Abstract
This article examines the landmark 1878 defamation case of Whistler v Ruskin, a pivotal legal battle that underscored the complexities of adjudicating art criticism under defamation law. The trial arose from John Ruskin’s scathing critique of James McNeill Whistler’s work, which led Whistler to sue for libel, seeking validation not just of his art but of his artistic philosophy. Despite the public fascination and Whistler’s tactical use of the trial as a platform for self-promotion, the jury’s award—a derisory farthing—hinted at their view of the lawsuit as frivolous. This case emphasizes the intrinsic challenge of legal systems grappling with subjective art valuation and critiques, the evolving norms of defamation, and the implications for the freedom of speech. While Whistler nominally won, the repercussions for both men were significant, affecting their finances, reputations and positions within the art world, and the trial’s legacy continues to inform the discourse around art, law and cultural value. Keywords: James McNeill Whistler; John Ruskin; Victorian libel law; defamation; art criticism; aesthetics; 19th-century British art; fair comment.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
