Figure 2.9 JeanAntoine Houdon: Sabine Houdon (1787–1836), white marble on gray marble socle,
overall, without base (confirmed): H. 27.3 × W. 22.5 × D. 14.9 cm, 9.0719 kg; H. with base (confirmed):
34.3 cm, 1788. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Bequest of Mary Stillman Harkness, 1950, Acc. No:
50.145.66.
Source: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, www.metmuseum.orgAs the eighteenth century was a time of emphasis on genteel and affectionate social intercourse, it is
perhaps unsurprising that this was the time when the subgenre of the “conversation piece” flourished.
This consisted of group portraits of family members, corporations, professionals or formally constituted
societies at leisure and were distinctive in their emphasis on the ways in which such groups appeared
unified by lively interactions of conversation (of word, expression or gesture), or feelings of affection,
entertainment or some convivial activity (Retford, 2011, 120–122). They often focused on setting and
narrative detail. Originating mainly in Dutch and Flemish art (Solkin, 1993, 51; Fenton, 2006, 52;
Vaughan, 2008, 50) and lying originally outside the domain of academic art, the type became most popular
in Britain, especially among the aristocracy and gentry, particularly in the 1730s and 1740s. Some of its
most successful practitioners included Hogarth, Philippe Mercier (1689–1760), a French artist whose
work was popular with the Georgian court (Hallett, 2006c; Weichsel, 2013, 57) and Devis. Later in the
century artists such as Johan Zoffany (1733–1810) received commissions for conversation pieces from
the wealthier ranks of society; for example, his The Gore Family (c.1775) (Figure 2.10). Even royal
subjects were represented more often in their private roles as fathers, mothers and other family members
within a relatively private setting (Campbell Orr, 2011, 89–90). The strong accent in conversation pieces
on “everyday” activity was more typical of genre scenes, but in the case of higher status patrons the use of
compositional complexity and grandiose settings could lend the genre the dignity of history. The critical
establishment was, however, generally opposed to the use of the ambitious techniques of history painting
where artists had not undergone the proper training (Bordes, 2007, 257–273). When conveying a group
portrait of sitters from polite society, the conversation piece could express a “will to refinement” and an
emerging sense of public identity through the sitters’ shared forms of behavior and highly regulated poses
(Solkin, 1993, 106). They straddled the private (affectionate) and public (polite) domains of the family
and the wider social relations it represented (Solkin, 1993, 104, 200).