Thomas Gainsborough: Great Art Explained

My other channel, Great Books Explained here - https://www.youtube.com/@greatbooksexplained371
Please consider supporting this channel on Patreon (and getting exclusive content), thanks! https://www.patreon.com/user?u=53686503
or if you prefer a one-off donation - https://paypal.me/GreatArtExplained?country.x=GB&locale.x=en_GB
Alternatively, every video has a "thanks" button under it- I appreciate it!

PLEASE NOTE: The word corn in British English denoted all cereal grains, including wheat, oats and barley, such as in the Corn Laws.

At first glance, Thomas Gainsborough's Mr and Mrs Andrews, looks like just another classic painting of the 18th century, celebrating the dynastic marriage of the upper classes in all their finery.

On closer inspection, two things stand out. One, is that Mrs Andrews has the most curious expression of contempt on her face. The other thing that stands out is the strange area in the middle of her lap which is unfinished. The rest of the painting is complete, so it makes it even more peculiar.

In a painting that is heaving with tension, it is almost certain that at some point Mr and Mrs Andrews were so unhappy with the painting, that they put a halt to the proceedings, and sent Gainsborough on his way.

The painting would then disappear and wouldn't be seen again for over 200 years. Why was this painting kept so secret for so long?

Subscribe and click the bell icon to be notified! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCePD...

I would like to thank all my Patreon supporters, in particular Adriana Nemet, Alan Stewart, Alexander Velser, Alyssa Phillips, Anja Zeutschel, Bria Nicole Art, David Asabreu, Christa Sawyer, Eric Mann, Erique K, Griffin Evans, Hugo Moita, Jemma Theivendran, Julio Cardenas, Karim Hopper, Kibibi Shaw, Louise Tait, Monte St Johns, New Curiosity, Paul Ark, Paul Waterman, Pavel Juszczyk, Sean Welgemoed, Stephen Beresford, Tanya Moore, Theresa Garfink, Toni Ko, Tyler Wittreich and Will Dew's-Power.

"What a brilliant series this is" - Stephen Fry on Twitter

I input the English subtitles myself but I rely on volunteers to do subtitles for other languages and I really appreciate it - just contact me at [e-mail]

Spanish Subtitles by Alma Perdamo
English Subtitles reviewed by Margarida Mariz (2025)

CREDITS

Opening Animation and Title Sequence by Brian Adsit (instagram https://instagram.com/brian_vfx?utm_m... and Behance www.behance.com/badsit88)

Sound Mix by Oscar Sidoff Rydelius (Thank you!)

All the videos, songs, images, and graphics used in the video belong to their respective owners and I or this channel do not claim any right over them.

BOOKS, CATALOGUES AND ESSAYS
Thomas Gainsborough : A Country Life by Hugh Belsey
Gainsborough: World of Art Series by William Vaughan
Gainsborough: A Portrait by Hamilton and James
Thomas Gainsborough by Sir Walter Armstrong
Ways of Seeing by John Berger

MUSIC
Vaughn William's Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis
Bach Violin Concerto in A Minor

VIDEO CLIPS
Chelsea Lang (Brilliant channel!) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYsXJKLooLc&list=PLjBkTEtM_Tw-gswyGmgtoE1ZAzv7qsoEo&index=21&t=449s

Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.

Just a quick reminder that you can help
support this Channel

and get exclusive content,
news and updates

- plus films which
are available only to patrons.

As well as access to all my films
- ad and sponsor free.

You can also give via PayPal
or just click on the thanks button below.

All links are in the video description.

Thanks for watching.

This is a painting about snobbery.

At first glance, Thomas Gainsborough's
Mr and Mrs Andrews

looks like just another classic painting
of the 18th century,

celebrating a dynastic marriage
of the upper classes, in all their finery

and set against a backdrop
of their extensive estate.

On closer inspection,
two things stand out:

One is that Mrs Andrews

has the most curious expression
of contempt on her face.

It is surely the most disdainful look
in all of art history.

The other thing that stands out

is this strange area
in the middle of her lap,

which is unfinished.

Something is missing.

In a painting
that is heaving with tension,

it is almost certain that, at some point,

Mr and Mrs Andrews
were so unhappy with the painting,

that they put a halt to the proceedings

- and sent Gainsborough on his way.

