WHO cares who painted The Skating Minister?
Well, I do for one. It is of course Scotland's best known and most loved painting and is used by the National Galleries for its branding, though the original is to be found in a gloomy basement with many other Scottish paintings at the Mound in Edinburgh.
Insensitive as that is, it is nothing compared to the note accompanying it, which suggests it may not be the work of Sir Henry Raeburn, our greatest portrait painter, but an obscure and hitherto uncelebrated Frenchman called Henri-Pierre Danloux. When this claim first surfaced in an article in 2005 by Stephen Lloyd, then a curator at the Scottish National Portrait Gallery (SNPG), it was greeted with hysterical interest and, in general, accepted as fact.
Lloyd's case, which he continues to make in a new book, is that The Skating Minister cannot be by Raeburn because it is stylistically unlike others of his paintings. Moreover, Lloyd now says the absence of lead white under-paint, which supposedly Raeburn habitually used, proves conclusively the Rev Robert Walker, aka The Skating Minister, must have been painted by someone else.
Forgive me, a mere journalist, from stifling a scoff. From the beginning, Lloyd's case was at best circumstantial and at worst plain silly and would, in most courts in the land, be thrown out before wasting a jury's time. By way of evidence he introduced a painting by Danloux in which the pose of one of the figures was similar to that deployed by The Skating Minister. Danloux, it transpired, had spent a while in Edinburgh in the last decade of the 18th century, which coincidence was seized upon by Lloyd to fatten his argument.
It was inevitable, he suggested, that Danloux, who had travelled from France to paint exiled members of the French royal family who had taken sanctuary at Holyrood, would have met the Rev Walker, who was a minister in the Canongate.
And that was just about it. Yet the then director of the National Galleries, Sir Timothy Clifford, who once declared Scottish art to be "inferior", concluded that the attribution of the painting to Raeburn was wrong and that poor Danloux had languished unsung for centuries.
There are various ways you can trace the provenance of a painting. One of the most reliable is by determining a connection between painter and sitter. Despite apparently researching for years, Lloyd has found nothing – not a piece of paper, not a letter or a bill or a diary entry – which associates Danloux with Walker. He has not been able even to confirm they knew each other. Why, then, would Danloux want to paint him if no fee was involved?
In contrast, we know Raeburn and Walker were friends and moved in the same social circles. As regards the painting, Beatrix Scott, the Rev Walker's great-granddaughter, noted Raeburn "always regarded it as his masterpiece". Indeed, on Raeburn's death, he bequeathed it to Walker's widow, Jean.
Though Raeburn connoisseurs concede the painting may be atypical there is no doubt in their minds he was its author. For Duncan Thomson, erstwhile keeper of the SNPG and the world's foremost expert on Raeburn, it is all in the eye of the beholder. The Scot, he insists, describes while the Frenchman imitates.
Yet still the arguments rage and the doubt over the National Galleries' "star" painting is allowed to fester. This is strange because I have found no-one who works there in a curatorial capacity who believes Raeburn did not paint it.
One such is Michael Clarke, director of the National Gallery, who in 2006 said: "If it's by Raeburn, he's painting in a format favoured by Danloux. But if it's by Danloux, he's painting in a style practised by Raeburn. Now, it's more likely to my mind you could paint in another artist's format than paint in a style which is quite different from the rest of your work."
Nothing has changed in the interim, which is sad and shameful, and a reflection, it seems to me, of the inertia and complacency at the heart of our culture. Whatever happened to our much-vaunted national pride?
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article