(Every picture tells a story. A cast of related characters is at Personal History.)
THE PORTRAIT, THE PAINTER AND THE SITTER
Four letters detailing the circumstances of Frances’ son Bill’s portrait by Raymond Kanelba. Bill is the second of two children born to Frances and her first husband Arthur Korth. His given names are William Walter Phelps IV.
The first letter is from Bill to Frances. It is typed on three single-sided sheets of 81/2”x11” bonded stationery. Typos have been corrected, but syntax and word usage are retained for flavor.
68 Cavendish St.
W. I.
Wednesday
Dear Mama,
At last I have news of Kanelba, whose only initial is "R."(1) Rang him up this morning, after receiving a very friendly letter from him ( he has all the makings of a first class fashionable portrait painter). Arranged to see him this afternoon, and at the appointed hour I hopped off the bus at Beaufort St and made my rather apprehensive way to Gilston Rd where he has a studio.
Found a very up to date building designed exclusively for studios. It contains dozens of them all opening off a long rubber floored corridor - corresponds to those small service flat palaces, only for studios alone. Knocked at number fifteen, and out he came. To my surprise he bore little or no resemblance to Tito (2), having hair that once was very black but is now streaked with grey. Not as tall as I am, and tends to plumpness, though it is not obvious, and you wouldn’t call him fat. Soft is the word; not at all unpleasant, just rather soft, about the mouth, which is full and sensitive without being coarse in any way; and about the jowls, which are pleasantly and prosperously sleek, but no more so than befits a man in his forties. There is nothing startling about his eyes, which are gentle and intelligent; no beetling brows. He was dressed in an elegant dark blue suit, and gives the impression of being particular about his clothes - something of a dandy, though it is probably part of his equipment. Distinctly good looking in a rather soft and well fed way. Which is all a bit inadequate, but it is difficult to describe any one clearly who has nothing outstanding in the way of features.
The most noticeable thing about him is his charm, in every sense of the word. A perfect gentleman, perfect manners, courteous, considerate and kindly. Obviously would go down well with women.
Well I went in, and he showed me some of his stuff - a few portraits and one of two studies, all of people. One half finished picture of the parents of Gielgud(3), a really striking (for me) portrait of a girl which had a fascinating sort of attraction. He didn't say who she was; looked foreign, and was exquisitely lovely, almost sinisterly so, with a personality of compelling power. A picture that had something in it. He certainly knows his job. Then a quite attractive in an insipid sort of way study of two children. A pathetic picture of a small gipsy child he had seen in Wales. And one of a Hungarian type dancer - very effective colors, deep and contrasty. Three which I liked a lot. A portrait of Francis Day(4) in wash pleasant but I prefer oil painting for portraits.
Then we talked about price, etc (£75), and he at least put up a very good show of being pleased with me as a subject. His speciality, he told me is character, and he sometimes gets people who have indefinite features, which makes things difficult for him. My features, however, are eminently suitable for painting.
Discussed various details of dress, etc., and fixed up start on Friday.
After that, he produced some beer, and we proceeded to wander over the usual ground of discussion for the next three quarters of an hour. (Oh, yes amongst other things, I apparently have a sensitive as well as pronounced features - always a comfort to know). The trouble with that kind of man is that it is not easy to penetrate the charm and find out what is underneath. We mentioned Churchill, whom he admired very much, and whom I criticised at some length. Then socialism, which propounded at some length. Then Russia, which I commented on at some length. Then Stalin and Trotsky, whom he expatiated on at great length, and with genuine admiration. He is a great friend of Ilya Ehrenburg(phonetically) (5). He seemed to have great admiration for Russian art and literature, and for the idealism in the people, but I think not so much for the regime. He was too noncommittal to be able to say definitely. Had a great passion for Dostoeevsky(?) (6), whose psychology is apparently very deep. Told me to read some. He lived in America until just before the war, with the Dupont Lamours (7); was educated in a Russian school in Warsaw before the last war. And that is all I know. Very little really. I talked too much myself. And just couldn't get into his mind. Baffling, but rather challenging. He may be just a hypocritical bag of charm, with no convictions except about the wellbeing of Kanelba. He may be a snob - his friendship with the Dupont people seems to indicate it. But I don't know. However, next time I see him, I will try to probe a little deeper. He was certainly extremely affable, and I like that; but would like to know why he is affable – genuine, commercial, affectation, or what, first.