The painting would then disappear

and not be seen again for over 200 years.

Thomas Gainsborough was born in 1727

and grew up in Sudbury Suffolk
a county of England.

Robert Andrews and his future wife,
then known as Francis Carter

also grew up in Sudbury.

Their town is the backdrop
to the Andrews portrait.

In fact, you can see sudbury's
All Saints Church steeple in the painting

where the Andrews were married.

Thomas Gainsborough and Robert Andrews

went to the same local grammar school
at the same time

but they were not equals
or indeed friends .

Andrews came from an established
well to do family

while Gainsborough was well below them
on the social ladder.

Robert went on to Oxford
and became a member of the social elite.

Thomas became an apprentice and eventually
a painter of the social elite.

Once fellow pupils they were later
employer and employee.

Gainsborough's father, John, was a weaver
and a trader in fine materials.

His son would be extremely familiar
with the brocades, silk and lace

that he later became such a master
at portraying in paint.

In a twist to this particular story,

Gainsborough's father
went bankrupt in 1733

and his family were saved
by a loan from Mrs Andrew's father

which she would have known about.

In her eyes, Gainsborough
was a charity case

and she had almost certainly
heard the gossip

that Gainsborough got Margaret Burr
pregnant out of wedlock.

Perhaps this explains her disdain.

Gainsborough would make an absolute
fortune from painting portraits

but he hated doing them

and always said that landscapes were
what really interested him.

The problem was that
the price landscapes fetched

wasn't nearly as much as portraits.

This strange portrait managed to combine

his love of landscape
and his desire for money

and it is now considered
his earliest masterpiece.

Gainsborough had already painted
Mrs Andrew's parents three years before.

He was only 22 when Mr and Mrs Andrews
commissioned the portrait

and as his social superiors
they were calling all the shots.

Also they thought

This painting often seen

as a quintessential view
of the English countryside

could be read as a subtle critique
of the upper classes

that Gainsborough resented
but also needed.

The rich would put up
with his bad manners and bad attitude

along with high prices,

because having a portrait
by Gainsborough on your wall

was such a powerful status symbol

and a way to achieve
some form of immortality.

Gainsborough was aware
of his genius early on

and was a difficult man to deal with.

He despised the clients he painted

and it seems obvious
that he couldn't have cared less

about what Mr and Mrs Andrews
thought about him.

It is tempting to think
he deliberately captured

the inherent snobbishness
of the British upper classes

and poured all of his resentment
of Mr and Mrs Andrews into the canvas.

Mr and Mrs Andrews is the widest
landscape Gainsborough painted.

No English artist had used space
in this way before,

and Gainsborough would never attempt
a composition like this again.

The extensive background was a way

for the young painter
to advertise his skills.

Paintings showing couples in front
of the lush countryside were common,

but this painting is unusually
off-kilter and unbalanced.

In a calculated positioning,

they are shunted over
to the left of the frame,

so we get a better view
of their combined wealth.

In effect there are three portraits
in this painting:

a man, a woman, and their land.

While Mrs Andrews is looking down
her nose at us,

or more likely the artist,

her husband looks as pleased as punch
with his lot in life.

Smug even.

He is more than happy with his young wife,

and in particular the status and land
that came with her.

It has been called a wedding picture
but it is not.

They were married
two years before, in 1748,

when Robert — age 22 —
married Francis — age 16.

Only two weeks after the wedding,
her father died suddenly

and Robert as the man of the house
inherited all HER family land.

This is why he commissioned Gainsborough
to paint this triple portrait.

As a statement of their arrival

into the super wealthy
land-owning classes,

with combined estates
of about 3,000 acres,

including most of the land
visible in the painting.

They chose to have their portraits,
not in their landscaped garden,

or in front of their lavish house,
as most wealthy couples did,

but rather with a backdrop
of their agricultural working land

- in effect their farm.

The house can't be seen,
but it is just behind us, the viewer.

We now know that
they are facing the house,

because it still exists - right here.

The tree still exists too, and it is here.

All Saints Church, however,
is all the way over here,

unlikely to be seen through
the various trees in the way.

