Talk:Ralph Nicholson Wornum

Untitled

RNW was notable for being the Keeper and Secretary of the National Gallery between 1855 and 1877; during the time when Charles Lock Eastlake was the Director. RNW had travelled extensively around the art collections of Europe between 1834 and 1839; he had written several art essays prior to his appointment and was later very involved with Eastlake's European Art purchases to expand the Collection in the mid 1850s. He was a friend of John Ruskin and was a well known figure in the Victorian Art World. I feel it is time he was given his own page. Ant501UK (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The alleged burning of Turner's 'obscene' drawings

Tim Hilton's 2002 biography of Ruskin includes the story about Wornum and Ruskin conspiring to burn Turner's erotic drawings.

Here is a quote from the current (16 Apr 2013) Wikipedia entry for John Ruskin:

Turner's erotic drawings

Until 2005, biographies of both J. M. W. Turner and Ruskin had claimed that in 1858 Ruskin burned bundles of erotic paintings and drawings by Turner to protect Turner's posthumous reputation. Ruskin's friend Ralph Nicholson Wornum, who was Keeper of the National Gallery was said to have colluded in the alleged destruction of Turner's works. In 2005, these works, which form part of the Turner Bequest held at Tate Britain, were re-appraised by Turner Curator Ian Warrell, who concluded that Ruskin and Wornum did not destroy them.

Since neither Wornum nor Ruskin are around to tell us what really happened, do we believe Tim Hilton writing in 2002 or Ian Warrell writing in 2005?

Furthermore, in 2013 Ian Warrell's expanded his argument in his book Turner’s Secret Sketches. (£14.99, Tate Publishing) ISBN 13: 9781849760850 ISBN 10: 1849760853

I would suggest that the oft-quoted letter in which Ruskin tells Wornum that he bore witness to the burning of the drawings reads very much like a deliberate attempt at a cover-up and was intended to be read eventually by the authorities. If RNW and JR did conspire at all in 1858, perhaps it was to deflect the Victorian obsession with 'obscenity', sexual indiscretions and prudery away from Turner's work, thereby inhibiting some zealot from using the recently passed Obscene Publications Act (1857) against it.

Therefore, if Ian Warrell is correct, Wornum and Ruskin conspired to protect Turner's work rather than destroy it. Ant501UK (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)