Allport, William (SCC Newsletter April 2011)

Allport Page 1

William Allport - died 1831

A precise and consistent artist, about whom we know little, but whose works enhance a collection.

The name William Allport was not associated with the art of silhouette until December 1969, when the silhouette illustrated above appeared for sale at Southeby’s, New Bond Street, London. It was backed with a hand written label – also illustrated above. This label states that the artist responsible for the work is William Allport. Silhouettes of the type & style depicted by Mr Strangwayes were well known with their distinctive lines under the back of the bust-line termination and up to this point had been attributed to W. Bullock. These silhouettes were usually backed with a printed Bullock trade label and were housed in a papier mache frame with the word ‘Museum’ embossed on the hanger. However, it had not been noticed until this point that the label stated “Drawn at the house of W. Bullock” and not by W. Bullock. The appropriate significance had not been accorded to this and it had not been thought that someone other than Bullock might be painting these silhouettes. Also, all books on the subject of silhouettes up to this date had listed W. Bullock as the artist. It took the publication of Mrs. McKechnie’s Book to put the matter straight.

It is of interest that the silhouette of Mr Strangwayes was lot 49 at the Sale and he was sold with a silhouette of a girl on ivory by John Field. The lot made £40.96p and this included the buyer’s premium! It was bought by Mr Woollett of Jermyn Street, who was a well-known dealer at the time. Also, which is of interest, it was sold at the time when the names of purchasers were printed with the results!

Allport Page 2

The Bullock and Allport 'Connection'.

It is likely that Bullock opened his Museum in Liverpool in about 1799. This Museum was presented in the form of a large sideshow—displaying a great variety of objects, which were added to as the years went on. There were said to be at one time upwards of six thousand articles of natural history, antiquities, and the productions of the fine arts. Bronze figures were manufactured on the premises. All these exhibits were arranged in five ‘apartments' each 150 feet long. The Museum was open from 10 am. until dusk. Cost of entry was one shilling and these was a catalogue that cost two shillings.

Profiles were not part of the ‘act' until 1806, when a notice appeared in the Liverpool Chronicle of that year to the effect that Bullock had "completed a machine on an entirely new principle that will take the most accurate Profile Miniature likenesses in one minute." So it seems that this year must have been the start of Allport's career as a profile painter. Mrs. McKechnie mentions that other silhouettists worked at the Museum apart from Allport, but there is no record of these. The machine produced by Bullock became known as a physiogratrace.

The profiles produced from 1806 to 1810, before Bullock moved his Museum to London, were all backed with the printed Bullock label on which he is described as "Jeweller, Silversmith & Chinaman to H.R.H. The Duke of Gloucester". Whether he held this grand title officially I think is doubtful! He moved the Museum to 22 Piccadilly in 1810 and Allport was left behind in Liverpool to ply his artistic efforts on his own with the machine that Bullock had "completed". Bullock continued to expand his Museum in London by adding further specimens of natural history, but clearly producing silhouettes was no longer of interest to him. It is likely that his Museum continued to function until 1823 with several changes of address in the central London area.

John Woodiwiss in his book "British Silhouettes" lends weight to the view that there were other artists working at the Museum. He has a short entry on Bullock (on pages 52-53) as he did not know of the existence of Allport at the time of writing. In this he describes Bullock's work as "usually painted in a pleasant brown with lavish additions in bronze", but also adds "on rarer occasions his profiles were drawn in black with grey embellishments." Mrs. McKechnie and her faithful researcher Percy Higgs tried to find the works painted in a pleasant brown" but were unsuccessful. Whether these were the work of another artist, who worked alongside Allport I suspect we shall never know.

The illustrations below are from the Book.

Allport Page 3

William Allport and his Work.

His Background.

Practically nothing is known about his background—except that we have a number of addresses where he lived from 1810 (after the Museum moved to London) until 1829 — two years before his death in 1831. Presumably Mrs. McKechnie obtained this information from local rate books, as the first census to give any detailed information was not until 1841. All the addresses during this period, with the exception of the one in 1829, were in Stanley Street - i.e. Nos. 46, 51, 52 & 53. So he seems to have moved quite a lot, although he lived at No. 51 from 1818-1827.

