Printer Friendly

Translating modernism: Mainie Jellett, Ireland and the search for a modernist language: in the early part of her career, Mainie Jellett provoked hostility in Ireland, thanks to her espousal of abstraction and her Anglo-Irish Protestant identity. Riann Coulter describes how she responded, by introducing Celtic and Catholic imagery into her work, to create a popular form of Irish modernism.

In the autumn of 1923, Irish audiences were exposed to abstraction for the first time. Among the paintings on show at the exhibition of the Society of Dublin Painters was Decoration (Fig. 1) by Mainie Jellett, a young Anglo-Irish artist who had studied in London with Walter Sickert and in Paris with Andre Lhote and Albert Gleizes. When she returned home, her mission was, as Bruce Arnold bas suggested, 'to exhibit abstract paintings to a public which previously regarded her as an artist who painted in the style of Sickert'. (1) In pursuing this goal, Jellett became both the greatest advocate of modernism in Ireland, and the prime target for those forces that rallied against it.


Since 1923 the status and nature of Jellett's work have remained a subject of contention. Damned by the Irish Times in 1923 for producing 'freak' pictures and lauded by the same paper in 1927 as 'the only serious exponent in this country of the ultra-modernist school of painting', (2) by the time of her death in 1944, Jellett was variously considered as the grande dame of Irish modernism (3) and dismissed as an imitator of Gleizes. (4)

Derivativeness, over-zealous application of theory and elitist detachment, remain the primary complaints of Jellett's critics. (5) Thus, while Arnold considers her 'quite simply the greatest woman painter the country has ever produced', others condemn Jellett as an arch modernist, entirely divorced from her Irish context. (6) By examining the changing critical responses to her work and the relationships between her art and the discourses of nationalism and religion that dominated the Irish Free State, I aim to reconsider Jellett as an artist who translated a foreign abstract aesthetic into a visual language comprehensible to her Irish audience.

The critical response to Decoration in 1923 reveals the hostility towards modernism in Ireland. While the Irish Times compared the painting to a malformed onion, utilising language reminiscent of continental attacks on modernism, (7) the artist and critic George Russell (AE) described Jellett as 'a late victim to Cubism in some sub-section of this artistic malaria' and concluded that 'what Miss Jellett says in one of her decorations she says in the other, and that is nothing'. (8) However, Decoration did have something to say. Based on theoretical principles of abstraction that Jellett had learnt from Gleizes, it is in fact a devotional work. (9) The painting is composed on a vertical format within a pentagonal frame. Its arrangement of forms suggests affinities with a Madonna and Child, an impression emphasised by Jellett's use of gold leaf and tempera in hues of blue, red and green. This relates to frescoes by Fra Angelico, whose influence Jellett acknowledged in a later painting, Homage to Fra Angelico (Fig. 3). (10) That these references were lost in a society where religious imagery was revered suggests how incomprehensible Jellett's abstracted aesthetic was to Irish audiences. This was a public used to reading pictures in a narrative manner. Unable to interpret Jellett's image, and hostile to its foreign aesthetic, commentators turned to ridicule.


To comprehend the reception of Jellett's work in 1923, it is necessary to consider the nature of Irish art of this period. The Society of Dublin Painters was established by Paul Henry, who had worked with Whistler and Sickert before spending nine years on the island of Achill painfing romantic images of the Irish landscape. Moving to Dublin in 1920, he found 'ignorance and prejudice ... against any form of art which savoured, even remotely, of modernism'. (11) The society was established to counter this situation and shortly after its first exhibition in August 1920, Jellett joined.'2 Yet, although sympathetic to modernism, the society was by no means a radical avant-garde. Throughout the 1920s Henry continued to produce mildly modernist landscapes, such as Dawn, Killary Harbour (Fig. 4), that quickly became absorbed into the canon of Irish art.


Thus in 1923 Ireland remained entirely unprepared for Jellett's abstractions and she became the focus for hostility towards all that was new and foreign in art. This attitude was particularly prevalent in Russell's criticism. Reviewing Jellett's work in 1924, he wrote of art at the beginning of the 20th century 'breaking out in strange blotches and ulcers', an illness caused by the 'pointillists, cubists, futurists and other aesthetic bacteria'. (13) However, despite the xenophobic fear of infection implied, Russell believed that Irish artists should learn from international art, but only if they used their knowledge to develop a native school. (14) Russell's own practice involved both mystical paintings of the Celtic revival and romanticised images of the Irish landscape: he saw Jellett's abstractions as the antithesis of his ideals.

