Follow us on Twitter
Masters of All they Survey
Gainsborough’s Mr and Mrs Andrews
By Philip McCouat For comments on this article, see here
Introduction
The 18th century English artist Thomas Gainsborough gained fame and wealth from his portraits, such as The Blue Boy, but his real preference was for landscapes. In the 1750s, however, landscapes were not in demand – “they were extremely badly paid and considered little more than decorative space-fillers” [1]. So, like John Singer Sargent a century or so later, Gainsborough concentrated on what he rather dismissively described as his “face painting”, though he still continued to draw and paint landscapes all his life. “I paint portraits to live”, he said, “and landscapes because I love them”. In a moment of frustration, he once wrote to a friend, “I’m sick of Portraits and wish very much to take my Viol da Gam[ba] and walk off to some sweet Village where I can paint Landskips” [2].
His Mr and Mrs Andrews was an early experiment in combining the two genres. It was a painting which he left unfinished, and apparently disowned. It never surfaced to public view until the 20th century, when it was greeted with enthusiasm and popular acclaim. It is this extraordinary painting which we shall be analysing in this article.
His Mr and Mrs Andrews was an early experiment in combining the two genres. It was a painting which he left unfinished, and apparently disowned. It never surfaced to public view until the 20th century, when it was greeted with enthusiasm and popular acclaim. It is this extraordinary painting which we shall be analysing in this article.
Fig 1: Thomas Gainsborough, Mr and Mrs Andrews (1748-50). Oil on canvas, National Gallery, London
What’s happening in the painting
On a large estate, just outside Sudbury, Suffolk, a well-to-do, recently-married couple pose for their portrait on a sunny knoll.
Unusually for a portrait, the painting is much wider than it is high [3], suggesting that it was meant to be hung as an “overmantel” (above a mantelpiece). The couple are depicted off-centre, on the left side of the painting, with most of the space being devoted to land and sky – to such an extent that if the right side of the painting were to be cut-off, we would be left with a self-contained and much more conventional portrait. It is a novel type of composition – one that combines two genres – and one that Gainsborough would never repeat on this scale [4].
Unusually for a portrait, the painting is much wider than it is high [3], suggesting that it was meant to be hung as an “overmantel” (above a mantelpiece). The couple are depicted off-centre, on the left side of the painting, with most of the space being devoted to land and sky – to such an extent that if the right side of the painting were to be cut-off, we would be left with a self-contained and much more conventional portrait. It is a novel type of composition – one that combines two genres – and one that Gainsborough would never repeat on this scale [4].
Fig 2: Detail of the oak tree in recent times
The couple are Robert and Frances Andrews. Behind them is a large oak tree – which incidentally, is still standing today (Fig 2) – and they are neatly framed by its spreading overhead branches.
Robert, aged about 22 at the time, is standing, regarding the world with a rather complacent expression (Fig 3). Clearly, although he is pictured outdoors, he has had no need to dirty his hands.
Robert, aged about 22 at the time, is standing, regarding the world with a rather complacent expression (Fig 3). Clearly, although he is pictured outdoors, he has had no need to dirty his hands.
His pose is elaborately casual, one elbow resting on the elaborate rococo-style carved bench, the other arm holding his long-barrelled shotgun, a reminder that he alone has the right to hunt on the property [5]. He wears a tricorn hat (very similar to the hat that Gainsborough himself would pose in for his 1754 self-portrait (Fig 4)), a fashionable neckerchief and is generally expensively dressed, though in a slightly dishevelled way. His white-silk stockinged legs, rumpled at the ankle, are comfortably crossed, showing off a pair of well-shaped calves; at the time; these were apparently associated with virility [6]. One foot rests proprietarily on the root of the oak tree, a symbol of continuity and stability [7]. His adoring dog looks up at him. His game bag holds his recent bird kills. He appears to have a slight cast in his right eye, which is directed to the left of the painting, while his left eye looks directly out at the viewer.
Fig 3: Detail of Robert Andrews' face
Fig 4: Detail of Gainsborough’s self-portrait, wearing tricorn hat (1754)
Frances, aged about 16 or 17, is sitting rather primly, bolt upright on the bench seat (Fig 5). She too is wearing a hat. Her tiny corseted torso and elongated legs mirror the way in which Gainsborough had depicted women in his previous double portraits (see, for example, Fig 9). Her fashionable pale blue day skirt, with its hooped yellow petticoat [8], is draped decoratively over the bench, and its shape is reflected both in the curved arm of the bench and the bushy tree beyond it, just as her tiny, neatly positioned pointy shoes reflect the feet of the bench.
