenty years before. To the Royal Academy between 1773 and 1775 Liotard contributed the portraits of Dr Thomson, himself, Lord Duncannon and General Cholmondely.
Crayon-painting was practised in England at an early date, and John Riley (1646–1691), many of whose finest works are attributed to Sir Peter Lely, produced numerous portraits in that medium. Francis Knapton (1698–1778), court painter, was a more prolific master, and he, with William Hoare of Bath (? 1707–1702) who had studied pastel in Italy and made many classic designs in that medium, exhibiting at the Royal Academy his “Boy as Cupid,” “Prudence instructing her Pupil,” “Diana,” “A Zingara,” and others, prepared the way for the triumph of Francis Cotes (? 1725–1770). Then for the first time pastel-painting was fully developed by an English hand. Before he became a painter in oil Cotes had worked under Rosalba Carriera, and, although he was rather cold and chalky in his tones, he produced portraits, such as his “Mr and Mrs Joah Bates” and “Lord Hawke,” which testify to his high ability. He was, however, far surpassed by his pupil, John Russell, R.A. (1745–1806), who brought the art to perfection, displaying grace, and good expression in all his pastel work, whether portrait, fancy picture, historical subject, group, or “conversation-piece.” He had brought from Rosalba her four fine pictures representing " The Seasons," and in a great measure founded his style on them. He was strong and brilliant in colour, and when he was at his best his high, smooth finish in no way robbed his work of vigour. Romney (1734–1802) in his single pastel portrait, a likeness of William Cowper the poet, showed that he might have excelled in this medium, which, indeed, was particularly suited to his tender manner. Hugh D. Hamilton (c. 1734–1806) of the Royal Hibernian Academy, produced noteworthy portraits, mainly in grey, red and black, until on the suggestion of Flaxman he abandoned pastel for oil. Ozias Humphry, A.R.A. (1742–1810), painter and miniaturist, is an important figure among the pastel lists, commonly believed to be the first in England who made a point of letting his colour strokes be seen (as by Emile Wauters and others in our own day), contrary to the practice of Russell and his predecessors, whose prime effort was to blend all into imperceptible gradations. Richard Cosway, R.A. (1742–1821) was mainly experimental in his pastels, but his portraits, such as that of George prince of Wales, are forcible and brilliant; those of his wife Maria Cosway (1759–1838) are more delicate. Daniel Gardner (? 1750–1805), whose pictures in oil have often been mistaken for Reynolds’s and Gainsborough’s, gave rein to his exuberant fancy and his rather exaggerated taste in compositions which, in his arrangement of children, remind us of Sir Thomas Lawrence in his more fantastic mood. Gardner marked the deterioration of the art, which thereafter declined, Henry Bright (1814–1873) being almost the only pastel list of real power who followed him. Bright’s landscapes have probably in their own line never been surpassed.
Since 1870 there has been a revival of the art of pastel, the result of a better understanding and appreciation on the part of the public. Grimm’s denunciation of it to Diderot—“every one is agreed that pastel is unworthy the notice of a great painter”—which for many years had found general acceptance, is now seen to have been based on forgetfulness or ignorance of the virtues inherent in the method. It was thought that “coloured chalks,” as it used to be called in English-speaking countries, promised nothing but sketches of an ephemeral kind, so fragile that they were at the mercy of every chance blow or every touch of dampness. The fact is, that with care no greater than is accorded to every work of art, pastel properly used is not more perishable than the oil-painting or the water-colour. Damp will affect it seriously, but so also will it ruin the water-colour; and rough usage is to be feared for the oil-picture not less than for the pastel. Moreover, pastel possesses advantages that can be claimed by neither oil-painting nor water-colour. That is to say, if pictures in these three mediums be hung side by side for a hundred years in a fair light and in a dry place, the oil-painting will have darkened and very probably have cracked; the water-colour will have faded; but the pastel will remain as bright, fresh, and pure as the day it was painted. If Time and Varnish, which Hogarth and Millais both declared the two greatest of the old masters, will do nothing to “improve” a pastel, neither will they ruin it—time passes it by and varnish must on no account be allowed to approach it. The pastel painter, therefore, having no adventitious assistance to hope for, or to fear, must secure at once the utmost of which his method is capable.
The advantages of pastel are threefold: those of working, those of results, and those of permanence. The artist has at his command, without necessity of mixing his colours, every hue to be found in nature, so that freshness and luminosity can