Despite Russell's criticism, Jellett continued to exhibit abstract compositions, so that by 1927 critics felt unable to damn her art unconditionally. In reviews of that year, she is described as an artist whom 'the average man will ... find it difficult to understand' but 'many artistic folk' will be satisfied by'. (16) However, it was not until the exhibition of Homage to Fra Angelico in 1928, that critics praised her work in specific terms. Inspired by Fra Angelico's Coronation of the Virgin in the Uffizi, this work marks the beginning of Jellett's return to figuration. (16)

Detecting a 'marked advance' in her work, the Irish Times approved of the painting's 'mystic fascination' of colour and subject. (17) In the Irish Statesman, Hylda Boyd praised Jellett for creating a painting 'which while based on and retaining the religious significance and colour beauty of the Angelico evinces the simplicity of form and absence of representation which are the essence of modern decorative art'. (18) Through her return to figuration, use of Christian iconography and reference to art history, Jellett had created an image that was both modern and expressed spirituality in terms comprehensible to the Irish public. The favourable reception of Homage suggested a way to communicate with the Irish public without resorting to images of the Irish landscape. In a period when 92 per cent of the Irish population were Catholic, a discernible image of the Virgin could even be read in national terms. (19) Could Jellett's appropriation of Christian iconography have, therefore, been more than an artistic or spiritual endeavour? To consider this question, it is necessary to appreciate the political climate of the Irish Free State and investigate the position of Jellett, an Anglo Irish Protestant, within it.

The Ireland to which Jellett returned in 1923 was dramatically different to the one she had left to study in London. Following a violent conception, the new state turned inwards, seeking stability and a unique national identity. From postage stamps to periodicals, visual imagery was called upon to contribute to the construction of national narrative. Sean Keating's realist paintings became 'the most powerful visual documents of the Irish Free State'. (20) His Night's Candles are Burnt Out (Fig. 5) has been interpreted as an allegory of the Free State, in which the nuclear family looks towards the future of a modern Ireland. (21) Commissioned to record the construction of a power station, this image is in stark contrast, both aesthetically and ideologically, to Jellett's abstracted compositions.


Fintan Cullen has suggested that Keating and Jellett represent 'two strands of artistic production that dominated the world of Dublin art exhibitions in the first decades of the Free State'. (22) Arguing that a preoccupation with modernism in recent Irish art history has resulted in the dismissal of realist art that engages with political events, (23) Cullen asks whether 'in a traditionalist society like early twentieth-century Ireland, where awareness of the Parisian avant-garde was limited, is it permissible to dismiss the non-avant-garde as merely reactionary ... and see any form of ad hoc modernism as preferable?'. (24) He calls for a reassessment of Keating's political art.

While making a strong argument for the reassessment of Keating 'as a regional voice ... claiming legitimacy and claiming national identity as a worthwhile issue in the face of modernist uniformity', Cullen fails to reconsider Jellett's art and thus merely inverts the opposition between modernism and realism. (25) Claiming that Jellett considered modernism as 'a purifying force that rid art of "national" purpose', Cullen concludes that 'the idea of a nation bas Utile to do with Jellett's vision and everything to do with Keating's'. (26) However, by concentrating on Jellett's early abstractions, Cullen follows Russell in dismissing Jellett because she did not seek 'an Irish subject matter' and 'an Irish mode of representation'. (27)

Cullen presumes that Jellett's Anglo-Irish background positioned her among 'exterior forces, a case of the artist "looking in" rather than participating'. (28) Quoting Terry Eagleton's assessment that art offered the Anglo-Irish 'an ersatz kind of identity and belonging ... painfully lacking in historical fact', so that the 'celebrated formalism and aestheticism of the modernists' was a 'defiant rationalisation of their own roofless condition', (29) Cullen asks 'can one call Mainie Jellett the last Anglo-Irish painter?' (30) As Eagleton suggests, the 'hybrid spirit of the European Modernist, caught between diverse cultural codes' was reflected in the pursuits of Anglo-Irish artists, but whereas both he and Cullen allow only for an elitist modernist aesthetic, from the early 1930s, Jellett began to seek a 'hybrid' discourse, both Irish and modern, through which to communicate with her audience. (31)