Fig 5: Detail of Mrs Andrews
On the right of the painting is a wide view looking south over Robert’s 3,000 acre estate in the valley of the River Stour. We see a stubbled field, featuring the then-modern technique of 18-inch-wide plantings produced by a seed drill [9]. The crop of corn has been cut, tied and set in standing stooks -- it seems an appropriate symbol of the fertility that would be desired for the marriage. Further in the distance is a fenced field with grazing sheep, and beyond that a small wood of trees and further pastures and meadows, leading to gentle hills and a rather unsettled sky (Fig 6).
Fig 6: Detail of farmland
This is a painting of a real place, not a romantic fantasy. Nevertheless, if we look in the same spot today as Gainsborough did, we would see that he has artificially reconstructed the view to show “far more than can be seen from that spot, then or now” [10].
Fig 7: Detail with church steeple in distance
Fig 8: Detail with donkeys
Gainsborough also appears to have made the couple disproportionally large, presumably to emphasise their dominance over the land.
Through a gap in the trees in the centre of the painting, we can see the steeple of All Saints Church in the nearby village of Sudbury, where the couple were married (Fig 7).
Further to the right, there is a glimpse of some of the outbuildings of Frances’ old home at Ballingdon Hall. In the dark area on the extreme left, rather indistinctly, are two donkeys in a gated field (Fig 8).
No farm workers are depicted at all.
Through a gap in the trees in the centre of the painting, we can see the steeple of All Saints Church in the nearby village of Sudbury, where the couple were married (Fig 7).
Further to the right, there is a glimpse of some of the outbuildings of Frances’ old home at Ballingdon Hall. In the dark area on the extreme left, rather indistinctly, are two donkeys in a gated field (Fig 8).
No farm workers are depicted at all.
An arranged inheritance and marriage
The estate that appears in the painting, Auberies, had previously been owned in equal shares by Robert’s father (also called Robert) and his friend and neighbour, William Carter, who was Frances’ father-in-law. Robert inherited his father’s share (subject to a life tenancy for Robert’s mother), and then the remaining share when Carter died, leaving it to Robert as his son-in-law, thus unifying ownership of the estate. The marriage of Robert and Frances in 1748 played a crucial part in this arrangement, and was almost certainly long planned by the parents. The young couple, though certainly acquainted with each other, probably did not really having much say in the matter. In effect, in accordance with a common practice among the upper classes, the needs and desires of the couple were subordinated to the needs of the families involved [11].
Gainsborough was well-acquainted with both families. He had grown up in Sudbury and both he and young Robert had attended the same Sudbury Grammar School, though a couple of years apart. He had by this time established a good professional reputation in London, and in 1747 had been commissioned by the Carters to do a double portrait of them (Fig 9). Although still quite young (in his very early 20s), he was the obvious choice to paint the portrait of the Andrews.
Gainsborough was well-acquainted with both families. He had grown up in Sudbury and both he and young Robert had attended the same Sudbury Grammar School, though a couple of years apart. He had by this time established a good professional reputation in London, and in 1747 had been commissioned by the Carters to do a double portrait of them (Fig 9). Although still quite young (in his very early 20s), he was the obvious choice to paint the portrait of the Andrews.
Fig 9: Thomas Gainsborough, portrait of William and Francoise Carter, with the wife portrayed on an oddly disproportionate diminutive scale
The importance of land
Both the Carter and the Andrews families were beneficiaries of the Enclosure movement. In the 18th century, common land, on which peasants were permitted to carry out subsistence farming on narrow strips, was progressively privatised. This enabled the moneyed classes to acquire consolidated tracts of land, which could be fenced or hedged, enabling more efficient agricultural practices. Land assumed great importance as a profitable investment, a passport to wealth, social standing and even political power.
This importance is reflected in Gainsborough’s portrait. Some early interpretations of the painting saw it as a couple simply “engaged in philosophic enjoyment of…uncorrupted and unperverted Nature” [13]. But as John Berger has pointed out, it was significant that any such “philosophic enjoyment” was limited to their own land, and did not extend to other people’s land -- their enjoyment is inextricably tied up to their proud ownership [14]. Furthermore, this wasn’t a wild or "unperverted" Nature: it was ordered and exploited, cultivated, cropped and fenced. To them (though not to Gainsborough) it wasn’t just picturesque, it was evidence of wealth and status.
So, the proud Andrews couple, their inheritances fully realised, are happy to be depicted, not in their house (which does not even appear in the painting), but next to a cornfield, as masters of all they survey – though, as Frances’ unsoiled silk house shoes indicate, they would of course actually have posed for the painting indoors. The painting may very well have been executed by Gainsborough in accordance with his common practice of painting while standing in his parlour, in semi-darkness lit only by candles, using little models of the scene, with dressed manikins, and little stones for rocks, and trees and bushes represented by broccoli [15].
