Modern art takes to the waves
In 1933 Cunard commissioned paintings from Edward Wadsworth and other leading British artists for its new flagship liner, the "Queen Mary". But, as Abbie N. Sprague explains, artistic expression had to bend to commercial taste.
Abbie N. Sprague, Wednesday, 23rd April 2008
According to company records, Wadsworth’s fee was £600. The smaller work was priced at £250 and the larger at £350.56 A few days after they were completed, Wadsworth tallied his additional expenses and wrote to Cunard asking for an adjustment. Justifying additional payment, Wadsworth pointed out that the size of the works had been increased over the course of the project by 20 square feet, thus requiring not just more materials, but involving ‘considerable ingenuity and hard work’.57 Although earlier described in the Cunard correspondence as a ‘Man of Means,’ Wadsworth insisted on fair business practices. Cunard agreed to increase Wadsworth’s payment by £100.58
The Queen Mary art commissions were never intended to appeal to the artistic elite. Their purpose was to complement the interiors and add to the overall ambience of elegance and comfort. Whereas it has been claimed ‘the sense of sobriety is perhaps due as much to those artists who declined Cunard’s invitation as those who accepted’, correspondence in Cunard’s archives indicates otherwise.59 A list of artists was compiled, works were proposed, and the commissions were given. In the struggling economy of the inter-war period, it is unlikely that many artists would turn down a commission, especially from Cunard. After all, the Queen Mary was to be the flagship of the Cunard White Star Line.
The works of Nash, Grant, and Spencer were deemed too modern and were rejected, while Wadsworth, their contemporary, was reined in and directed towards Cunard’s idea of suitable subjects and styles. As Clive Bell – a close friend of Grant – observed in his scathing review of the Queen Mary, ‘Any serious artist who has had the misfortune to be stumbled on by the management has, it seems, been diverted from his or her natural bent; has been hampered by stupid and ignorant instructions, and. . . has had his or her achievement stultified by a crushingly inappropriate setting.’60 But Cunard was not concerned with winning the praise of London art critics. The Queen Mary was never intended as an objet d’art; her purpose was to earn dividends for stockholders.61
LATEST NEWS & COMMMENT
Manhattan transfer
The Lower East Side, once home to immigrants and aspiring artists, is no receiving the uptown treatment.
Shakespeare in stone
The National Trust's plans to acquire Seaton Delaval Hall are a tribute to a genius who has inspired writers and artists for centuries.
In pursuit of collectors
The Fitzwilliam Museum is celebrating the centenary of the directorship of Sydney Carlyle Cockerell with an exhibition that makes clear that he was in many ways the first modern museum director.
Comments
Post a comment