Although Jellett continued to produce abstract work, her attitude to figuration was changing. By 1935 her preoccupation with abstraction had given way to a more diverse practice, including a renewed interest in landscape. In 1935 she saw the celebrated exhibition of Chinese art in London, which, she later wrote 'made a profound impression upon me and helped to form an approach to landscape painting, which I have used in varied forms ever since'. (32) Returning to Ireland, she travelled to Achill, where she found connections between the 'peace and the aloofness from the confusion and scrambling of the world', and the 'natural rhythm running through' Chinese art. (33)

Jellett's new approach to landscape was put to the test in 1939, when she represented Ireland at the New York World Fair. There, her Achill Horses (Fig. 8) hung in the Irish pavillon, designed by the modernist architect Michael Scott. (34) Although the state's commissioning of modernists in New York, together with the choice of Jellett to represent Ireland in the Glasgow World Fair of 1938, have been cited as evidence of the acceptance of modernism in Ireland, arguably she was chosen less for her aesthetic innovations than for her ability to represent Irish subjects in a 'modern' manner. (35)


All the work exhibited in New York was comprehensible within the narrow context of 'Irish' art. Deriving from sketches made on Achill and displaying the decorative influence of Chinese art, Jellett's depiction of wild horses not only made reference to the tradition of romantic landscapes, but may also have conveyed associations with Irish myth. (36) Preparatory drawings, where the rhythmical forms of the foreground appear like waves derived from Chinese art, suggest that Jellett may have been referring to the faerie steeds of the Oisin myth. (37)

Whether or not such connotations were intentional, in both New York and Glasgow the modernism that gained official endorsement was neither autonomous, nor avant-garde. Whereas Keating's heroic realist images fed the national imagination, Jellett's Irish imagery, rendered in a mildly modernist aesthetic, conveyed to an international audience the impression of a modern nation. What must be considered is why a modernist artist created art that could be used to this ideological end?

Contrary to Cullen's interpretation, Jellett was not a rootless figure. She was both a modernist and an 'Irish' artist. Although the hostility she encountered did not break her resolve to introduce international modernism to Ireland, it did make her realise that to succeed she had to adapt. However, although the meeting of modernism and Ireland represented in Achill Horses brought Jellett a wider audience, it did not fulfil her vision of modern Irish art. Spirituality had been usurped by other ideological associations. An alternative was needed that was modernist, Irish and spiritual. It was through the familiar iconography of religion that Jellett's reconciliation between modernism and Ireland was finally achieved.

Since her time with Gleizes, the expression of spirituality through art had been a vital aspect of Jellett's modernist mission. Just as Ireland challenged her to re-examine her abstract aesthetic, it forced her to reconsider her universal ideas of spirituality within a national context. Arguing that 'the art of a nation is one of the ultimate facts by which its spiritual health is judged and appraised by posterity', Jellett believed that the artist's role was 'vitally important to the mental and spiritual life' of the people. (38) As she had found in 1923, the Irish people were largely oblivious to developments in modern art. They were also staunchly conservative and preoccupied with issues of national identity. Although nationalism was the dominant ideology of the struggle for independence, Catholicism became the doctrine of its consolidation.

It was not only a matter of the Anglo-Irish feeling marginalised by Irish nationalism. Conservative Catholicism posed a threat to religious, social and artistic freedom. Censorship laws fortified national introspection and made artists fear that their work would be condemned within the elastic category of 'indecent and obscene'. (39) As Declan Kiberd has pointed out, despite centuries of colonialism, 'there was if anything less freedom in post-independence Ireland, for the reason that the previous attempt to arraign the enemy without gave way to a new campaign against the heretic within'. (40)

Although Jellett's art was far from obscene, her Anglo-Irish identity did make her suspect. She found the new order oppressive and wrote to Gleizes in 1932, 'times here are very bad, everyone on the verge of financial disaster and de Valera clothing us all with his mad nationalism and narrow-minded men'. (41) Yet, unlike those who choose exile, Jellett remained, and by exchanging spiritual abstraction for explicit Christian imagery, finally found acceptance in Ireland. (42) Just as Chinese art had informed Jellett's return to landscape, Celtic art pointed the way towards a modern Irish religious painting.

