SaintBernard ) (1800–1801) for which the entry fees earned him an impressive sum as well as enhanced
celebrity. The paintings attracted at least 44,444 visitors (Wrigley, 1993, 79). Many artists held
exhibitions of their own works in their studios. There were some who criticized such exhibitions on the
grounds that an artist’s studio should be a site of creativity rather than of commercial transactions or
displays of vanity but during the Revolution artists’ studio selfportraits helped to associate studios with
more positive values. They were regarded as more legitimate signs of independence from the Academy
and afterwards, as Romanticism took hold, the studio was represented as a refuge from worldliness
(Wrigley, 1993, 127–136).
The most prestigious exhibition venue in Britain was the Royal Academy, where the exhibitions held from
1769 were intended to form an integral part of contemporary polite culture. They were held initially at the
Academy’s rooms at Pall Mall; in 1780 the Academy moved to new premises at New Somerset House.
Once the Academy’s exhibitions were established the King went only to those, and no longer to those of
the Society of Artists of Great Britain, hence sealing with royal approval a hierarchy of exhibition (and
teaching) cultures. The Academy has been described as a “patriciate” under royal patronage (Brewer,
1997, 236). Initially it depended on royal finance, but eventually funds acquired through exhibitions and
sales made it financially independent. It took some time for the “higher” genre of history painting to
become more important in the Academy’s exhibitions as portraits and topographical landscapes
dominated initially (Hargraves, 2005, 97). Many academicians saw their exhibitions as a means of
making contemporary art accessible, moving beyond the usual confines of the oldmaster displays of
private collectors. The decision to charge an admission fee was however as much a matter of social
engineering as of finance. In his Preface to the first (1769) exhibition, Reynolds stated:
As the present Exhibition is a part of the Institution of an Academy supported by Royal Munificence,
the Public may naturally expect the liberty of being admitted without any Expence.
The Academicians therefore think it necessary to declare that this was very much their desire but
that they have not been able to suggest any other means than that of receiving Money for Admittance to
prevent the Room from being filled by improper Persons, to the intire [sic] exclusion of those for
whom the Exhibition is apparently intended. (cited in SaumaurezSmith, 2012, 130–131)No doubt recent memories of the unseemly crowd that had attended the 1760 Society of Arts exhibition
were still very much alive. It was also common for print shops at this time to charge entry to their
exhibitions, even where the “popular” genre of caricatures was displayed (Donald, 1996, 3).
Reynolds’ lectures helped to raise the cultural tone by asserting the hierarchy of genres and initiating
learned debate on aesthetic issues. But in reality the only way in which artists could make a living was by
focusing on the “lower” genres of portraiture and landscape, which more people wanted to hang on their
walls. Between 1781 and 1785 approximately 70% of Royal Academy exhibits were from these genres
(Brewer, 1997, 246; Hoock, 2003, 71), with portraiture itself accounting for the highest proportion of
exhibits overall. Although the Academy tried to distance itself from any “sordid” commercialism, it
provided welcome publicity and many of its artists continued to exhibit at commercial galleries as well
as at the Academy (Pointon, 2001, 94). Portrait sitters, sometimes named in the press, always attracted a
great deal of interest among those keen to participate in high society gossip. Before 1796, sitters were
listed in catalogues for the Royal Academy exhibitions only according to their rank (e.g. “ a nobleman”),
which added to the entertainment by generating lively speculation about identities, as sitters were often
not known at first hand (Matheson, 2001, 43). The reference to rank was perhaps inevitable in such a
hierarchical social structure. By the late century, there were in Britain scores of different ranks for men
and women, important information taken into account in, for example, dinner table seating arrangements.