The format of a portrait miniature is unconventional, but the artistry is as compelling and sophisticated as that found in larger portrait paintings. In spite of the complex and personal nature of miniatures, the focus of the portrait miniature is the portrait itself, painted from life by an artist who was often academically trained, and many times painted in other media. Although commissioned for private purposes, miniatures were, from the 17th century on, held in notable collections, and later exhibited at national institutions such as the Royal Academy and the National Academy.  A specialist in British portraiture, Philip Mould, says of portrait miniatures: “…this arcane art seemed to belong more to the world of objets de vertu…with time this ‘smallist’ prejudice began to erode as I realised that miniatures were an opportunity to handle some of the most important records of the human visage, not only historically, but artistically.”1  And in fact, the escalating auction prices for miniatures in the last few years would suggest they are finally being viewed in this century as moving from their minority status in portraiture  into the realm of real art.

 Germinating from the field of illuminated manuscripts, the earliest portrait miniatures in the 16th century were small formal portraits of the royalty and aristocracy. They were painted in gouache on prepared card,  and then a bit later painted in watercolor on vellum backed by card, either in oval shape or as an occasional larger  cabinet miniature. With the influence of artists from the Netherlands and Europe, early miniatures were sometimes also painted in oil on copper. The technique and style of miniatures quickly gained in complexity and artistry, giving rise to works by masters like Hans Holbein, and culminating in the works of the brilliant 17th century miniaturist, Samuel Cooper. Art historian Emma Rutherford says of Cooper: “Comparisons with Lely are inevitable, but it is perhaps somewhat surprising that a miniaturist should find his equal in the most fashionable and brilliant oil painter of the day. Miniatures, however, were not then considered to be a lesser form of art.”2  Other talented artists of this era included Peter Cross and Richard Gibson.

 In the late 17th and early 18th centuries two other forms of small portraits associated with portrait miniatures came into being, the plumbago and the enamel miniature. At this time a small revolution took place, and, inspired by the example of Rosalba Carriera and Bernard Lens III, miniaturists abandoned vellum and began painting instead on small ovals of ivory. By the late 18th century this new format had been mastered, and the miniatures had progressed from tiny, somewhat dark miniatures to three-inch or larger portraits. These were for the most part airily painted, with a delicate use of color, slightly idealized or mannered depictions of the sitters, and a captured luminosity from the ivory--all of which echoed the rococo and then the neoclassical culture of the time. The frames during this era began to incorporate versions of memorial hairwork, and the sitters were drawn from the middle and upper class, as well as the elite ranks of society. This period in the history of miniature art is generally considered to be the pinnacle of the art form. Once again several outstanding artists rose to the surface: Jeremiah Meyer, John Smart, Samuel Shelley, and Richard Cosway, among others.

The development of Continental miniatures generally paralleled the evolution of the English miniatures, with an equally long and rich history. The Continental miniaturists sometimes tended to apply the watercolor in an opaque manner, and the format of the ivory was occasionally round as opposed to oval, which resulted in a different atmosphere from the English and American miniatures. Other Continental miniaturists such as Peter Edward Stroely, Jean Baptist Masse, or Joseph Grassi echoed the traditional English appearance in miniatures, but with their own highly individual style.

 The first few examples of miniatures painted in America were circa 1735, in oil on copper or watercolor on vellum.3  Around 1760 American miniatures were  painted on ivory, and tended to be small, dark, and realistic, much like the English Modest School miniatures. During the late 18th century American miniatures—like their English counterparts—became larger, with pale, elegant colors and a pleasing transparency.

At the turn of the 19th century Andrew Robertson precipitated another rebellion, scoffing at the portraits of the reigning master Richard Cosway as “toys.”4  As Robertson experimented with technique, the results were miniatures that were often naturalistic,  highly finished,  richly colored and painted on large rectangles of ivory. Although there was nothing unduly revolutionary about mimicking another art form—in this case, large oil paintings—the effect this had on miniatures was insurgent.  The path of miniatures  veered in a different direction, one that once again echoed the manners and culture of the time, while simultaneously resulting in works that were  distinctive and original. The artistic genius that flared in the miniatures of the 19th century was most prevalent in America, perhaps nurtured by the turbulence of growth in the country. John Wesley Jarvis, Edward Greene Malbone, Sarah Goodridge, and Benjamin Trott are good examples.

At the turn of the 20th century a brief resurgence in miniatures took place, known as the Revival era. Artists were captured by the perceived romance of the art form, and several interesting artists flourished, including Laura Coombs Hill, Charles James Turrell, and Minerva Chapman. Miniatures during this time reflected some of the trends and movements of the rest of the art world, such as Impressionism. 

 A small handful of artists paint miniatures today, but  their work tends to fit more in the craftsman category, much like the  first painters of miniatures, those long ago  illuminators of manuscripts in  England. The vision of the present-day miniaturists for the most part does not stretch to what is innovative or original, although a couple exceptions are Thomas Sully, the great-great-great grandson to the 19th century artists Thomas and Lawrence Sully, and Elizabeth Berdann.

 It may be that the emotional, societal and artistic imperatives of the earlier centuries created a type of urgency, which in turn nourished the evolution of miniatures, and pushed the miniaturists to greater heights in exploring the boundaries of the art.  Once that urgency waned, so too did the art form, and the sheer exuberant creativity it produced was no more.

1.  Philip Mould Ltd Fine Paintings, Curated by Emma Rutherford, Edited by Bendor Grosvenor, Secret Faces: An Exhibition of Unseen Portrait Miniatures from Public & Private Collections.  2008, p. 5.

2. Ibid. p. 58.

3. Carol Aiken, “The Emergence of the Portrait Miniature in New England,” Painting and Portrait Making in the American Northeast. The Dublin Seminar for New England Folklife, 1995, p. 41.

 4.   Katherine Coombs, The Portrait Miniature in England. Victoria and Albert Museum, 1988, p. 111.