Grounded in the scholarship of her aunt, Margaret Stokes, the author of Early Christian Art in Ireland (1887), Jellett's interest in Celtic art was nurtured under the tutelage of Gleizes. (43) For Gleizes, Celticism was a form of 'primitivism' that meant a return to origins, either in the form of French gothic or the art of the Celtic world. (44) In Ireland, Celtic art was the ideal 'primitive'. Accessible through illuminated manuscripts, metalwork and architecture, it was also indigenous and therefore authentically 'Irish'. Finding Ireland unprepared for her modern aesthetic, Jellett invoked the art of the past to authenticate her art. The influence of Celtic art is discernible in Pirgin and Child (Fig. 6), where the framing devices are reminiscent of the Virgin from the Book of Kells (Fig. 7). Yet, the implications of Jellett's use of Celtic art reached beyond technique. In 1942, she deftly linked cubism, Celtic art and contemporary Ireland. Stressing the common ideals between Celtic and contemporary abstraction, Jellett claimed that 'if an Irish artist of the eighth or ninth century were to meet a present-day Cubist or non-representational painter they would understand each other'. (45) By identifying the indigenous 'primitive' with the imported modern, Jellett declared cubism the legitimate descendant of Celtic art and suggested a means for the 'purification' and 'revitalisation' of Irish art. (46) As she argued in 1941, 'if we could only open our eyes to the truth behind Celtic art and the treasure house we have in this country in what it has left us, we might then become conscious of a reality that would give our art a national character'. (47)


The non-denominational nature of Celtic art appealed to Jellett. (48) In the 1860s the Church of Ireland had declared itself the modern incarnation of Celtic Christianity and began to use Celtic forms, such as round towers and high crosses (49) Challenging the hegemony of the Catholic Church's claim to embody national authenticity, Celtic art suggested a way of creating an Irish religious art that was also ecumenical. Yet, although she belonged to the Church of Ireland, and despite her desire for ecumenical art, Jellett often depicted 'fundamentally catholic subjects', not least images of the Virgin, such as Madonna of Eire (Figs. 2 and 9). (50) This bas been read as an image 'unencumbered by politics or even by overt Irishness', yet it can be interpreted as an Irish painting. (51) It depicts Saints Patrick and Brigit, both associated with Ireland, and Jellett's use of the term 'Eire' acknowledges the Free State's promotion of a Gaelic Ireland. (52) Moreover, the identification between Ireland and the Madonna places this image within a tradition of depicting the nation as a young virtuous woman.


Arguing that the Anglo-Irish had a particular affection for the Virgin, Belinda Loftus has suggested that they could 'identify with Ireland's native Catholic population through involvement with their myths and their belief in the Virgin'. (53) Loftus also suggests that the Virgin was 'the most popular female emblem of religious and political identity' in Ireland. (54) Perhaps it was this feminine aspect of the Virgin that Jellett identified with. Although it would be anachronistic to call her a feminist, Jellett was an independent, single woman who relished the company of her sisters and her friend Evie Hone (55) How better to express feminine spirituality within an Irish context than through the iconography of the Virgin?

In November 1941, Jellett was described by the Irish Independent as 'one of our leading artists', who 'charges her pictures, especially her religious ones with intense emotion'. (56) In the same month she exhibited alongside Keating in the Academy of Christian Art, an institution founded to promote 'the intellectual commonplaces of Catholic life'. (57) Finally, Jellett had found her public. Critics who had lambasted her abstraction embraced her 'deeply religious expression in cubist form'. (58) In a country emerging from centuries of religious oppression, art was required to express spirituality in popular and intelligible terms. Jellett's late work fulfilled this criteria so successfully that in 1952 Thomas MacGreevy could claim that her abstraction had been 'not more--if not less--than a discipline and a training', to fulfil the need of a 'changing Ireland' and 'give vitality to religious art'. (59) Ten years later, James White argued that 'more than any artist ... Jellett's religious pictures seem suited to our modern purposes'. (60)

From 1923 to her death in 1944, Mainie Jellett engaged with discourses of tradition and religion to make modernism palatable to Ireland. As a result, her religious works can be seen as 'an act of catharsis, in part personal and in part for the times in which she was living'. (61) Acutely aware of the nature of those times, Jellett recognised that 'A time when one civilisation is in its death throes and a new civilisation is struggling for birth is not a period to produce great art, but it is a period in which new foundations can be placed and everlasting truths re-expressed in forms adapted to the present time.' (62)

Like James Joyce, who had 'not become modern to the extent that he ceased to be Irish', Jellett made modernism Irish. (63) While Joyce left Ireland to escape the nets of nationalism and religion, she returned to challenge the hegemony of academic art. To succeed, she had to face the forces that he had fled and gradually mould from her abstract aesthetic a hybrid style through which spirituality could be expressed in Irish terms. Her art was, then, the 'new foundation' of which she spoke. Thus, while not a revolutionary, Jellett did find a way to communicate with her audience, and while Joyce suffered censorship, her ability to adapt left her free to pursue a didactic mission and prepare the way for the consolidation of modernism in Ireland.

