John Michael Wright stands as a distinctive figure in the landscape of 17th-century British art. A contemporary of the more flamboyant Sir Peter Lely, Wright offered a unique, often more introspective and realistic approach to portraiture. His career spanned tumultuous periods in British history, including the Commonwealth and the Restoration, and his work provides invaluable insights into the personalities and cultural shifts of his time. This exploration will delve into his origins, his formative experiences in Rome, his significant contributions to British portraiture, and his enduring legacy.
Early Life and Scottish Roots
John Michael Wright was likely born in London around 1617, though he was of Scottish descent and often identified himself as "Scotus" or "Anglus Scotus" in his signatures. This dual identity is an interesting facet of his persona, reflecting the complex relationship between England and Scotland during this period. His father, James Wright, was a tailor and a citizen of London. While details of his earliest training are scarce, it is widely believed that he was apprenticed to the prominent Scottish portrait painter George Jamesone in Edinburgh in the early 1630s.
Jamesone, often dubbed the "Scottish Van Dyck," would have provided Wright with a solid foundation in the prevailing portrait style, which was itself heavily influenced by the Netherlandish tradition. This early exposure to a more direct and less idealized form of portraiture may have laid the groundwork for Wright's later distinctive style, which often prioritized character and realism over courtly flattery, a path somewhat divergent from the dominant influence of Sir Anthony van Dyck, whose elegant and sophisticated style had captivated the English court.
The Roman Sojourn: An Artist and Antiquarian
Around 1636, Wright embarked on a journey that would profoundly shape his artistic and intellectual development: he traveled to Rome. This was a common pilgrimage for ambitious artists seeking to immerse themselves in classical antiquity and the works of the Italian masters. Wright's time in Rome, which lasted for about a decade, was exceptionally fruitful. He became associated with the Accademia di San Luca, Rome's prestigious academy of artists, and was elected a member in 1648. This was a significant honor for a foreign artist.
In Rome, Wright was exposed to the vibrant artistic currents of the High Baroque, including the works of masters like Guido Reni, Domenichino, and the lingering influence of Caravaggio. He also developed a keen interest in antiquarianism, becoming a knowledgeable connoisseur of art and artifacts. This intellectual pursuit distinguished him from many of his contemporaries and informed his approach to art. He associated with a circle of scholars and collectors, including Cassiano dal Pozzo, a renowned patron and scholar whose "Paper Museum" was a vast collection of drawings documenting classical and natural history. Wright's involvement in such circles suggests a sophisticated and intellectually curious mind. His self-portraits from this period often depict him with an air of scholarly contemplation.
During his time in Italy, he also seems to have converted to Roman Catholicism, a decision that would have significant implications for his career later in Protestant England. His Roman experience was not solely confined to painting; he also acted as an agent and advisor for collectors, leveraging his growing expertise. Artists like Nicolas Poussin and Claude Lorrain were active in Rome during this period, contributing to a rich artistic environment that Wright undoubtedly absorbed.
Return to England and Navigating the Commonwealth
Wright returned to England in 1656, a challenging time for an artist, particularly one with Catholic sympathies. The country was under the Puritanical rule of Oliver Cromwell's Protectorate, a period generally austere and less conducive to lavish artistic patronage than the preceding monarchy. Despite this, Wright managed to find work. One of his earliest significant commissions upon his return was the portrait of Colonel John Russell (1659), a work that already showcased his meticulous attention to detail and his ability to capture the sitter's character.
His style, honed in Rome, was distinct from the prevailing trends in England. While Van Dyck's influence was still pervasive, often interpreted through the lens of his followers like William Dobson (who had died in 1646) and Robert Walker (Cromwell's chief painter), Wright brought a different sensibility. His realism was less about flattering elegance and more about a direct, almost tangible representation of the individual. He painted several prominent figures during the late Commonwealth, demonstrating his ability to navigate the complex political landscape. His skills were recognized, even if the opportunities for grand courtly commissions were limited.
The Restoration: A Court Painter in a Competitive Arena
The restoration of the monarchy in 1660 with Charles II ushered in a new era of cultural vibrancy and artistic patronage. Wright, despite his Catholicism, quickly sought to establish himself at the new court. He painted a magnificent, iconic portrait of Charles II in his Coronation Robes (1661, Royal Collection), a work that is both regal and surprisingly human. The meticulous rendering of the ermine, velvet, and jewels is characteristic of Wright's skill, but the King's expression carries a weight and thoughtfulness that transcends mere ceremonial depiction.
