J.M.W. Turner: Sketchbooks, Drawings and Watercolours

Among more general colour studies of the vicinity,1 this is at first sight a straightforward view east from the north end of the Piazzetta, focusing on the richly ornamented Porta della Carta entrance to the arcade leading to the courtyard of the Palazzo Ducale (Doge’s Palace). The palace is on the right, and the Basilica of San Marco (St Mark’s) immediately on the left, seemingly viewed from about level with the south-western corner of the church.

In his study of Turner’s use of perspective, Maurice Davies noted it as an example of how ‘Turner regularly depicted Venetian buildings parallel to the picture’.2 Close examination reveals extensive manipulation of the architectural elements, belied by the apparent spontaneity and immediacy of the treatment. The two free-standing Byzantine Pilastri Acritani pillars are omitted from their position in the left foreground. The scale of the gateway and the elaborate window and its setting above is greatly exaggerated in relation to the flanking elements. The lintel of the doorway should be below the band running around from above the small rectangular window on the left, and correspondingly the tops of the three vertical windows above it should be below the balustrade coming round from that side.

Meanwhile, the top of the wall above the doorway, effectively reaching the top of the sheet, should appear about level with the top of the rounded gable at the left from this angle. On the right, the Piazzetta arcade of the palace is shown proportionately rather low, while the band above the quatrefoil openings on the upper level should also be almost level with the top of the gable opposite, at about the height of a faint, spurious band across the upper façade towards the top right. The forceful, deeply undercut stone Judgement of Solomon sculpture group of two male and two female figures with a child at the corner level with the spandrels of the ground floor arcade is barely indicated, as little more than a blurry area of texture.

All of this is perhaps a legacy of being at least partly based on the disjointed, side-by-side pencil studies of this part of the Basilica, the Porta and the corner of the palace, each on a different scale to fit the height of the page, in what Ian Warrell has described as ‘the sketch from which Turner probably developed the watercolour’3 in the contemporary Rotterdam to Venice book (Tate D32434; Turner Bequest CCCXX 87a). The Pilastri Acritani are shown there in their correct relation to the church from the same angle. As Timothy Wilcox has noted, the panel over the doorway is correctly shown blank, as the ‘relief of the Doge Francesco Foscari kneeling before the Lion of St Mark ... was destroyed by rioters during Napoleon’s occupation in 1797, and a replacement was not installed until 1885.’4

The lighting, too, is inconsistent. The Basilica is shown in sunshine from high on the right; the return show frontally is parallel with the corner of the palace on the right, and both face west-south-west, with the façade of the Porta set back in shadow, only the top left of the wall above emerging into the light, suggesting noon or early afternoon as intended at that point. Yet the corner of the palace facing the open Piazzetta appears to be in the shade, and there seems to be a suggestion of shadow across the foreground as though at an earlier stage in the day. In one sense the whole setting serves to frame attention on the brightly lit palace courtyard beyond, where the steps of the Scala dei Giganti (Giants’ Staircase) are shown in brilliant light; compare the loose contemporary study focusing on the view through the arcade (Tate D32181; Turner Bequest CCCXVII 2).5 Lindsay Stainton has described the ‘rather vignette-like treatment of the subject with the emphasis on a darker central feature’.6 Finberg, perhaps unable to reconcile these contradictions, concluded that this is a ‘night’ scene,7 presumably by strong moonlight.

Stainton has noted this as ‘a composition consisting entirely of Byzantine and Gothic buildings which are rendered with a sure understanding of their structure; of all Turner’s Venetian watercolours this is the one that most nearly anticipates Ruskin’s treatment of such subjects at the time he was working on The Stones of Venice’, despite Venetian medieval architecture being little appreciated by British artists at this time compared with their native Gothic.8 Turner’s great advocate in his later years, John Ruskin (who often depicted such aspects in his own watercolours) interspersed work on his defence of Turner and other Modern Painters (1843–60) with the three volumes of The Stones of Venice (1851–3), respectively influencing attitudes to the artist and the architecture he depicts here.9 Warrell has noted: ‘The way in which the eye is compelled to dwell on certain details anticipates some of Ruskin’s intricate studies of the palace, yet curiously the writer seems to have omitted this work from the group of Venetian watercolours he most prized.’10 Perhaps he disapproved of Turner’s many inaccuracies, despite the overall effect.

The subject is on the same axis as a contemporary watercolour view on grey paper (Tate D32204; Turner Bequest CCCXVII 19), looking in the opposite direction towards the campanile of St Mark’s with the Basilica and Pilastri Acritani on the right and the same corner of the Doge’s Palace on the left.11

Warrell has noted the possible confusion between this sheet and other Venice subjects in relation to the early Loan Collections from the Turner Bequest and corresponding entries in Finberg’s 1909 Inventory. He has suggested that the supposed Turner Bequest CCCXVII 3, ‘The Ducal Palace’, listed there as no.98 in the second selection12 but noted as missing since the 1930s, may be a duplication of Tate D32246 (Turner Bequest CCCXVIII 27) or this work, inscribed ‘98’ on the back but listed by Finberg as no.92 in the third, and by Warrell as ‘99 ([later] 92)’.13

Technical notes:

Fluid white gouache highlights pick out the tracery in the shadowy area above the centre, and details of the stonework towards the right. Paper conservator Peter Bower has described how Turner ‘responded to [the sheet’s] warm tones by leaving large areas of the paper unpainted, using the colour of the sheet itself as a dramatic an important part of the image’,1 while Ian Warrell has noted ‘the use of a stopping-out agent or gum, protecting the areas where he wanted to retain highlights.’2 Fine lines, particularly those running upwards and to the left from the bottom left corner, mark the former extent of an acidic mount.

Having initially described it as being ‘on what appears to be a piece of Whatman paper that has been prepared with a buff-grey wash’,3 after closer technical examination Warrell noted this as one of a few 1840 Venice works on ‘Pale buff wove paper, produced by an unknown maker, with the watermark: “J W”’:4 Tate D32148–D32149, D32169, D32211, D32219, D32247 (Turner Bequest CCCXVI 11, 12, 32, CCCXVII 26, 34, CCCXVIII 28); see also Venice from the Lagoon (Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge),5 and The Rialto, Venice and The Palazzo Balbi on the Grand Canal, Venice (National Gallery of Scotland, Edinburgh).6 Warrell has noted paper conservator Peter Bower’s suggestion ‘that this type of paper was a deliberate forgery of Whatman paper and was possibly produced in Austria’,7 and that the ‘inferior quality has resulted in visible changes to the paper, which is especially prone to fading’.8 Most of this sheet has darkened a little, by comparison with the edges formerly hidden by the mount during prolonged display as part of the Third Loan Collection.

Verso:

Blank; inscribed in pencil ‘98’ centre (see discussion above), and ‘D32247’ bottom right.