Unless otherwise stated, the works illustrating this article are by Mainie Jellett (1897-1944) and are [C] Heirs and Successors of Mainie Jellett.

I would like to thank Brute Arnold and Professor Christopher Green for their input into my research on Jellett.

(1) Bruce Arnold, Mainie Jellett and the Modern Movement in Ireland, New Haven and London, 1991, p. 78.

(2) 'Two Freak Pictures: Art and Nature', Irish Times, 23 October 1923. 'A Plea for Pictures, Miss Jellett's Lecture', Irish Times, 3 February 1927.

(3) Jellett's status as the grand dame of modernism in Ireland was confirmed by her election to the chair of the Irish Exhibition of Living Art in 1943, the institution that consolidated modernism in Ireland.

(4) Charles Sidney, 'Art Criticism in Dublin', The Bell, vol. IX, no. 2, November 1944, p. 107.

(5) See Cyril Barrett, 'Mainie Jellett and Irish Modernism', Irish Arts Review Year Book, Dublin, 1993 and Fintan Cullen, 'Painting the Modern', Visual Politics: The Representations of Ireland 1750-1930, Cork, 1997.

(6) Arnold, op. cit., p. 204.

(7) 'Two Freak Pictures', op. cit.

(8) George Russell, Irish Statesman, 27 October 1923.

(9) It was only by attempting to teach Jellett and her compatriot Evie Hone that Gleizes was able to clarify his ideas and write La Peinture et ses Lois (1923). Arnold, op. cit., p. 67. Thanks to Sighle Bhreathnach-Lynch, National Gallery of Ireland, for providing access to this work and discussing its iconographical references.

(10) In a colour key on an abstract drawing in the National Gallery of Ireland (no. 18, 238) Jellett refers to 'Fra Anglico Blue'.

(11) Paul Henry, Further Reminiscences, Edward Hickey (ed.), Belfast, 1973, p. 65, quoted in S.B. Kennedy, Irish Art and Modernism, 1880-1950, pp. 19-20.

(12) For further discussion of the Society of Dublin Painters, see ibid., chapters 2 and 3.

(13) George Russell, "The New Irish Salon', Irish Statesman, 16 February 1924. This exhibition showed Jellett along side Gleizes and Lhote.

(14) In 1899 Russell had organised the Modern Paintings exhibition, which included Degas, Manet, Monet and Whistler. Kennedy, op. cit., p. 6.

(15) 'Modern Painting: Miss M.H. Jellett's work', Irish Times, 8 January 1927. 'A Plea for Pictures', op. cit.

(16) The work was related to Gleizes' mural project for a parish church at Serrieres, which also marked his return to figuration. Arnold, op. cit., p. 121.

(17) 'The Cubist School: Miss M.H. Jellett's Painting', Irish Times, 12 June 1928.

(18) 'Exhibition of Painting by Miss Jellett', Irish Statesman, 16 June 1928. The Irish Statesman index attributes the review to Hylda Boyd.

(19) 92.6% of the population were Catholic (1926 Census).

(20) Brian P. Kennedy and Raymond Gillespie (eds.), Ireland: Art into History, Dublin, 1994, p. 150.

(21) Kennedy and Gillespie, op. cit., p. 320.

(22) Cullen, op. cit., p. 161-62.

(23) Ibid., pp. 163-63.

(24) Ibid.

(25) Ibid., p. 172.

(26) Ibid., pp. 164, 170.

(27) Ibid., pp.164-65.

(28) Ibid., p. 172.

(29) Terry Eagleton, Heathcliff and the Great Hunger: Studies in Irish Culture, London, 1995, p. 300, quoted in Cullen, op. cit., p. 166.

(30) Ibid., p. 173.

(31) Eagleton, op. cit., p. 300. It may appear contradictory to apply postcolonial theory to an Anglo-Irish artist, but within the Free State the Anglo-Irish were a minority that nationalist discourse teffectively disinherited.

(32) Quoted by Arnold, op. cit., p. 151. This was the International Exhibition of Chinese Art, the Royal Academy of Arts, London, November 1935-March 1936.

(33) Jellett quoted in Arnold, op. cit., p. 152.