This importance is reflected in Gainsborough’s portrait. Some early interpretations of the painting saw it as a couple simply “engaged in philosophic enjoyment of…uncorrupted and unperverted Nature” [13]. But as John Berger has pointed out, it was significant that any such “philosophic enjoyment” was limited to their own land, and did not extend to other people’s land -- their enjoyment is inextricably tied up to their proud ownership [14]. Furthermore, this wasn’t a wild or "unperverted" Nature: it was ordered and exploited, cultivated, cropped and fenced. To them (though not to Gainsborough) it wasn’t just picturesque, it was evidence of wealth and status.
So, the proud Andrews couple, their inheritances fully realised, are happy to be depicted, not in their house (which does not even appear in the painting), but next to a cornfield, as masters of all they survey – though, as Frances’ unsoiled silk house shoes indicate, they would of course actually have posed for the painting indoors. The painting may very well have been executed by Gainsborough in accordance with his common practice of painting while standing in his parlour, in semi-darkness lit only by candles, using little models of the scene, with dressed manikins, and little stones for rocks, and trees and bushes represented by broccoli [15].
The enigmatic Mrs Andrews
What do we make of this rather enigmatic expression on Frances’ face?
Fig 10: Detail of Mrs Andrews’ face
As a newly-wed, we might expect her to be happy, but she certainly is not looking adoringly at her beau. Her eyes are narrowed, looking sharply at something out of frame to her right and, surprisingly for a woman still in her teens, she has bags under her eyes. Her small mouth is tight, with just a hint of a smile on the lips, but – at least, to me -- it is not a smile of merriment, or even of politeness, but a smile with a hint of mockery, resentment or regret. However, narrow side-eye expressions such as hers are capable of being interpreted in differing ways – contrast, for example, Fig 11, in which a young woman is giving a side-eye glare at a politician that she disapproves of, and Fig 12, where an actor is using narrowed eyes and a sideways look to convey an air of mystery and allure [16].
Fig 11: Grace Tame, women’s activist, gives side-eye look intended to express disapproval to a (now former) Prime Minister of Australia, 2022
Fig 12: In this publicity still, actor Lauren Bacall gives side-eye look intended to convey an attractive air of mystery and allure
If Frances is actually meant to be shown as feeling resentful, is it because her youthfulness has been stolen, that she is married to someone she doesn’t love, and that her role from now on is to produce babies? Or can her expression just be the look of a coolly calculating minx who’s smugly pleased with her money, land and social position, and is rather bored and irritated that she has to pose to be painted by her social inferior Gainsborough? Or is it just that her corset is too tight? Ask 20 people and you’ll get 20 answers, but no-one knows. Whichever interpretation you adopt, however, it is strange that he would choose to depict her this way in a commissioned portrait.
The gap on her lap: Gainsborough’s bit of mischief?
You’ll notice that there is a gap in the painting of Frances’ lap, presumably intended for some item such as a book, purse, fan, embroidery, knitting, flowers, lapdog or a pheasant that Robert has shot (presumably with a protective cloth to prevent blood stains) (Fig 13) [17].
Fig 13: Detail of Mrs Andrews’ lap
Leaving a painting unfinished – particularly a privately-commissioned portrait – is highly unusual, and a number of reasons have been suggested. One is that the space was reserved for the baby that was no doubt expected to issue from the marriage -- in fact, there would ultimately be a large number of them – but that for some reason Gainsborough never got round to doing it (or was too bored to bother). That first child was apparently not born until 1751. It might even be that at the time the painting was done Frances was in the early stages of pregnancy, though this is certainly not evident in the portrait.
Another suggested explanation is that the painting was unfinished because of a serious falling-out between Gainsborough and the Andrews. So, for example, it may have been that Gainsborough, with his decidedly modest social background, was envious of his former schoolmate’s social and financial rise [18]. Certainly, he was known to exhibit a notorious disrespect for his sitters at times. Did his attitude provoke an argument that led him to impetuously abandon the painting, much as he would do on one occasion where he slashed one of his portraits because the patron refused to accept it? [19].
Another related speculation is that Gainsborough deliberately inserted a number of disguised scatological images in the painting as a private joke or jibe at the sitters [20]. So, it is said, the game bag hanging over Robert’s right arm resembles a male scrotum. He is also holding a long-barrelled “explosive” gun, his right hand is in his pocket, and his left hand is touching a penis-like piece of clothing; what’s more, the mysterious gap in the painting on Frances’s lap leaves her holding yet another phallic shape (in the form of a feather) in her right hand. Make of this what you will, though it may be helpful to remember that, in Freud’s probably apocryphal words, “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar” [21].
