Kitty Fisher 1764

Editor: This is Joshua Reynolds' oil on canvas, "Kitty Fisher," painted around 1764. There's such an intimate feeling in this portrait. She looks contemplative as she’s observing the bird. What do you make of it? Curator: Reynolds was a master of image crafting, very aware of the politics of presentation, and it shows in this portrayal of Kitty Fisher. Knowing that Fisher was a notorious courtesan complicates how we view this. He's elevating her to almost aristocratic status, aligning her with the Rococo taste for beauty and leisurely pursuits that were in fashion then, challenging social norms of portraiture at the time. Who was typically depicted, and why? Editor: Right, the wealthy elite, as a way to assert their power. So, Reynolds is playing with that. It's almost subversive, displaying someone like Kitty Fisher in that way. How would this painting have been received at the time? Curator: It likely sparked considerable debate. Portraits were powerful tools for shaping public perception, for setting a model of a desirable type. Reynolds using the conventions of aristocratic portraiture for a woman who made her living through other means really forces the viewer to consider the values that are being upheld by such representations. Note how he's positioned her in a relaxed pose, similar to how noblewomen were often portrayed. Does this contribute to her public image? Editor: Absolutely, it challenges the strict social hierarchy. This is way more than a painting, it is making statements! It also shows that celebrity isn’t something new; Reynolds responded to and shaped Fisher's public image in his work. Thank you! Curator: Precisely. And, vice-versa: the painting helped define Reynolds place in a changing society. Always remember that art doesn’t exist in a vacuum; it both reflects and actively participates in culture.