Great Western - driving on the right

[Gwiwer]

We have perhaps become accustomed to the "realism" school of art as espoused by the likes of Cuneo, Breckon et al.  A railway scene must look credibly like the location nd event depicted.

 

Turner was, as noted above, an impressionistic painter from an earlier era and one when railway art was a totally new subject.  I venture to suggest his work is therefore impressionistic of a train on a bridge derived from actual sightings and sketches and probably based upon a specific location.  But it is not of an actual train passing through an actual rainstorm and arguably not at Maidenhead either.  The position of the train takes it to centre-stage rather than the accuracy of being offset to the left of the formation which is an artistic interpretation.  

 

Centre-stage creates the subject.  An offset train correctly travelling on the left-hand track with a space to its right may well have proved unacceptable to Turner and the art world at that time.  Those of us who photograph will know some of the ground rules including centring the subject in most cases.  When this is not possible we can crop the image to suit.  That is not possible with a painting meaning the artist is left with the impressionist style or the off-centre subject.  

 

I have no idea where the "identification" of Maidenhead Bridge arose from but there is enough informed opinion here to suggest this is not a correct or definitive location for the scene.  It may indeed be nowhere in particular.

[Steamport Southport]

4 hours ago, melmerby said:

Why has the GWR been picked out as the only right side driven company?

Many have/had the driver on the right. (It's easier to fire on the left, especially in a small cab, unless you are a southpaw!)

Weren't the Midland also a right side company? How about the NER? Industrial locos?

 

AFAIK no UK railway ever ran on the right with multiple track main lines.

 

No one wanted to paint inferior railways....   

 

It was GWR or LNWR* only in the early days. 

 

 

*L&MR, L&BR, GJR

 

 

Jason

[Compound2632]

Don't know about that. There's S. Russell's series of lithographs of the North Midland Railway, very early 1840s, and the Chester & Holyhead, including the building of the Britannia Bridge, later 1840s. Prior to 1840 there really was very limited choice of subject!

[eastglosmog]

OK, I've got my book on Turner's paintings of the bookshelf (needed to do a bit of weight lifting).  According to it, the inspiration is supposed to have come when Turner stuck his head out of a train window traveling back from Devonshire during a storm and got drenched.  The attribution to Maidenhead appears to date from about 1946-1959 and is due to one Martin Davies in his National Gallery Catalogue (why, I have no idea). Suspect Turner did not intend it to be anywhere in particular. 

The reason you can't see the hare in the painting is because Turner painted it out!

Whilst most critics appear to have liked the painting, the critic of the Spectator had this to say "..when he (Turner) comes to represent a railway train...the laxity of form and license of effect are greater than people will allow." 

[Monjac]

2 hours ago, eastglosmog said:

OK, I've got my book on Turner's paintings of the bookshelf (needed to do a bit of weight lifting).  According to it, the inspiration is supposed to have come when Turner stuck his head out of a train window traveling back from Devonshire during a storm and got drenched.  The attribution to Maidenhead appears to date from about 1946-1959 and is due to one Martin Davies in his National Gallery Catalogue (why, I have no idea). Suspect Turner did not intend it to be anywhere in particular. 

The reason you can't see the hare in the painting is because Turner painted it out!

Whilst most critics appear to have liked the painting, the critic of the Spectator had this to say "..when he (Turner) comes to represent a railway train...the laxity of form and license of effect are greater than people will allow." 

Thank you so much for that post with such interesting info from your book.. I am so pleased as to what you have written about the hare being painted out.No wonder I could not see it !  Is it possible for  you to give me more detail or quote verbatim what the book says. And why should he paint it out ? Also the engraving was done between 1859-1861  which is 5- 7 years after Turner painted the original but still shows the hare.. 

[eastglosmog]

The book is "The Paintings of J.M.W. Turner" (revised ed) by Martin Butlin and Evelyn Joll Text volume (there is a picture volume as well), Yale University Press 1984 ISBN 0-300-03276-5.  The work is copyright, so I can only give limited extracts. The article on Rain, Steam and Speed is on pages 256 and 257 and  starts:

"An anecdote related by Lady Simon to both George Richmond and Ruskin and reported by them with variations may give one of the origins of this picture: a traveling companion in a train (or coach) returning fro Devonshire in a storm, later identified by her as Turner, put his head out of the window to observe the effect, getting drenched; she, encouraged by his example, did the same and recognized the effect in the next R. A. Exhibition."

Regarding the hare:

"George Leslie, who saw Turner at work on this picture during the R.A. varnishing days, says that 'Turner painted out the little hare , running for its life in front of the locomotive....This hare, and not the train, I have no doubt he intended to represent the "Speed" of the of his title"  No info about why he painted it out I'm afraid, just the fact that he did.

The engraving is not mentioned in the text, so no help as to why it showed the original features I'm afraid.

[Monjac]

Thank you Eastglosmog for that info. Very much appreciated.