PhilipHoare:JohnRuskin:MikeLeighandEmmaThompsonhavegothimallwrong

JohnRuskin:MikeLeighandEmmaThompsonhavegothimallwrongHewasacriticwhocouldout-paintmostpainters,agreateducatorwhoreinventedhowweseeart.WhyhasJohnRuskinbeenreducedtoaprudeandafopintwonewfilms?PhilipHoareTuesday7October201421.00AESTOnbehalfofJohnRuskin,IwouldliketosueMikeLeighfordefamationofcharacter.InMrTurner,Leigh’sastonishingandsweepinglybeautifulnewfilm,thepainter’sgreatestchampionhasbeentraduced.Ruskin,playedbyJoshuaMcGuire,isasimperingBlackadderishcaricatureofanartintellectual:alisping,red-headed,salonfop.IalmostfeltphysicallysickwhenIsawhimonscreen.NotjustbecauseoftheextraordinarydisconnectbetweenLeighandTimothySpall’sbrilliantrealisationofTurnerandthecompletemisrepresentationofRuskin,butbecausethisinjusticeisonethathasbeengoingonformorethanacentury.ForRuskincelebratedTurneraboveallotherartists.Whileothersdecriedhiswork,hewrotethathispaintings“moveandmingleamongthepalestars,andriseupintothebrightnessoftheillimitableheaven,whosesoft,andblueeyegazesdownintothedeepwatersoftheseaforever”.Thisposthumousportraitisunconscionable.I’dbarelyrecoveredfromtheshockwhenalongcomesEmmaThompson’sequallywonderfulbutequallymisleadingEffieGray.TwoRuskinsinoneseason?Neithercomesneartothetruth.InThompson’sfilm,thecriticiscentre-stage.Hisportrayal,byGregWise,isnearerthemark,atleastvisually.ButWiseplaysRuskinasanaustereascetic,whosepassionsarereservedforthestonesofVeniceandthepaintofthepre-Raphaelites.HecannotcountenancethephysicalityofhisyoungbrideEuphemiaGray,assheconfrontshimontheirweddingnightwithherpost-pubescentbody.ThefilmtacitlyendorsesthenotionthatRuskinwasrenderedimpotentbythesightoffemalepubichair,beingaccustomedonlytothefrozenmarblebodiesofclassicalsculpture.Idon’tbelievethatforasecond.Inhisrecentbook,MarriageofInconvenience,RobertBrownellclaimsthatEffiewassomethingofanadventurer,encouragedbyherimportunatefamilytomarryRuskintoforestallherfather’sbankruptcy.Farfrombeingdisgustedwithherphysicality,Ruskin–arigorousChristianandidealist–feltanxiousandsubconsciouslybetrayedbytherealisationthathisloveforEffiewasaone-sidedaffair.Forhim,theresimplycouldbenosexualconsummationwithoutthemoralexchangeoflove.Anythingelsewouldhavebeendishonest.AndwhenEffiesuedforannulmentongroundsofhisimpotency,Ruskinwastoogentlemanlytoargue.NoristhistheonlycalumnyRuskinhassuffered.Despitehavingbeentheprophetofhisage,thebestartcriticthiscountryhaseverproduced,thepatronofthepre-RaphaelitesandofTurner,hislegacyhasbeenreducedtooneofabeardedreactionarywho,in1878,accusedJamesWhistlerof“flingingapotofpaintinthepublic’sface”whenconfrontedwiththeAmericanpainter’savant-gardenocturnes.Butturnthatquotearoundforaminute.Wasn’titanaccurate,kineticdescriptionofanactionpaintingbeforeitstime?Whentheattention-seekingWhistlersuedforlibel,theactionlandedRuskinbackincourt.Whistlerwon,butwasawardedrisibledamagesofonefarthing.Hewentontoaccrueyetmorefameonthebackofthepublicity.Ruskinsufferedoneofthenervousbreakdownsthatwouldcontributetohiseventualinsanity.Whycan’twecopewithRuskin’sgenius?Hewasanastonishingfigure,asTimHilton’smagisterial2002biographyofhimproves.Hewasagreatartistinhisownright:hiswatercoloursofSwissmountainsandnaturestudiesspeakofanextraordinarybrilliance,mademorepassionatebytheircreator’sintent.Ruskinputartintopractice.HewasautopianwhodevisedtheGuildofStGeorge,acelebrationofworkmanshipthatunderpinnedtheArtsandCraftsmovementofWilliamMorris.Hewas,aboveall,agreateducator.InhisbravuralecturesinOxford,heusedgiantblown-upwatercoloursofnaturestudiesthrownontoscreensbylimelight,moreakintoAndyWarhol’sFlowers.TheseeventsbecameperformancesinthesamewaythatJosephBeuys’blackboardlectureswouldacenturylater.TheStonesofVenice,Ruskin’sbestsellingbook,styledanentirecentury.Indeed,heblamedhimselffortheendlessgothicterracesthatcoursedthroughVictoriansuburbs.ModernPainters,hisvolumesofcriticism,reinventedthewaywesawart.TheirrebootingofcriticaltheoryisstillcitedbysuchdiscerningcriticsasMichaelBracewell,acclaimedauthorofTheSpaceBetween:SelectedWritingsonArt.“Ruskin’spassionatechampioningofparticularartistspavedthewayforsuchgreatlatercriticsasDavidSylvesterandRobertHughes,”Bracewellsays.“Sucherudition,clarityandrichlyopinionatedrigourissorelymissedincontemporaryartcriticism.”Ruskinwasavisionary,moretheprogenyofWilliamBlakethanamemberoftheVictorianestablishment.HeforesawclimatechangeinTheStorm-CloudoftheNineteenthCentury–bothasaphysicalthreat,inindustrialpollution,andametaphysicalone,asa“plaguecloudmadeofdeadmen’s’souls”.HedespisedcapitalismandinfluencedtheearlyLabourpartymorethanMarx,alegacyembodiedintheOxfordcollegefoundedinhisname.Hisworkinspiredanewgenerationinthe20thcentury:ordinarypeopleofmyfather’sgeneration,mensuchasPhilipAshurst,aCoramhospitalfoundlingandlatershopsteward,whowasintroducedtoradicalismbyRuskin’swritings.Althoughhedisdainednewtechnologiessuchasthetrain,Ruskindidnotrejectotheradvances.Headvocatedthenewmediumofphotography,andinhismonthlynewslettertotheworkingman,ForsClavigera(Fate’sHammer),hecreatedwhatwasineffecta19th-centuryblog.Sittingathisdeskwithapileofnewspapercuttingsbyhisside,heworkedthroughtheday’sstoriestosurrealeffect,creatingnewjuxtapositionsofimagerythataugurtheworkofthemodernistsandeven,perhaps,WilliamBurroughs’cut-ups.Evennow,thiswritingseemsbizarreandshocking.Debatingthenatureofthesoul,hemused:“Idon’tbelieveanyofyouwouldliketoliveinaroomwithamurderedmaninthecupboard,howeverwell-preservedchemically;evenwithasunflowergrowingoutatthetopofahead.”Thiswasamanwhodefiedtheexpectationsofhisage.LikehispupilOscarWilde–whowillinglydirtiedhispalehandsinRuskin’scampaigntomendroadsinOxfordasademonstrationofthedignityoflabour–hewashisowninvention.OnekeydetailthatbothLeighandThompsongetrightistheever-presentcornflowerbluenecktieRuskinwore,knowingthatithighlightedhisblueeyes,alongwithabrown-velvet-collaredgreatcoat.TheywereasmuchhistrademarksasWarhol’swig,orBeuys’shomburghat.Indeed,hecontinuestoinspiremorethoughtfulcontemporaryartists,suchasTaniaKovats,JeremyMillarandJohnKippin,whiletheRuskinSchoolofArthasrecentlyrecreatedhisElementsofDrawingasadigitalresource.PaulBonaventura,curatorattheschool,acknowledgesthattosomeRuskin’swritingseems“illogical,self-contradictoryandjustplainsilly”.But,saysBonaventura,that’smissingthepoint:“OnegoestoRuskinforthepowerofseeing.Thesustained,inquiringscrutinyofvisualexperience,theincisiveglanceandvividinsight;thesearethethingsforwhichheisrightlycelebrated.”Somemightregardthisasrearguardactioninthefaceofconceptualart.ButTurnerprize-listedartistGeorgeShaw–whoseintenselypaintedscenesofinner-citydecaymightbetheproductofamodern-dayRuskin,althoughnothisshavenheadandBenShermanshirts–isnottakingthislyingdown.