Another suggested explanation is that the painting was unfinished because of a serious falling-out between Gainsborough and the Andrews. So, for example, it may have been that Gainsborough, with his decidedly modest social background, was envious of his former schoolmate’s social and financial rise [18]. Certainly, he was known to exhibit a notorious disrespect for his sitters at times. Did his attitude provoke an argument that led him to impetuously abandon the painting, much as he would do on one occasion where he slashed one of his portraits because the patron refused to accept it? [19].
Another related speculation is that Gainsborough deliberately inserted a number of disguised scatological images in the painting as a private joke or jibe at the sitters [20]. So, it is said, the game bag hanging over Robert’s right arm resembles a male scrotum. He is also holding a long-barrelled “explosive” gun, his right hand is in his pocket, and his left hand is touching a penis-like piece of clothing; what’s more, the mysterious gap in the painting on Frances’s lap leaves her holding yet another phallic shape (in the form of a feather) in her right hand. Make of this what you will, though it may be helpful to remember that, in Freud’s probably apocryphal words, “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar” [21].
Fig 14: Detail of Mr Andrews’ midriff
Gainsborough certainly had a volatile personality, was somewhat of a rake during his rather riotous extended sojourn in London [22] and often expressed himself in frankly sexual ways. Indeed, some of his letters were so indecent they were destroyed by family members after his death, for the sake of his reputation [23]. Nevertheless, hiding supposed images of genitalia in a commissioned portrait would be a particularly juvenile way of expressing dislike.
Maybe instead Gainsborough was mocking the arranged marriage, in which Frances would no doubt be expected to fulfil her role by producing multiple babies, which might explain the enigmatic expression on her face we have already noted. Perhaps the unsettled sky, particularly gloomy over Robert’s head, was intended to suggest stormy times ahead for the couple. Maybe the donkeys in the portrait were included because they were stereotypically associated with stupidity and fertility. Maybe Robert got wind of whatever mischief Gainsborough was up to, and this was what led to the supposed falling-out [24].
Maybe this, maybe that! It is easy (and often fun) to speculate but, in reality, we just don’t know. Whatever the real position, it appears that Gainsborough took little interest in the future of the painting. According to his biographer James Hamilton, he never again referred to it, never gave it a title and never had an engraving made of it [25]. The unfinished portrait, apparently accepted despite the possible falling-out, ended up in the Andrews family home where, in the words of Hamilton, it was “put away out of public gaze like a mad aunt” [26]. It remained in private hands, unknown to the public, for the for the next 177 years.
Maybe instead Gainsborough was mocking the arranged marriage, in which Frances would no doubt be expected to fulfil her role by producing multiple babies, which might explain the enigmatic expression on her face we have already noted. Perhaps the unsettled sky, particularly gloomy over Robert’s head, was intended to suggest stormy times ahead for the couple. Maybe the donkeys in the portrait were included because they were stereotypically associated with stupidity and fertility. Maybe Robert got wind of whatever mischief Gainsborough was up to, and this was what led to the supposed falling-out [24].
Maybe this, maybe that! It is easy (and often fun) to speculate but, in reality, we just don’t know. Whatever the real position, it appears that Gainsborough took little interest in the future of the painting. According to his biographer James Hamilton, he never again referred to it, never gave it a title and never had an engraving made of it [25]. The unfinished portrait, apparently accepted despite the possible falling-out, ended up in the Andrews family home where, in the words of Hamilton, it was “put away out of public gaze like a mad aunt” [26]. It remained in private hands, unknown to the public, for the for the next 177 years.
Conclusion
The painting eventually made its way into public view in 1927, when it was exhibited for the first time. It was immediately acclaimed by critics and the public for its charm and freshness and was eventually purchased by the National Gallery in 1960. Despite – or perhaps because of – the fact that the painting was never finished, and that it was effectively ignored by the artist and hidden away for so long, it is now regarded as one of the National Gallery’s most popular and famous paintings.
© Philip McCouat, 2022. First published June 2022
For comments on this article, see here, and to make your own comment, see here.
This article may be cited as Philip McCouat, "Masters of All they Survey -- Gainsborough’s Mr and Mrs Andrews", Journal of Art in Society https://www.artinsociety.com/masters-of-all-they-survey----gainsboroughrsquos-mr-and-mrs-andrews.html
Back to HOME
© Philip McCouat, 2022. First published June 2022
For comments on this article, see here, and to make your own comment, see here.
