How many paintings did Michael Collins sit for in Dublin in 1922?
David Walton - November 2024
At a recent auction at Whyte’s Auctioneers on the 30th of September 2024 in Dublin a Michael Collins portrait by Leo Whelan (RHA 1892-1956) sold for €60,000. The auctioneer’s description of the painting (shown below) is thus:
“Leo Whelan painted three portraits of Michael Collins from life in 1922. One was for General Headquarters of The Irish Free State National Army, now in the collection of The National Gallery of Ireland, another was purchased by Martin Walton, and the present work, which he retained in his personal collection and which was sold by his family through The Gorry Gallery in the 1960s.”
Michael Collins oil on canvas by Leo Whelan (24 x 19.5 inches) recently sold by Whyte’s.
While it is not for me to speculate on the value of the painting nor indeed question an individual’s absolute right to purchase whatever they choose and pay for it as much or as little as they wish, there are some questions arising from Whyte’s auction description which merit closer scrutiny and raise some serious questions. Happily, I believe I can provide some telling answers, based on the information publicly available and my own personal knowledge, in addition to a closer look at the three paintings referred to above by Whyte’s, the second of which is owned by a member of my family.
The first observations to make about Whyte’s pre-auction statement is that the first painting of Collins for “General Headquarters of The Irish Free State National Army” was a composite painting, more commonly known as the “IRA GHQ staff, 1921” painting, which has 12 other subjects in it, so is not, as could be understood from the wording, a painting of Collins alone. Separately, this painting sits in the National Museum Collection in Collins Barracks and not the National Gallery Collection, as stated by Whyte’s.
Now let us consider the Whyte’s statement above regarding the third painting referred to, that is the painting which was recently sold , and for purely for convenience (as we do not know who owns it), call it the ‘Whyte’s auction painting’.
The statement by Whyte’s which raises an eyebrow for me is that “Leo Whelan painted three portraits of Michael Collins from life in 1922.” In its phrasing, “painted three portraits of Michael Collins from life “ (my underscore), this would seem to suggest that Michael Collins actually sat for three different paintings by the same artist. Really?
Whyte’s use of the English language is unambiguous: “Leo Whelan painted three portraits of Michael Collins from life in 1922”. Apart from the fact that we know that at the time Collins, as Chairman of the Provisional Government, Minister for Finance, and President of the IRB, was desperately using all his energies to avert a disastrous spilt in the IRA and a civil war , as well as run the new fledging state, it would seem implausible and completely out of character that Collins would sit for the same artist for several hours, on several different occasions, for three different paintings?
While we know portrait artists will usually seek multiple sittings, this usually occurs with the objective of producing a single final work from life. Thereafter any copy of the final work if done at a later stage would be typically by considered just that, a copy of the original work .
To put the history of the commission to paint Michael Collins in context we should now consider the narrative from Risteárd Mulcahy, son of Richard Mulcahy, then Chief-of-Staff of the IRA, which was published in the Irish Arts Review in its January/February edition of 2009. The article by Risteárd Mulcahy details the story of the first composite painting referred to by Whyte’s. Risteárd traced this ‘IRA GHQ staff, 1921’ painting, mentioned in his father’s papers, and with the help of his father and mother, who met with Whelan’s surviving two sisters in 1962, discovered that it remained in possession of the Whelan family. The same year he purchased it from the family and, had it transferred to the Hugh Lane gallery where it was cleaned and reframed by the then curator James White where it resided for some time. When White moved to the National Gallery the painting went with him before eventually returning to Risteárd Mulcahy’s home, later making its way to McKee Barracks on a long- term loan, and finally finding its way to the National Museum in Collins Barracks in 1994 where it now resides in the West Wing as part of its extensive Collection.