It is common for artists
to manipulate landscape

to fit in with their vision
of what reality should look like.

And so Gainsborough
has taken some "artistic license".

He places the church where they married
in the background

to reiterate the alliance between
two local land-owning families.

He has also brought the "cornfields"
right up to their doorstep,

to emphasise the working land.

The "corn" can be read
as a symbol of fertility,

and the small tree growing between
the two larger on the right

is a "nod" to future children.

Wives like Mrs Andrews would have been
promised to their husbands

when they were children,

and married off at 15 or 16.

It was a business transaction carefully
transcribed by teams of lawyers

to make sure wealth, property, and land,
stayed in the "right" hands.

France's was just another Rich pawn
with a rather large dowry.

The couple pose under the old oak tree,
on the grounds of their estate.

Mr Andrews is standing on its roots

which suggests stability and continuity
for his family and his land.

The oak is a deeply symbolic tree,
indigenous to England,

and the landed gentry
had often been compared

to the "oak that holds Britain together".

It demonstrates that Mr Andrews thought
he had a God-given right to the land.

For many in high society

the Andrews were parvenues
or nouveau-riche.

Robert Andrew's father
was a businessman,

who rose through the social ranks
with money - "new money".

Andrew's father bought his son
a vast estate

and secured an excellent bride,
Francis Mary Carter,

in a successful attempt to further
integrate Robert into the upper classes.

With the Industrial Revolution
just around the corner,

things were changing

and it wasn't long before businessmen
would outrank the "Blue Bloods".

Recent changes in both farm technology
and land ownership

had benefited gentlemen farmers
like Andrews,

but pushed the poor off the land
in the process.

In 1701 a farmer/inventor
called Jethro Tull,

invented the seed drill,

an agricultural machine that, by 1750,

had wheels, was pulled by a horse,

could be operated by one man

and sowed seeds
in three uniform rows, with no waste.

Previously, sowing seeds was done by hand

- a scatter approach
that created seed waste

and used expensive labour.

Anyone looking at this painting in 1750,

knew straight away that
the newly harvested cornfield

with the straight planted lines,

meant that Mr Andrews was using
this new method,

and was a man ahead of his time.

The fenced off areas
with sheep in the distance

tell another story.

Once, it would have been common land
for the poor to graze their animals,

in a feudal system
that went back centuries.

But a series of laws
known as the "Enclosure acts",

took the common grazing land away
from the poor,

put a fence around it,

and gave it to wealthy landlords.

Because of his background,

Gainsborough had a deep empathy
for the plight of the poor,

and this is a portrait of wealthy people

who have taken the land away
from its rightful owners,

and who are now posing in front of it!

Gainsborough shows them
oblivious to other suffering.

Perhaps the two small donkeys
in the background

are a dig at the couple.

Is Gainsborough really calling
his clients "a pair of asses"?

Everything in this painting tells us
that Mr Andrews is the one in control.

His pose, his blasé demeanour,
his casually undone buttons,

and his cheeky neckerchief,

are meant to suggest
that his work is done,

and he can now relax
and go hunting with his dog.

Although it has to be said,

that he doesn't look very comfortable
with that rifle,

which is really there
to denote his social status.

There is the strong possibility

that his drooping gun is a phallic symbol,

a little joke on Gainsborough's part.

And backing up this idea
is his game bag,

which is a possible scrotum
for said phallus.

By contrast with her husband,

Mrs Andrew's stiff unnatural pose
is intended to show

the upper-class deportment that marked her
from those in the lower orders.

But instead she comes across
as rather po-faced.

She is still only a teenager,

so it's odd that Gainsborough
would choose to depict her in this way,

especially in a commissioned portrait.

It is not flattering.

She has dark circles under her eyes,

and she is certainly not
looking adoringly at her husband.

I don't think there was any love lost

between Mrs Andrews
and Thomas Gainsborough.

What happened next,

may well have been an excuse they used

to never show the unflattering portrait.

Gainsborough was
an extremely fast painter.

He could churn out
dozens of portraits in a week,

and with 1,300 paintings
attributed to him,

he had to work quickly.

This painting was completed in 90 minutes!

And that is going at an astonishing speed.

