Skip Navigation

Journal of Design History 2007 20(4):291-307; doi:10.1093/jdh/epm026
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Retford, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2007]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Design History Society. All rights reserved.

From the Interior to Interiority: The Conversation Piece in Georgian England

Kate Retford

University of London

E-mail: k.retford{at}bbk.ac.uk


   Abstract

This article explores the Georgian interior as represented in conversation piece portraits. It discusses the relationship between real and depicted rooms and furnishings and considers the meanings and values conveyed by painted interiors. The article begins by examining the relatively bare settings of Arthur Devis, which emphasized restrained good taste, in contrast to William Hogarth's more lavish scenes of refined consumption. It then discusses the implications of Devis's reuse of the same interiors for different patrons. Such settings were not intended to represent specific spaces. Rather, like the interiors of Hogarth's modern moral subject paintings, they were to be understood as signifiers of abstract virtues—their generic quality enhancing their legibility. Moving on to the 1760s, the article considers Johan Zoffany's revitalization of the conversation piece, combining lavish description of things with a new sense of intimacy and affect. In contrast to Devis, Zoffany notably depicted rooms and objects owned by his patrons, albeit combined in invented ways and with fictive possessions in order to strengthen their iconographic power. The article ends by speculating about some of the reasons for this distinction, including the social status of their patrons, the changing nature of the art world and developments in the luxury debate.

Key Words: conversation piece • Devis • eighteenth century • interior • portraiture • Zoffany


If you have any comments to make in relation to this article, please go to the journal website on http://jdh.oxfordjournals.org and access this article. There is a facility on the site for sending email responses to the editorial board and other readers.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.