mes animal painting, still life with its studio associations and at the very bottom low-life genre, doubly low because it was neither ideal in style nor elevated in subject. Dryden in his “Parallel” had left his readers in no doubt about the top and bottom of the scale. The subject of a picture, or of a poem “must in general be great and noble”. And this conception derives from the social reality of the moment: painting is created by the aristocracy, for the aristocracy; painting doesn’t need to submit to the nobles’ whims, it already belongs to them, it wouldn’t exist outside their particular circle. Fortunately, George Vertue in a reliable and, in the circumstances of contemporary partisanship, extraordinarily impartial commentary on contemporary art generally specified the category to which paintings belonged in a discussion of their merits and defects, and his remarks may appropriately introduce an account of the new developments in each. Vertue records the sequence of major events in history painting from shortly before 1713 and until1754 as follows: the invasion and domination of the Venetians, the rise of Thornhill, the consequent withdrawal of the Venetians, Burlington’s promotion of William Kent over Thornhill and other rivals, the decline of patronage for high art, executed by living artists. He repeatedly complains about the patrons which prefer to have their portraits painted rather than comission decorative paintings with Biblical or classical subjects. In placing the blame on patrons for their indifference or neglect he made it clear that in his own opinion there was no lack of available talent. He hands out the title of history painter to a surprisingly large number of artists whose gifts for invention can today be best judged by book illustration, the underground channel by which traditions of “istoria” were kept alive in England at this period....
