William Aikman (painter)

His father intended that he should follow the law, and gave him an education suitable to these views; but the strong predilection of the son to the fine arts induced him to attach himself to painting alone.

It was the same delicate bias of mind which at a future period of his life attached him so warmly to Thomson, who then unknown, and unprotected, stood in need of, and obtained the warmest patronage of Aikman; who perhaps considered it as one of the most fortunate occurrences in his life that he had it in his power to introduce this young poet of nature to Sir Robert Walpole, who wished to be reckoned the patron of genius, and to Arbuthnot, Swift, Pope, Gay, and the other beaux esprits of that brilliant period.

[1] In 1707, he went to Italy, and having resided chiefly at Rome for three years, and taken instructions from, and formed an acquaintance with the principal artists of that period, he chose to gratify his curiosity by travelling into Turkey.

There he became acquainted with all the British gentlemen of the factory; who wished him to forsake the pencil, and to join them in the Turkey trade: but, that scheme not taking place, he went once more to Rome, and pursued his former studies there, till 1712, when he returned to his native country: he now followed his profession of painting for sometime, applauded by the discerning few; though the public, too poor at that period to be able to purchase valuable pictures, were unable to give adequate encouragement to his superior merit John Duke of Argyll, who equally admired the artist and esteemed the man, regretting that such talents should be lost, at length prevailed on Mr. Aikman to move with all his family to London, in 1723, thinking this the only theatre in Britain where his talents could be properly displayed.

His compositions are distinguished by a placid tranquility and ease rather than a striking brilliancy of effect: and his portraits may be more readily mistaken for those of Kneller than any other eminent artist; not only because of the general resemblance in the dresses, which were those of the times, they being contemporaries, but also for the manner of working, and the similarity and bland mellowness of their tints.