Among other things in this article, Mulcahy states in relation to the original commission:
“On the Saturday following the truce of 11 July 1921, my father, Richard Mulcahy, IRA chief-of staff, went with my mother Min to the Gresham Hotel in O'Connell Street for afternoon tea. It was his first public appearance, having been on the run for the previous eighteen months. The well-known painter Leo Whelan was sitting close by with a priest friend and a conversation ensued. My mother suggested to Whelan that, now that a truce had been arranged, it might be a good opportunity to paint the members of the IRA's general headquarters (GHQ) staff, who were now free to appear in public. Whelan was enthusiastic about the idea. There were thirteen members on the staff during the last six months of the War of Independence. Whelan arranged separate sittings for each over the following months - a challenge during a very hectic period, particularly for Collins and the more active leaders. Having completed each portrait, Whelan painted a composite picture of the thirteen men in late 1922/early 1923.Nothing was heard of the composite painting until 1945…..”
(For the short and remarkable history of this painting from Risteárd Mulcahy go to https://historyireland.com/leo-whelans-ira-ghq-staff-1921/ )
'IRA GHQ staff, 1921' Composite Painting by Leo Whelan based on 13 individual original sittings of each of the subjects which now resides in the National Museum in Collins Barracks
So, based on the information provided by Risteárd Mulcahy on this composite painting, the background of which is also confirmed by my father Patrick Walton (99) who, with his father Martin Walton (a close senior intelligence officer for Michael Collins during the War of Independence and also a close and lifelong friend of General Richard Mulcahy) purchased the second Collins painting referred to by Whyte’s in the 1950’s, we can say with absolute certainty that this ‘IRA GHQ staff, 1921’ painting was not “painted from life” but rather was a composite painting painted from 13 separate and original studies for which each of the subjects had previously sat for and were completed in 1922.
This makes perfect sense from the logistical and practical impossibility of having thirteen subjects, including Collins, pose in the same posture for many hours so that Leo Whelan could paint them. Notwithstanding the major historical significance of this composite painting it is obvious from the painting itself, that many of the subjects seem stilted and in an unnatural posture relative to each other.
So, in support of Mulcahy’s narrative, the composition of this painting clearly has all the hallmarks of the fact that the thirteen subjects were studied and painted separately, as of course would be necessary for such a major undertaking. If we add in Mulcahy’s line above that “Having completed each portrait, Whelan painted a composite picture of the thirteen men in late 1922/early 1923” it also becomes abundantly clear that the ‘IRA GHQ staff, 1921’ painting was painted and completed at least several months after Collins’ death, and possibly as late as 1923. So with this historical information from Mulcahy, and these artistic observations, we can now state with certainty that the Michael Collins in this ‘IRA GHQ staff, 1921’ painting was not painted “from life” but rather is painted from an original study that was completed by Whelan earlier in 1922. This is an important correction to Whyte’s pre-auction description regarding this particular painting.
In theory this would leave just two paintings remaining which Collins had potentially sat for “in life.” The first painting above sold by Whyte’s of Collins on his own, “ i.e. the “Whyte’s auction painting” and/or the second painting of Collins on his own (below) which is in my family’s possession. Let us now take a closer look at this second painting in question which for over sixty years hung in the piano showrooms of Walton’s Musical Instrument Galleries in North Frederick Street, Dublin. Let us call it ‘The Walton painting’ for convenience.
Michael Collins oil on canvas by Leo Whelan 1922 (30 x 24 inches) owned by the Walton Family (please make allowance for colour variance caused by different photographic lighting in these pictures as they are the same painting)
The first physical difference to note about this ‘Walton painting’ is that on the mounted canvas it is considerably (20%) larger at 30 x 24 inches than the ‘Whyte’s auction painting’ at 24 x 19.5 inches. The composition of the ‘Walton painting’ includes the full broad frame of Collins shoulders on both sides, as well as considerably more of his torso, albeit the lines of his suit are indistinct and just barely visible in the original due do the dark colouring of Collins’ suit. This composition is in stark contrast to the much smaller ‘Whyte’s auction painting’ which has clearly been cropped to a narrower view of his torso.
