Question about the painting 'Generals of World War 1' by John Singer Sarjent

[Gunner 87]

 Can any member assist with a question about the painting 'General Officers of World War 1', 1922, hung in the National Portrait Gallery, and the two related works commissioned by Sir Abraham Bailey, 'Naval Officers of World War 1' and 'Statesmen of World War 1'.

 

 I understand the phrase 'World War 1' was not used before Time magazine published an article in 1939 which also referred to the upcoming World War 2. If this is not accurate date wise, the terminology was not generally used until after the second war.

 

 Was the official name of the painting 'General Officers of World War 1' given by John Sarjent at the time of commission or a title given later by the National Portrait Gallery? I can find no explanation online to explain why Sarjent would use 'World War 1' as opposed to the contemporary phrase 'The Great War'?.

 

Any ideas or suggestions welcome.

Edited 20 November , 2020 by Gunner 87
grammar

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Gunner 87 said:

I understand the phrase 'World War 1' was not used before Time magazine published an article in 1939

 

     The conventional wisdom is that the term "First World War"  (Not quite the same) came into use after Colonel Charles A'Court Repington published a book of that name in 1920- It was a general history of the war but he wanted to emphasise both its global scale and its global ramifications in the effects it had just about everyone.

 

     Sargent began his commission of the general officers in 1920 and seems to have finished in 1922. Thus, it does not seem that incongruous. However, I cannot see easily  when-or,indeed, even "if" it was Sargent who chose the name of the painting, nor when that title was applied to it. A bit more sleuthing on that!

 

   Nevertheless, it is a fine painting- his "Gassed" probably being the greatest piece of British art (OK,he was American) of the war- I think the studies of officers by Sir William Orpen hve the edge over  this one in its freshness and capacity to bring vivid life to his subjects. There again, Orpen was working from live sittings, Sargent was not-Oh, that a herd of generals could have  been penned up for the years 1920-22!!

[Moonraker]

Post 4 of This old thread embellishes Guest's reply.

 

Moonraker

[Gunner 87]

 

Thank you, that's very interesting, in particular regarding the term 'First World War'. Considering that, the title could have been given by Sarjent, albeit with a little word play or by the NPG at the time. I agree 'Gassed' is one of the finest works of the war along with L'Enfer, by Georges Leroux, attached. 

[ajsmith]

The reviewer in The Bystander in May 1922 refers to it as "Some General Officers of the Great War".  The reviewer describes it as "flat and dull more like a sketch than a finished work"

[Gunner 87]

On 20/11/2020 at 13:46, Moonraker said:

Post 4 of This old thread embellishes GUEST's reply.

 

Moonraker

Thanks Moonraker, I just read the thread. It certainly seems it's not so cut and dried as to when the different terms were first used. I appreciate your in input. 

[Gunner 87]

13 minutes ago, ajsmith said:

The reviewer in The Bystander in May 1922 refers to it as "Some General Officers of the Great War".  The reviewer describes it as "flat and dull more like a sketch than a finished work"

 Yes, I read it didn't have great reviews. I also note that Sarjent was reluctant to take the commission and that many were generals were left out. It seems only those 'in favour' were allowed to be included at the wishes of Sir Abraham Bailey. I do think it's very impressive when seen in the flesh whatever the critics say. 

[Gunner 87]

 

Hi, I have had a reply from the National Portrait Gallery that appears to explain the title..... I thought you may find it of interest. 

 

".........the Gallery’s portraits rarely bear formal titles, i.e. unlike other artistic works such as books and plays they are rarely allocated titles by their auteurs.  Our individual portraits, for example, are referred to in Gallery catalogues by the most senior title held by the sitter, even though they may have been painted at a time when the person portrayed held a junior title, or no title at all.  This enables us to conveniently group all the portraits of a particular sitter together, rather than listing them in separate places.

 

With a group portrait such as the one in question, the situation is slightly different, especially as in this case, and for the companion pictures of statesmen and naval officers, the portraits are the result of a Gallery commission.  I think we can be confident that no formal title was ever allocated by the Gallery’s trustees when commissioning these portraits, nor was one applied by the artist on or prior to delivery.  It is likely also that the ‘titles’ applied to them in printed Gallery catalogues will have changed since they were first exhibited in the 1920s, to match the terms for the conflict felt to be most recognised by contemporaries....."

[Gunner 87]

On 20/11/2020 at 13:50, ajsmith said:

The reviewer in The Bystander in May 1922 refers to it as "Some General Officers of the Great War".  The reviewer describes it as "flat and dull more like a sketch than a finished work"

Hi ajsmilth, not sure you will see this unless I quote you. Above is the interesting reply from the NPG. Seems to answer the question. Regards Gunner 87.

[Gunner 87]

On 20/11/2020 at 13:46, Moonraker said:

Post 4 of This old thread embellishes GUESTS's reply.

 

Moonraker

Hi Moonraker, above is the NPG's answer to the question of naming the painting. Thought it maybe of some interest. kind regards Gunner 87.

[ajsmith]

1 hour ago, Gunner 87 said:

Hi ajsmilth, not sure you will see this unless I quote you. Above is the interesting reply from the NPG. Seems to answer the question. Regards Gunner 87.

Thanks for that interesting stuff.