Love Bill.
1. Raymond
2. As an infant I was nicknamed Tito for my apparent resemblance to the Yugoslavian leader Josip Broz Tito.
3. The actor John Gielgud.
4. Possibly the American painter Francis Day.
5. The Soviet Russian writer and journalist Ilya Grigoryevich Ehrenburg.
6. The Russian novelist Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky.
7. I believe this should be Dupont Nemours.
A second letter is from Bill to Kanelba. It is penned on two single-sided sheets of 7”x5” unlined stationery. The hand is hurried and has a slapdash appearance. There is evidence that it has been kept in a two-ring binder.
35 Palace Court,
W2
Monday. (1944)
Dear Mr Kanelba,
I am enclosing the photograph of the picture – the ‘Photographic Studios, made a good job of it.
Have only just arrived back from Malvern(1). The journey up was rather nervewracking, but the picture arrived safely.
I stopped off at Oxford(2), & showed it to some friends there who all liked it very much, particularly the eyes!
The general effect – sort of combination of realism about the features, & impressionism about the rest of the body & background, intrigued one of them. It is striking.
My mother is writing you herself, so I will not say much about her reactions; except that any doubts she may have had about what you had made of the portrait vanished as soon as she saw it. I think you put into it just the qualities that could hardly fail to appeal to her.
Anyway she is delighted with it, and you could not have painted a portrait that would have pleased her more.
I have looked at it quite a lot since I have had it, myself, and, somewhat naturally, I like the effect you have produced, too. Though I think it is somewhat idealised, & which is hardly a criticism!
I think that is about all – as I said, she is writing you.
So, hoping everything is well with you,
Yours sincerely,
W W Phelps.
P. S. I will send along the dust-cover(3) when I can find some paper.
1. Location of the family home.
2. Bill was then at Oxford University.
3. A protective cover for the portrait.
A third letter is from Frances to Kanelba. It is penned on three single-sided, unlined sheets of 81/2”x5” bonded gray stationery. The hand is precise and slopes downwards increasingly towards the foot of each sheet. This, too, shows evidence of having been kept in a two-ring binder.
Little Malvern Court,
Malvern Wells,
Worcestershire.
November 18th, 1944.
Dear Mr. Kanelba,
Bill came up with your painting last weekend, and said that you would like me to write to you how I felt about it. So, I have waited for a week, long enough to have lived with the portrait, and be sure that my first impression of pleasure has been deepened and intensified. Yes, I like it tremendously. When Bill pulled off the covering, I could have shouted with delight, for there he was just as he appears always to me. You have caught the boy so vividly, his sweetness dominates the face, and there is the sensitive mouth, the smiling, far-seeing eyes, and the fine chin. It is very good, a revelation of his character that enchants me, and I am deeply grateful to you for giving me such a vivid likeness of my son’s spirit, which I admire and respect with all my heart. I shall treasure the portrait, and gain much comfort from it.
Someday, I should like you to do my other children, though I do not think they will be as interesting or sensitive as Bill. But I cannot bring them to town at present, for I do not want them to be frightened by sirens and bombs, both of which they have so far avoided.
Bill thoroughly enjoyed his sittings with you. He wrote lengthy accounts of your talks together – so good for him in these bleak years of war. I had always looked forward to showing Bill my favorite “Masters”, to hearing with him my favorite operas and music, but the war came just when he was reaching the years of appreciation, which could not be satisfied. I hear that you, as an artist, love what I as an amateur always cherished – Rembrandt. I pursued his work into many lands. I pray they will escape destruction, but I fear what will happen in Holland.
Yours sincerely,
F. Phelps-Penry
The fourth letter is from Kanelba to Frances. It is penned on one single-sided sheet of letter-headed stationery. The hand is clear but curiously indecisive, except for the proper names.
106, CHATSWORTH COURT,
PEMBROKE ROAD, W. 8.
WES. 8251.
Nov. 22nd 1944
Dear Mrs. Phelps,
Thank you very much for your nice letter.
I did enjoy painting your son. Not only I found him charming but also very interesting to talk to. Our sittings were filled with extensive talks on art, politics etc. the modern thought. I have idealised him in the portrait, but I have painted what I sincerely felt to be true. I did not flatter him a bit!
I hope one day to have the pleasure of meeting you.
Sincerely yours,
R. Kanelba
|