In both paintings Collins is wearing the same suit, tie, and shirt, and many of the brush strokes are similarly crafted, so in composition the paintings are almost identical in the area around his face and shoulders. (It is also perhaps worth noting here that unsurprisingly he is wearing the same clothes in both these paintings as in the first ‘IRA GHQ staff, 1921’ painting). However it will be clear to any reasonable art critic that Collins face is quite different physically in the ‘Whyte’s auction painting’ to the ‘Walton Painting’. Not only changing his physical facial appearance but the mood and expression which this ‘Walton painting’ was most famous for due to its remarkable likeness to Collins and which was confirmed by many whom knew him personally, including my grandfather. The ‘Walton painting’ has a brilliant subliminal energy and pathos, indeed a sadness, which exudes from Collins expression while also capturing the charisma of his personality. This expression is missing from the ‘Whyte’s auction painting’ in which he has an almost quizzical and far more youthful look. It is hard to pinpoint exactly why this is so and I would defer to more enlightened artistic experts than I as to why but suffice to observe that they appear to be two very different versions of Collins, despite the almost identical subject matter and composition.
Now consider that on the canvas the ‘Walton painting’ is signed, and the signature is clearly visible where you would typically expect a portrait signature by Leo Whelan and dated 1922 i.e. “Leo Whelan 1922” . There is no visible signature on ‘Whyte’s auction painting’ but Whyte’s tell us in their auction description that their painting is “signed lower right (folded onto stretcher on reverse)” however they do not say whether there is a date accompanying the signature so we must presume there is not as otherwise they surely would have stated it. This is despite that fact that Whyte’s categorically state in their auction description that “Leo Whelan painted three portraits of Michael Collins from life in 1922”. No photograph of the signature is provided by Whyte’s but we do not doubt that it is there. The main point here is that Whelan has himself dated the ‘Walton painting’ with the year 1922 on the front canvas but not anywhere on the ‘Whyte’s auction painting’.
Now we come to another crucially important difference between the paintings which Whyte’s are fully aware of since I first showed the ‘Walton painting’ to Ian Whyte over a year ago . On the rear of the ‘Walton painting’ , as per the photograph below, Leo Whelan has written in his own clear and distinctive writing the following note:
Whelan’s writing on the rear canvas of the 'Walton painting'
By comparison, the Whyte’s auction description has only the below picture of the rear of the frame which has recently been resealed, presumably after it was opened to find the hidden but undated signature.
Rear of the Whyte’s auction painting
I believe it is therefore entirely reasonable for us to conclude that there is no further information or detail on the rear canvas of the ‘Whyte’s auction painting’ by Whelan as to where, and importantly, when it was painted. If there was such important information one assumes it would have definitely been included in the auction description.
Additionally, if we reasonably accept that the dated ‘Walton painting’ was painted from life in Whelan’s Dawson street studio with Collins present on the actual dates which Whelan went to considerable effort to provide at the rear of the painting , and while Collins was still alive, then I believe we can also state with confidence that this larger painting was the first of the two solo paintings of Collins.
From a closer examination of the brush strokes in the ‘Whyte’s auction painting’ it is clear the many of actual brush strokes in this painting have been replicated carefully from the ‘Walton painting’. This is particularly noticeable and obvious around the hair, shirt, and tie area of the ‘Whyte’s auction painting’ thereby giving it all the craft marks of a painting which has been copied from the first ‘Walton painting’ . Surely if the ‘Whyte’s auction painting’ had been painted from life from the same sittings Whelan would have also stated this on the rear as he did on the ‘Walton painting’?
And why would Whelan crop the ‘Whyte’s auction painting’ to a smaller size?
Quite frankly ,all of these observations, questions and lack of supporting evidence to the contrary would strongly support the view that the 'Whyte's auction painting' was a much later copy of the 'Walton painting'.
In recent email correspondence with my brother following the recent Whyte’s sale in which my brother questioned whether the ‘Whyte’s auction painting’ could have been painted “from life” , Ian Whyte has stated:
“All the known three portraits of Collins painted by Leo Whelan can be said to have been painted from life, as he would have based them on the drawings and oil sketches he made during the sittings”
What exactly does “can be said to have been painted from life” mean?