“Ruskin-bashinghasbecomesomethingofabloodsportforthenobsandyobsofthecontemporaryculturemachine,”hesays.“It’sbecausehe’sfuckedupandcommentatorsareobsessedwithfrailty–it’stheirversionoftheJeremyKyleshowanditallowsthemtoputthebootin.”ShawhasbeenafanofRuskinsincechildhood.“IadmiredhisseriousnessandsawhimassomethingoutoftheOldTestament,forgingaheadandpointingthewaymadlyintothenewworld.Hewasfurcoatandknickersbecausehecoulddrawbetterthantheartistshechampioned.I’dliketoseetoday’sblabbermouthstrythat.Isn’theaVictorianWarhol,ontheedgeandinthecentreatalltimes?AndlikeWarhol,hesawhisownphilosophyandhisbeliefnotwithinhimselfbutintheworldaroundhim.”Barelydrawingbreath,ShawcitesapainfulimageofRuskin“asawoundedanimalsearchingforcoverinare-createdworld”.OntheshoresofConistonWater,perchedlikeaWagnerianfantasyoverthegun-metalCumbrianlake,standsthephysicalembodimentofRuskin’soutsiderdom:BrantwoodHouse.ItsLudwig-likeatmosphereisenhancedbythegildedsteambargebywhichonesailsacrosstoRuskin’sretreat,ascendingthebankstothemanse.Onceinside,thefullforceofRuskin’spersonalityhitsyou.Everythinginitsinterior–fromthecabinetsofshellsandmineralstothepaintingsonthewallsandthetapestriesembroideredwithhismotto:“Thereisnowealthbutlife”–isanexpressionofthisultimatecollector,amanwhosoughttocatalogueourexperienceoftheworldandthewayartattemptstoportrayit.Wonderingly,youwanderupstairsandintothesanctumofhisbedchamber.Theroomislitbyanorielwindow,forcingthelakelightintotheroom,asifitmightconjureupahologramofitstenant.Ifitdid,itwouldbeadisturbingsight,sincethisiswhereRuskinwentmad.Ithappenedonenight,asdevilsdancedonhisbedpost:helookedouttothelakeandfinallylostcontactwiththerealworld.Thislastcrisiscameattheendofanothertraumaticloveaffair.HehadfalleninlovewithRoseLaTouchewhenshewasbarely10yearsold,andheinhis40s.Hehadpursuedher,assheturnedofage,toherparents’horror.Barredfromhercompany,hewouldchasehercarriagethroughLondon,atonepointconfrontingherintheRoyalAcademyandhandingheraforbiddenloveletter.JustastheaffairwithEffieGrayhadbeguninhopeandendedindisaster,thislastrelationshipconcludedevenmorefinally.Rose,psychiatricallydisturbedandsufferingfromanaemia,diedattheageof24.AgrievingRuskinsoughttheservicesofmediumstoconjureupherspirit;ashebegantolosehissenses,hebelievedtheyhadbeenmarried,withJoanofArcastheirbridesmaid.ArtcouldnotretrieveRuskin’ssanity,butitremainedhisconsolation.UnderConiston’sTurnerianskies,hewouldlieinthebottomofhisboatandwatchtheclouds.Hewasaburnt-outwreck,ashufflingfigurewithaneverwilderbeard,hispaleblueeyesfading–agreatevangeliststruckdumb.Yetheremainedthegreatestculturalcommentatorofhisage,becausehestoodapartfromit,andsawitwithclarity.Amanofsuchferociousspiritshouldnotberememberedasareactionaryprude.Farfromcaricature,Ruskindemands,nowmorethanever,ourabsolutepraise.http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/oct/07/john-ruskin-emma-thompson-mike-leigh-film-art