In 1810 Allport stated his occupation to be that of a household broker and did not mention the profession of artist—the latter was added in 1814. Interestingly in 1829, when he left Stanley Street to move to 5 Russell Place, his son is mentioned as head of the household. Both are listed as painters and not artists. Recently I have followed up the son's career through census records from 1841-1871. The son would have been about 25 at the time of his father's death in 1831—so it is possible that Allport senior died in his late fifties of early sixties but rs. McKeehnie does not state how she obtained his date of death in the Book.

The son, who was also called gives his occupation in the 1841 census as painter and not artist, but by 1861 he records that he was employing two men and two boys. By 1871 he records his occupation as furniture painter - I doubt if he was a profile painter at any time. Also, I am wondering if Allport senior had quite a short career as a silhouettist and possibly in his latter years concentrated on his household broker's business or perhaps he joined his son in his painting and decorating business. As we know at this time it would have been quite difficult to make a good living from painting silhouettes alone.

Above on the left is from the Book page 454 Illus. 655 . — he is part of The Bill Fox Smith Collection. In the centre is an unknown man sold at Bonhams on 22102/2005. On the right is the Earl of Bath sold at Bonhams on 21/02./1996.

Allport Page 4

His Work.

1. Use of a machine.

Allport's outlines were obtained from the machine adapted by Bullock from an earlier machine invented by Chretien, a French musician, who turned to producing silhouettes after he lost his music post. On the right is the only illustration I can find to show the machine adapted by Bullock into his physiognotrace. It is from Mrs. Jackson's "Dictionary". Mrs. McKechnie gives a detailed description of the adaptation in the Book on page 25. The machine is similar to that used by "The Prospographus, The Automaton Artist" and no doubt many other outline machines used by silhouette artists throughout the nineteenth Century and later, who claimed to only require one minute for sitting.

2. His style.

Allport's style remained consistent throughout his career— as will be seen from the illustrations of his work used for this article. Whilst being neat and restrained it is not dull and shows flair in his "treatment" of sitter's hair and in the case of men in the depiction of their stocks and shirt frills.

His base colour is always black watercolour and he only thins this to paint stocks, shirt frills, dress frills and for some lines under the bust-line. He always shows an eyelash and nearly always an eyebrow. Almost without fail he shows the corrugation at the back of men's jackets. Mrs. McKechnie mentions this latter feature as something of an attribution 'tool' when combined with the lines under the bust-line. His buttons on men's coats are often slashed.

Below is a silhouette of Thomas Wilkinson 1875-1845. At the time of the profile he looks to be about 35-40 years of age. On his right is an enlargement of his head to show his hair detail, and an enlargement of his shirt frill and stock, which has been particularly well portrayed.

Allport Page 5

As you will see hair outside the main body is painted with fine lines applied with much skill. The shirt frills are outlined with a firm black line—in some cases he used two lines to obtain a ‘stronger' effect and then painted the frills in a darker less thinned pigment. I will illustrate this later.

Mrs. McKechnie does not mention in her entry on Allport (on pages 366-367) his use of gum arabic. I have examined closely about seven of his silhouettes and have found that he did use gum arabic, but more often he did not. Also, when he did it was used sparingly. Illustrated below on the right is a silhouette where some of the gum arabic has become detached. It has been used to underline the label of the man's jacket and to emphasise the 'M' notch. This work was sold at Christie's South Kensington on 15th July 2003 as part of Lot 5. I have not noticed the use of gum arabic on women.

On the left below is a silhouette of Joseph Storr 1755-1831. I have illustrated him to show Allport's typical corrugation of the jacket. In the centre below is an enlargement of another work - hopefully to show the eyelash and eyebrow!

3. His bust-line terminations.

Again these are very consistent and take the form of a low plunge at the front with the customary two lines under the back of the termination. Illustrated below are three men that show all aspects of Allport's style. On the left is Joseph Jones 1782-1858—he looks to be about 30 years of age, which would date his profile to about 1812 or so. He is housed in a Bullock frame with a `Museum' hanger but there is no sign of a label. The other two man illustrated are unknown but both are in Bullock frames and backed with the Bullock printed label—so both were probably painted about 1810 or earlier.

Allport Page 6

His Women.

There is little doubt that Allport painted fewer women than men, as I have found it quite difficult to collect just one women by after many years of trying! On looking through past auction house catalogues I have found that men by Allport predominate in these. Yet at the time Allport was painting the form of women's hairstyles and their fashions would appear to have suited his particular skills and emphasised his strong points. No doubt fewer women presented themselves at his studio compared with the men.