However, Wright faced formidable competition, most notably from Peter Lely. Lely, a Dutchman who had arrived in England in the 1640s, had adeptly positioned himself as the leading court painter. His style, heavily influenced by Van Dyck, was more flamboyant, sensual, and perhaps more aligned with the tastes of the Restoration court, particularly for portraits of court beauties. Lely's studio was a highly efficient operation, producing a vast number of portraits that defined the image of the era. While Wright received significant commissions, including from the King and Queen Catherine of Braganza, he never quite achieved the same level of courtly dominance as Lely.
Despite this, Wright carved out a niche for himself, often attracting patrons who appreciated his more sober and individualized approach. His portraits from this period demonstrate a remarkable ability to convey status and personality without resorting to excessive idealization. He painted many members of the aristocracy and gentry, and his works are prized for their psychological depth and the tactile quality of his paint handling, especially in the rendering of fabrics and armor.
Masterpieces and Signature Style
Several works from Wright's mature period stand out and exemplify his artistic strengths. Sir Neil O'Neill (c. 1680, Tate Britain), also known as 'The Irish Chieftain', is a striking and somewhat romanticized depiction of an Irish nobleman in traditional attire, complete with a wolfhound. The painting is notable for its ethnographic detail and its powerful, almost melancholic, portrayal of the sitter. It showcases Wright's ability to create a compelling narrative image, moving beyond straightforward portraiture.
Another significant work is The Auldjo Family (c. 1660s), a group portrait that demonstrates his skill in composition and his sensitive portrayal of children. His portraits of women, such as Mrs Salesbury with her grandchildren Edward and Elizabeth Bagot (c. 1675-6, Tate Britain), often show a gentle dignity and a focus on individual character rather than conforming to a generic ideal of beauty, which contrasted with Lely's often more overtly alluring "Windsor Beauties" series.
Wright's style is characterized by a strong sense of realism, a meticulous attention to detail, particularly in rendering textures like silk, lace, and metal, and a rich, often somber, color palette. His figures possess a tangible presence, and he often imbued them with a sense of gravity or introspection. Unlike Lely's often more generalized likenesses, Wright's sitters feel distinctly individual. He was less interested in the sweeping brushstrokes and fluid elegance of Van Dyck or Lely, preferring a more controlled and precise application of paint. This sometimes led to criticism that his work could be somewhat stiff, but it also contributed to its unique power and honesty. His contemporary, Samuel Pepys, the diarist, noted Wright's talents, though he ultimately favored Lely, reflecting the prevailing court taste.
The Diplomatic Mission to Rome
A fascinating episode in Wright's later career was his involvement in a diplomatic mission. In 1685, following the accession of the Catholic King James II, Wright was appointed as steward to Roger Palmer, Earl of Castlemaine, who was sent as ambassador to Pope Innocent XI in Rome. Wright's knowledge of Italian, his familiarity with Roman customs, and his own Catholic faith made him an ideal candidate for such a role. He accompanied the embassy, which arrived in Rome in 1687.
During this mission, Wright not only managed the practical aspects of the embassy but also documented its progress. He published an illustrated account of the embassy in Italian and later in English. This undertaking highlights his diverse talents, extending beyond painting to include administration and authorship. His antiquarian interests would have been rekindled during this return to Rome, and he likely reconnected with the artistic and intellectual circles he had known decades earlier. The mission itself was politically sensitive, aimed at improving relations between England and the Papacy, but it was ultimately cut short by the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which saw James II deposed.
Later Years, Legacy, and Historical Evaluation
Wright returned to England in 1688 to a changed political climate. With the Protestant William III and Mary II on the throne, opportunities for a Catholic artist with strong Jacobite connections were diminished. His rival, Peter Lely, had died in 1680, and the dominant force in English portraiture was now Sir Godfrey Kneller, a German-born artist whose prolific output and adaptable style secured him royal favor for decades. Kneller's style, while also rooted in the Van Dyckian tradition, evolved to reflect a more robust, late Baroque sensibility, and he effectively monopolized court patronage.
In his final years, Wright seems to have painted less, though he did produce some notable works, including a poignant self-portrait. He died in London in 1694 and was buried at St Martin-in-the-Fields. For a long time, Wright's reputation was somewhat overshadowed by Lely and Kneller. However, modern art historical scholarship has increasingly recognized his unique contributions. He is seen as a crucial link between the earlier traditions of British portraiture and the developments of the later 17th century.
His work is valued for its honesty, its meticulous craftsmanship, and its insightful characterizations. He offered an alternative to the often formulaic productions of his more commercially successful contemporaries. His Scottish heritage, his Roman education, his antiquarian knowledge, and his Catholic faith all contributed to a complex artistic identity that set him apart. Artists like Isaac Fuller and Jacob Huysmans were also active during parts of Wright's career, each contributing to the diverse fabric of Restoration art, but Wright's particular blend of realism and intellectual depth remains distinctive. Later decorative painters like Antonio Verrio and Louis Laguerre, who became popular for large-scale allegorical schemes, represented a different branch of Baroque art in England.
Wright and His Contemporaries: A Comparative View
To fully appreciate John Michael Wright, it is essential to view him in the context of his contemporaries. His primary rival, Sir Peter Lely, as mentioned, cultivated a more glamorous and flattering style that appealed greatly to the Restoration court. Lely's studio was a well-oiled machine, capable of producing a large volume of portraits that defined the era's aesthetic. While Wright also painted members of the court, his output was smaller, and his approach was often more individualized and less formulaic.
The towering figure of Sir Anthony van Dyck, who had died in 1641, cast a long shadow over British portraiture for much of the 17th century. Both Lely and Wright, in their own ways, responded to Van Dyck's legacy. Lely adopted Van Dyck's elegance and aristocratic poise, while Wright, though clearly aware of Van Dyck's achievements, often pursued a more direct and less idealized realism, perhaps harking back to his training with George Jamesone or influenced by certain strands of Italian naturalism.
Other portraitists active during Wright's career included Samuel Cooper, the pre-eminent miniaturist of the age, whose small-scale works achieved remarkable psychological intensity. While working in different mediums, both Cooper and Wright shared a concern for capturing the true character of their sitters. Painters like Robert Walker had been prominent during the Commonwealth, and figures like Jacob Huysmans, a Flemish Catholic painter, also found favor, particularly with Queen Catherine of Braganza, for whom he painted several notable portraits. Wright's relationship with these artists would have been one of professional awareness and, in some cases, direct competition.
The arrival of Sir Godfrey Kneller towards the end of Wright's career marked another shift in taste. Kneller's robust and confident style, combined with his prolific output and business acumen, made him the dominant portrait painter in England from the 1680s well into the 18th century, influencing figures like Jonathan Richardson and Charles Jervas. Wright's more meticulous and less flamboyant approach found fewer adherents in this later period.
Exhibitions and Scholarly Focus
In recent decades, John Michael Wright has been the subject of renewed scholarly attention and dedicated exhibitions. Notably, the Scottish National Portrait Gallery has played a significant role in promoting his work, organizing a major retrospective exhibition in 1982 titled "John Michael Wright – The King's Painter." This exhibition, and its accompanying catalogue by Sara Stevenson and Duncan Thomson, was instrumental in re-evaluating Wright's career and bringing his achievements to a wider audience.
His paintings are held in major public collections, including the Royal Collection, Tate Britain, the National Portrait Gallery in London, the Scottish National Portrait Gallery in Edinburgh, and various regional museums in the UK, as well as collections in the United States. The study of his account books, letters (though few survive), and the aforementioned published account of the Roman embassy provide valuable primary source material for understanding his life and work. Art historians continue to explore the nuances of his style, his patronage networks, and his place within the broader European Baroque tradition. His connection to antiquarian circles in Rome, for instance, is an area that highlights his intellectual breadth beyond that of a typical court painter.
Conclusion: An Enduring Artistic Voice
John Michael Wright was more than just a face-painter; he was an artist of intellect, conviction, and considerable skill. His journey from a probable apprenticeship in Scotland to the heart of the Roman art world, and then to the complexities of the English court, shaped a unique artistic vision. While he may not have achieved the overwhelming commercial success of Lely or Kneller, his portraits offer a compelling and often more penetrating insight into the individuals who shaped 17th-century Britain.
His meticulous technique, his ability to convey character, and the sheer beauty of works like Charles II in Coronation Robes or the enigmatic Sir Neil O'Neill secure his place as one of the most interesting and significant painters of his era. He navigated a path marked by religious and political turbulence, leaving behind a body of work that continues to engage and reward close study. John Michael Wright remains a testament to the power of individual artistic integrity in an age often dominated by convention and courtly expectation. His legacy is that of a painter who saw his subjects with a clear, discerning eye and rendered them with honesty and profound artistry.