He used a very diluted paintbrush,

in a technique that is closer
to watercolour than oil painting,

layering translucent washes
over a light-coloured ground.

Here the paint was so diluted
that it seems to have run on the canvas.

And f we look at this section

we can almost feel the speed
Gainsborough is working at.

Gainsborough did not paint outside,

and it would be another 50 years

before artists like Monet
would paint "En Plein Air".

Mrs Andrews was not expected

to actually walk in her fine silk clothes

across the fields to pose.

Gainsborough would have made sketches
of their faces from life,

if not their poses,

and after sketching their faces,

it was quite likely to be
an elaborate studio setup,

with models or mannequins
wearing the clothes,

rather than Mr and Mrs Andrews themselves.

In the painting,
there seems to be a storm brewing

- perhaps a Gainsborough snipe
about the marriage.

The portrayal of our "changeable"
British weather is breathtaking.

Gainsborough was already an expert
at painting shifts in weather,

and naturalistic scenery
- which was still a novelty at this time.

The cloudy sky throws
patches of light and shadow

over the fields and meadows.

The greyest areas of the sky
contain no blue pigment,

only wood charcoal
combined with white paint.

Gainsborough was influenced
by Dutch 17th century landscapes,

which he would have studied
as an apprentice,

including the techniques used
to create weather effects

which were fairly common
in Dutch paintings.

The artist had a vast amount
of fabrics at his disposal

and would have dressed his subjects
in the finest outfits.

A similar dress to this one,

features in a family portrait
by Gainsborough,

and it is in the fabrics
that Gainsborough really excels.

Many artists employed an assistant
who painted fabrics

called "a drapery painter",

but Gainsborough, even
at the height of his success,

painted his own.

It is fairly obvious that Gainsborough
like the clothes the people wore,

more than the people themselves
- and it shows.

His mastery at portraying fabrics
is just astounding.

Mrs Andrew's dress
is so ridiculously extravagant,

it practically covers the entire bench.

The blue silk and the yellow petticoats
were the height of fashion.

There is one area
that has always puzzled historians

- her lap.

Remember that Gainsborough
only did initial sketches of the couple

at the beginning of the commission,

and so the sitters rarely saw him.

It's very possible that Mr or Mrs Andrews,
popped into his studio

to see how the painting was going,

and inquired what was
to be placed in her lap.

And they didn't like the answer.

Most historians think
that Gainsborough intended to paint

a freshly killed cock-pheasant
on her lap,

shot by Mr Andrews
and delivered by the hunting dog.

As far as evidence goes,

she is pictured holding
a tail feather from the dead bird.

Mrs Andrews had never done
a day's work in her life,

and was definitely not the type
to pluck a pheasant.

So it's illogical to portray her
wearing such fine silk clothing

for such a messy task.

The only reason Gainsborough
intended to put a pheasant there,

must have been a symbolic one.

If we imagine her
plucking a cock-pheasant,

and I'm sure Gainsborough
was well aware of the double-entendre,

add that to her demeanour,

and her look of contempt to camera,

and we have a woman
who it may be suggested

is plucking the very tail feathers
of her husband, the cock-pheasant.

If it was supposed to be a pheasant

and evidence points that way,

it probably wasn't the reason
they hid the painting away,

but maybe it was just the last straw.

The picture is unfinished

because the sitters realize
what Gainsborough's intentions were

and were not happy about it.

Whatever did happen,

Gainsborough took little interest
in the future of the painting.

He never again referred to it,

never gave it a title,

and never had an engraving made of it.

The unfinished portrait was stored away
in the family home.

It remained in private hands,
unknown to the public,

for the next 177 years.

Until it was put on view
in 1927 in Ipswich.

Its popularity grew and, in 1960,

it was sold for £1 30,000,
at an auction,

to the National Gallery of London,

where it still is today.

Thomas Gainsborough
was operating in a period

when British art
was overwhelmingly romantic.

And he himself is often dismissed
as an artist who "flattered the elite".

But this triple portrait,
painted at a time

when England's common lands

were being enclosed
by capitalist landowners,

is such a technical work of genius

that we sometimes forget
just how subversive it was.

The only problem is...

that Mr and Mrs Andrews understood that,

before we did.