In the early years of the nineteenth century hair styles had become freer with the a la titus hair cut and the more casual topknots. Less indoor bonnets were worn by women so their hair could be shown. Dresses were simpler with the lower necklines—although some ladies continued to wear the high frilled neckline—this would also have suited Allport.

Below on the left is the only lady from my Collection. She is Betty Jones (1779-1847) - she is no beauty but is well depicted by the artist. On her far right is an enlargement of her elaborate neck frill. On her right is an enlargement of her hair. She was acquired with her husband illustrated earlier—so presumably they paid a joint visit to Allport's studio.

Below are three further women. On the left is Mrs. Maister—she is illustrated in the Book on page 455 illus. 656. She is housed in a frame with a 'Museum' hanger and was in the saleroom at Bonhams on 7th October 2003 (Lot 6). In the centre is Mary King—she was also sold at Bonhams but this time on 4th March 2003 (Lot 33) with an "unrecorded label". Unfortunately I was not able to check the label at the time and I have no illustration of this. In the catalogue site was not attributed to Allport or any other artist but she is clearly by him. She is somewhat plain, but her limited detail is well portrayed. On her right is Mrs. Phoebe Webster—dressed in a neat bonnet this time! She was sold at Sotheby's on 1st December 1980 (Lot 18) with an unknown man also by Allport. Hopefully she and her companion form part of a member's Collection.

Allport Page 7

His Labels.

We know for the period from 1806 - 1810 that Allport would have used the printed Bullock label illustrated above. It is possible that he used this label after 1810 if there was a stock available - but equally he and Mr Bullock may have come to an arrangement. Mrs. McKechnie states in the Book that there were three Bullock labels, but she only illustrates one on page 722 in her entry on W. Bullock in Appendix Four.

The label on the left above is from a silhouette owned by a member of the S.C.C. that I have illustrated earlier in this article. The label on the right is the one from the book. Both have the same wording but the type face in some instances is different—so presumably both are Label No.1. I suspect that other labels will have much the same wording but may be set out a little differently. I would be interested to be contradicted by any other examples that Members may have.

After 1810 and for the rest of his career we know that he produced at least one hand written label, which was illustrated at the head of this article. However, I have not been able to find a record of a printed label in his name—unless any of you have see one.

The Frames he used.

Again during the period 1806 - 1810 Allport would have used ‘material’ provided by Bullock. Also, it is possible that he continued to use the ‘Museum’ frames after these dates. Be that as it may, but it is likely that a silhouette housed in a Bullock frame will have been painted in the early part of Allport’s career.

Above on the left is a typical Bullock papier mache frame with its embossed hanger. On the right is an enlargement of the hanger.

Allport Page 8

I have noticed that works by Allport that have turned up in the salerooms in the last thirty years or so have been in a variety of frames. These have included standard papier mache frames with an acorn hanger, pressed brass, turned pearwood and papier mache with a verre eglomise border.

I think it is possible that when Allport was working on his own that he did not always frame his work for the client. This is rather proved by the young lady illustrated in the centre below housed in a pressed brass frame. She has more 'space' around her profile than would be possible in a standard papier mache frame. The lady on the right below is from the Martin Willcock's Sale at Phillips on 10th. November 1998 (Lot 117) On the left is a man in a pearwood frame, which has a fair amount of 'space' around his image. Clearly he has been in his frame for a considerable time as he is backed by a label of Finlay of 144, Trongate. Glasgow. This firm was operating at the end of the eighteenth century and is recorded in the Book on page 51 illus.45. He was framed to match a companion by the artist J. Dimmock.

I have not mentioned so far the size of Allport's profiles. From those examples I have examined and from the sizes recorded in saleroom catalogues, the height from the top of the head to the front of the bust-line varies from 6cms. to 7cms. More often the slighter larger size is favoured.

Conclusion.

Certainly Allport is not a great silhouette artist but he does compare very favourably with his contemporaries such as G. Atkinson and J. Dimmock. As can be seen from this article he was not an artist who took chances such as Charles for example. He played safe! However, above all he was consistent and reliable. I have no doubt that be generally produced a good likeness that would have satisfied most of his clients. He does not appear to have been very prolific in his output as he does not turn up all that frequently in the salerooms. His style is not difficult to attribute so it is unlikely that his work has been attributed to other artists very often. However, he seems to have produced enough work for most serious collectors to have al least one example of his work—at least I hope so.

William Allport, as far as it is known, has no connection with the artist Allport listed in the Book on page 183 — he was a ‘cutter’ working about 1830.