Either all three of these paintings were painted from life or they were not! Quite apart from this odd “can be said” phrasing it seems a stretch of the meaning “from life” if there is no supporting evidence to suggest that the subject was either present or alive for the 'Whyte’s’ auction painting'. And we already know Collins was not alive when the ‘IRA GHQ staff, 1921’ painting was completed which is a glaring inaccuracy. There are no ‘drawings’ or ‘oil sketches’ in evidence to support this thesis. We simply have the artists written statement on the back of the ‘Walton painting’ that he “painted” this painting of Michael Collins T.D. on the 17th and 20th February 1922 and this has always been clearly understood to mean that Collins sat for him on those two dates for that very painting. Is it not therefore more reasonable to state that Leo Whelan only painted this painting directly on to canvas as a study from life as was common practice for many great painters of the day?
In my opinion , whether we consider the ‘Walton painting’ a ‘study’ or a painting, it is indisputably from life as Whelan has been kind enough to tell us so. It is certainly not an ‘oil sketch’ but rather, to Whelan’s enormous credit, a masterpiece of portrait work (painted under considerable time pressure given Collins situation at that time) in its likeness to Collins, both physically and in personality.
Surely it is this painting which is signed “Leo Whelan 1922”, with the exact dates he sat for the painting at the rear of the canvas, and has the greatest likeness to Collins, which was the sole painting of Michael Collins painted from life in Dublin?
Concluding summary
At the risk of repetition, given the above evidence and closer likeness to Collins, can there be any doubt that the ‘Walton painting’ of Michael Collins was the only painting of him “painted from life”? I do not believe there can be much doubt on this as Leo Whelan has clearly stated this in plain English on the rear of the painting itself.
There is absolutely no evidence to support the statement that the ‘Whyte’s auction painting’ was “painted from life” or even that it was painted “in 1922” as Whyte’s so categorically state. Without any dates or supporting evidence the ‘Whyte’s auction painting’ could have been painted any time after the ‘Walton painting’, perhaps many years later. It is cropped, much smaller and has less likeness to Collins in real life than the much larger ‘Walton painting’ and, despite Whelan’s genius, is a poorer relative, artistically, of his first ‘Walton painting’ which we can be certain was painted with Collins in front of him.
The same logic can be applied to the ‘IRA GHQ staff, 1921’ composite painting for which it would have been impossible to paint all the thirteen subjects together from life and this is supported by the Ristéard Mulcahy article which clearly states: “ Having completed each portrait. Whelan painted a composite picture of the 13 men in late 1922/early 1923.” Nearly a full year after the ‘Walton painting’ and a least several months after Collins death.
It therefore seems absurd to suggest Whelan painted all of these three paintings “from life” in 1922. Of these three paintings there is only evidence to support that just one of these paintings of Michael Collins was painted from life. I suggest it should be obvious to any objective observer which painting that one is.
Allowing for photographic light differences in the images below this is more easily observed with the two paintings side-by-side and in approximate proportion to each other below:
The ‘Walton painting’ The ‘Whyte’s auction painting’
To conclude, my considered opinion is that, in the absence of any solid or contradictory evidence, Collins sat twice for just one painting from life in Dublin on the 17th and 20th of February 1922 in Leo Whelan’s studio in 64 Dawson Street, as written in Whelan’s own hand on the front signature and rear canvas of the ‘Walton painting’, and to suggest otherwise, with this knowledge, is fanciful and has no merit either historically or artistically.
These are three important paintings by Leo Whelan of this iconic figure at a seminal time in Irish history so let us get the facts right about each one and not have any ambiguity about what “painted from life” really means in either history or art. Both Michael Collins and Leo Whelan deserve better.
Biographical note:
David Walton is a former senior commercial director with multi-sector business experience both in Ireland and Internationally. Over 40 years he has worked very successfully in the Music Industry, Financial Payments, and Telecom Security industries globally. https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwalton1/ . Recently he has left the corporate world to follow his passion for Irish History and start-up a small business reproducing and framing rare Irish historical prints from his grandfather’s collection of books, documents, paintings, and posters from Ireland’s revolutionary past. https://thewaltoncollection.ie/