This article may be cited as Philip McCouat, "Masters of All they Survey -- Gainsborough’s Mr and Mrs Andrews", Journal of Art in Society https://www.artinsociety.com/masters-of-all-they-survey----gainsboroughrsquos-mr-and-mrs-andrews.html
Back to HOME
End Notes
[1] Rose-Marie and Rainer Hagen, “The Proper Combination of Activity and Leisure” in What Great Pictures Say, Vol 1, Taschen. Koln, at 298
[2] Quoted in James Hamilton, Gainsborough; A Portrait, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 2017 at 260
[3] 119 cm (46 in) wide; 70 cm (27 in) high
[4] Though landscape would feature to some extent in portraits such as Heanage Lloyd and his Sister (1750)
[5] At the time, the penalty for poaching was deportation
[6] Ingrid E Mida, Reading Fashion in Art, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021, at 100
[7] Hagen, op cit at 299
[8] Hagen, op cit at 300
[9] Hamilton, op cit at 98
[10] Hamilton, op cit at 97
[11] Kimberley Schutte, “Marrying by the Numbers: Marriage Patterns of Aristocratic British Women, 1485-2000”, Ph D thesis, 18 April 2011, at 2. Accessed at https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/8189/Schutte_ku_0099D_11418_DATA_1.pdf
[12] This was after Frances’ father had died and Robert’s mother’s life interest in the property terminated on her death: Hamilton, op cit at 97
[13] Quoted in John Berger, Ways of Seeing, BBC/Penguin Books, London 1972, at 107
[14] Berger, op cit at 108
[15] Hamilton, op cit at 217, 218, 225.Broccoli had only recently been introduced in England at the time
[16] One commentator interprets Frances as having a “melted and languorous look”: Andrew Graham-Dixon, A History of British Art, University of California Press,1999, at 110
[17] Interestingly, there is also a rather indeterminate treatment of a woman’s lap in Gainsborough’s earlier portrait of the Carters (Fig 8)
[18] He may also have been particularly sensitive about the fact that the Carter family had been his financially-troubled father’s principal creditor: Hamilton, op cit at 96
[19] Hamilton, op cit at 101
[20] Hamilton, op cit at 99-100
[21] One commentator goes so far as to describe the work as “one of the masterpieces of erotic painting”: Graham-Dixon, op cit at 110
[22] Hamilton, op cit at 46
[23] Hamilton, op cit at 2
[24] Hamilton, op cit at 100
[25] Hamilton, op cit at 101
[26] Hamilton, op cit at 101
© Philip McCouat, 2022. First published June 2022
Back to HOME
[2] Quoted in James Hamilton, Gainsborough; A Portrait, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 2017 at 260
[3] 119 cm (46 in) wide; 70 cm (27 in) high
[4] Though landscape would feature to some extent in portraits such as Heanage Lloyd and his Sister (1750)
[5] At the time, the penalty for poaching was deportation
[6] Ingrid E Mida, Reading Fashion in Art, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021, at 100
[7] Hagen, op cit at 299
[8] Hagen, op cit at 300
[9] Hamilton, op cit at 98
[10] Hamilton, op cit at 97
[11] Kimberley Schutte, “Marrying by the Numbers: Marriage Patterns of Aristocratic British Women, 1485-2000”, Ph D thesis, 18 April 2011, at 2. Accessed at https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/8189/Schutte_ku_0099D_11418_DATA_1.pdf
[12] This was after Frances’ father had died and Robert’s mother’s life interest in the property terminated on her death: Hamilton, op cit at 97
[13] Quoted in John Berger, Ways of Seeing, BBC/Penguin Books, London 1972, at 107
[14] Berger, op cit at 108
[15] Hamilton, op cit at 217, 218, 225.Broccoli had only recently been introduced in England at the time
[16] One commentator interprets Frances as having a “melted and languorous look”: Andrew Graham-Dixon, A History of British Art, University of California Press,1999, at 110
[17] Interestingly, there is also a rather indeterminate treatment of a woman’s lap in Gainsborough’s earlier portrait of the Carters (Fig 8)
[18] He may also have been particularly sensitive about the fact that the Carter family had been his financially-troubled father’s principal creditor: Hamilton, op cit at 96
[19] Hamilton, op cit at 101
[20] Hamilton, op cit at 99-100
[21] One commentator goes so far as to describe the work as “one of the masterpieces of erotic painting”: Graham-Dixon, op cit at 110
[22] Hamilton, op cit at 46
[23] Hamilton, op cit at 2
[24] Hamilton, op cit at 100
[25] Hamilton, op cit at 101
[26] Hamilton, op cit at 101
© Philip McCouat, 2022. First published June 2022
Back to HOME