(34) Scott's Irish pavilion was an uneasy mixture of international modernism and Irish symbolism. Not only was it in the colours of the Irish flag, it was also built on a shamrock plan.

(35) See Arnold, op. cit., p. 163, and Kennedy, op. cit., p. 48.

(36) Preparatoty drawings in the National Gallery of Ireland show the development of the image from representation. The initial sketches may have been made during Jellett's visit to Achill in 1936.

(37) Anne Crookshank et al., Mainie Jellett, 1897-1944, exh. cat., Irish Museum of Modern Art, 1991, p. 90.

(38) Mainie Jellett, 'A Definition of my Art', Irish Art Handbook, 1943, reprinted as, 'My Voyage of Discovery' in Eileen MacCarvill (ed.), The Artist's Vision: Lectures and Essays on Art, Dundalk, 1958, p. 49.

(39) The Censorship of Films Act, 1923, and the Censorship of Publications Act, 1929.

(40) Declan Kiberd, Inventing Ireland: The Literature of a Modern Nation, London, 1995, 1996, p. 263.

(41) Jellett, letter to Gleizes, 9 October 1932, quoted in Arnold, op. cit., p. 136.

(42) Kiberd, op. cit., p. 264

(43) Crookshank, op. cit., p. 7, and interview with Anne Crookshank, 16 May 2000.

(44) See Mark Antliff, 'Cubism, Celtism, and the Body Politic', The Art Bulletin, December 1992, vol. LXXIV, no 4, pp. 656-68.

(45) Mainie Jellett, 'A Word on Irish Art', part of a lecture delivered to the Munster Fine Arts Club in Cork, 1942; see MacCarvill, op. cit., pp. 103-105.

(46) Jellett, op. cit. in n. 38 above, p. 49.

(47) A note appended to an early draft of her lecture delivered to the White Stag Group in October 1941 and the Munster Arts club in 1942, quoted by Arnold, op. cit., p. 181.

(48) Mainie Jellett, 'Modern Art and its Relation to the Past', in MacCarvill, op. cit., p. 90.

(49) See Alistair Rowan, 'Irish Victorian Churches: Denominational Distinctions', in Kennedy and Gillespie, op. cit., pp. 207-30.

(50) Fintan Cullen, 'Still a Long Way to Go: Recent Irish Art History', Art History, vol. XV, no. 3, September 1992, p. 380.

(51) Paula Murphy, 'Madonna, Maiden, Mistress and Mother', in James Stewart (ed.), When Time Began to Rant and Rage: Figurative Painting from 20th Century Ireland, London, 1998, p. 92.

(52) Eire, the Gaelic name for Ireland, was the state's official name, 1937-49.

(53) Belinda Loftus, Mirrors: William III and Mother Ireland, Dundrum, 1990, pp. 62-43.

(54) Ibid.

(55) Hone and Jellett studied together with Gleizes in the early 1920s.

(56) 'Academy of Christian Art', Irish Independent, 21 November 1941. 'Paintings by Miss Mainie Jellett', Irish Independent, 22 November 1941, signed HSK.

(57) Count Plunkett, 'President's Address', Journal, of the Academy of Christian Art, vol. 1 (c. 1937), p. 7, cited in Kennedy, op. cit., p. 22.

(58) 'Dublin Painter's Exhibition', Irish Independent, 19 February 1944.

(59) Thomas MacCreevy, 'Evie Hone and Mainie Jellett', in Stella Frost (ed.), A Tribute to Evie Hone and Mainie Jellett, Dublin, pp. 18-19.

(60) James White, 'Mainie Jellett', in Eire-Ireland, Bulletin of the Department of External Affairs, no. 593, 1962, p. 8.

(61) Kennedy, op. cit., p. 48.

(62) Jellett, op. cit. in n. 38 above, p, 50.

(63) Kiberd, op. cit., p. 267.

Riann Coulter is an art historian specialising in modern and contemporary art.
COPYRIGHT 2006 Apollo Magazine Ltd.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2006 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Coulter, Riann
Geographic Code:4EUUK
Date:Sep 1, 2006
Previous Article:Boulle at Blenheim: among the great treasures in the state rooms at Blenheim Palace is a collection of furniture by Andre-Charles Boulle, or in his...
Next Article:Reynolds's Mona Lisa: part of Mona Lisa's mystique lies in the difficulty artists over the centuries have had in reproducing her. Michael Burrell...

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2022 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |