06 February 2012

"Eye miniatures"



Excerpts from a column at the "Five Minute Museum" feature at Salon:
According to lore, the story of lover’s eyes goes back to the end of the 18th century, when the prince of Wales — who later became George IV — became smitten with a twice-widowed Catholic woman named Maria Fitzherbert... On Nov. 3, 1785, the prince wrote to Mrs. Fitzherbert with a second proposal of marriage. Instead of sending an engagement ring, as we might expect today, he sent her a picture of his own eye, set in a locket, painted by the miniaturist Richard Cosway, one of the celebrated artists of the day. At the time, they referred to these pieces as “eye miniatures”...

In any event, the love affair between the prince of Wales and Maria Fitzherbert popularized these objects and spawned a fad that lasted well into the 1830s — and even later, past Queen Victoria, who was known to have commissioned a number of these objects during her reign. There are even artists to this very day who are painting lover’s eyes... Only someone with really intimate acquaintance — a lover, a spouse, a close family member — would recognize an individual’s eye, so they could be worn in a more open way. They didn’t have to be encased inside of a locket...

I think Philadelphia has about 30 or so eyes, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art has a few in their collection, as do the Royal Collection and the Victoria & Albert in London. 
For further details, and a slide show of examples, visit the Salon link.

3 comments:

  1. So, instead of saying: "I've got my eye on you", it would have to be: "I've got your eye on me". Or would it be: "You've got my eye on you"?

    How 'bout: "I only have eye for you"?

    Okay, I'll stop now....

    ReplyDelete
  2. actually i was just at the Met in NY and they have a room of miniature paitings in the American wing, typically for lockets. In addition to some eyes like you mention, there was also a painting of some exposed breasts (also in a locket). I didn't make the connection until now that these could have been for a similarly intimate, if raunchier, purpose.

    ReplyDelete