Answer:
- Ruskin wrote a scathing review of James McNeill Whistler's painting Nocturne in Black and Gold: Falling Rocket, describing it as "flinging a pot of paint in the public's face." He criticized the painting for not being representative enough and lacking in artistic skill.
- Whistler defended his work in court by stating that he was not interested in creating a realistic depiction of the subject, but rather capturing the mood and atmosphere of the scene. He brought two other paintings, Nocturne in Blue and Silver and Harmony in Blue and Gold, to demonstrate his artistic style and prove that his intention was not to deceive the public.
- The outcome of the trial was a victory for Whistler, but he was only awarded a farthing in damages. The judge ruled that Ruskin's review did damage Whistler's reputation but only to a very small extent.
- The lawsuit was important in the history of art because it highlighted the changing attitudes towards art in the 19th century. Whistler's defense challenged the traditional idea of what art should be, which was based on realism and technical mastery. It paved the way for the emergence of modern art, which emphasized imagination and individual expression.
Additionally, the trial drew attention to the importance of art criticism and the power of critics to influence public perception of art.