Skip to Main Content
4/9

I Pride of the Last Peacock: A Look at John La Farge’s Final Peacock Window

  • Amanda Chau

John La Farge has long been recognized as a late nineteenth-century American artist and pioneer who created novel and remarkable illusionistic effects in stained glass. Dissatisfied with the constraints of potmetal glass, La Farge pushed the boundaries of opalescent glass and traditional stained-glass techniques, constructions, and materials. His oeuvre arguably culminates in his Peacock Window, the artist’s most experimental and only personal window, and one of the last stained-glass works that he completed before his death.

Worcester Art Museum’s 2018–19 exhibition, Stained Glass: Tiffany and La Farge, presented an important opportunity to conduct a technical analysis of John La Farge’s Peacock Window to unravel its perplexing fabrication and condition. While his unhindered exploration of illusionistic effects and his disregard for convention were evident, the window’s fabrication and condition issues were often unclear, blurred, and misleading. Polarized light microscopy, RTI, XRF, py-GCMS, X-radiography, and a close visual examination of the window provided significant insight to differentiate the artist’s intent, technical difficulties during the fabrication processes, and condition issues. The examination and analysis also revealed an unusual range of multiple crossover techniques, including traditional leading, copper foiling, fused glass, cloisonné, and mosaic work—much of which had not been previously associated with La Farge or stained glass. Thus, the materials and techniques of John La Farge’s Peacock Window expand and challenge what we expect and know about the artist and potentially shed light on the construction of his other windows. Moreover, La Farge’s Peacock Window beautifully encapsulates the artist’s notable and unrestrained curiosity, his vision for the future of stained glass, and how he wished to be remembered.

*This article has been approved for publication by peer review.

Introduction

Fig. 1 John La Farge, Peacock Window, 1892; reworked 1907–8. Stained glass, 101.5 x 50.7 cm. Worcester Art Museum. This image shows the front of the window with transmitted illumination showcasing the artist’s innovative use of color and light through the manipulation of the stained-glass medium. Photograph by Stephen Briggs. Image source: Worcester Art Museum / Bridgeman Images

Over a century after its completion, Peacock Window at the Worcester Art Museum, by American artist John La Farge (1835–1910), deserves renewed understanding, appreciation, and recognition (fig. 1). Regarding this window, La Farge proudly exclaimed to his friend Russell Sturgis, “Come therefore and look at a piece too dear to buy—Nothing of the kind has ever been and any one such seen anywhere on earth.”1 Yet, the craft and condition of the artist’s only personal and wholly experimental window has remained misunderstood.

The Worcester Art Museum’s 2018-2019 exhibition Stained Glass: Tiffany and La Farge, presented a rare opportunity to conserve the window and conduct a close examination of its structure, craftsmanship, and aesthetics.2 At the time of preparation for the exhibition, the window appeared dark, muted, and muddled. It is composed of layers with various patterns and textures, which made it difficult to distinguish between the artist’s hand and the condition issues that were affecting it. The recent examination of the window enabled a deeper understanding of its construction, deciphering the decorative elements that contribute to its visual complexity. Ultimately, these observations focused on the artist’s never-ending pursuit of beauty and constant drive to push the boundaries of stained glass through experimentation.

Peacock Window Beginnings

Failure is what ultimately granted La Farge a rare level of artistic freedom in his last peacock-themed window. In 1892 John Hay, former private secretary to Abraham Lincoln, commissioned the window, which was to hang inside his house. However, due to complications in the firing, La Farge abandoned the project. The issues that La Farge encountered involved the artist’s signature variation of the cloisonné technique, an enameling technique in which colored glass powder is placed in a soldered network of thin metal compartments and then fired. This creates the visual effect of metallic lines defining and accentuating the opaque glass designs. La Farge’s signature technique is referred to as cloisonné or cloisonné-like, as it involved joining or fusing small pieces of flat glass within a soldered copper-coil network. La Farge admired the result of this method as the design appeared more seamless, similar to an illuminated painting uninterrupted by thick lead lines.

According to scholars Julie Sloan and James Yarnall, the successive firings of Peacock Window required by the cloissoné process “caused some glass to turn golden in tone and to disintegrate” as a result of the “unpredictable incompatibility of some fused glasses.”3 Eager to fulfill his commission, La Farge instead presented to Hay a peacock window4 of a similar composition but constructed with traditional stained-glass methods. With this technique, flat glass is slotted into flexible lead strips, or came, that have H- or U-shaped profiles and are then soldered together (fig. 2). The abandoned window remained untouched for the next fifteen years.

Fig. 2 This diagram illustrates the traditional leading technique in stained glass. Flat glass pieces (indicated in green) are interconnected by slotting them into lead came (shown in gray). The lead joints are subsequently soldered at both the front and the back, enhancing structural integrity (soldering details not depicted).

In 1907, a few years before his death, La Farge decided to revisit and rework his original window, this time without a commission. La Farge indulged his experimental tendencies, writing to his friend Henry Adams, “It is the window I began for Hay and tried to make in cloissoné which failed in firing … though it may not be quite what I had hoped for then, it is both curious and I think pretty fine.”5 In the final window, cloissoné is a significant aspect of the illusionistic effect, indicating that the artist pushed through the complications instead of abandoning the technique altogether. La Farge’s sense of achievement at his personal growth and his satisfaction in the final outcome of Peacock Window are palpable in his description of the work to his social circle through personal correspondence.6

The discussion below shares findings on the material and techniques of this unique window and aims to shed light on how the window conveys the spirit of the artist.

Paint

For many years at the museum, the darkness of Peacock Window was attributed to dirt and grime. However, upon closer examination, it became apparent that much of its dark appearance was a result of an experimental technical approach by the artist. The results of the technical study of the work are outlined below and detail the ways in which La Farge embraced experimentation with materials to achieve new visual effects.

Fig. 3a Detail of the lower proper-left side of Peacock Window that captures the blues and greens in the water. Through the careful selection, shaping, and layering of glass, the artist achieved the impression of softly rippling water.
Fig. 3b Detail of the upper proper-right side that captures the deep violets and magentas of the sky, creating an atmosphere of dusk or dawn.

Upon first seeing Peacock Window, a viewer may be struck by its dark and moody nature, an atmosphere that is accentuated when the window is illuminated. Muted blues and greens of rippling water in the background contrast boldly with the deep violets and magentas that fill the sky (figs. 3a, 3b).7 The dark palette was particularly notable during the Worcester Art Museum’s exhibition, where the relatively small Peacock Window was displayed alongside floor-to-ceiling church windows by Louis Comfort Tiffany and lancets by La Farge that illuminated much of the exhibition space with their majestic sizes and light colors (fig. 4).

Fig. 4 The 2018–19 exhibition Stained Glass: Tiffany and La Farge at the Worcester Art Museum featured two large lancets by John La Farge (left), three church windows by Louis Comfort Tiffany, including a monochrome illustration of a missing panel (center), and La Farge’s Peacock Window (right). Despite its small scale, Peacock Window exemplifies the artist’s mastery of the medium and its pivotal role in the evolution of stained-glass artistry.

The dark palette is exemplified by the deeply colored glass selected for the peacock and peonies of Peacock Window, which were further darkened with oil-based paint. The choice of oil-based paint, instead of the customary vitreous glass paint, is notable. Traditionally, glass had been painted with a medium composed of finely ground glass powder mixed with water, vinegar, or another binder agent to aid in the application. This glass paint can be applied in a variety of ways, from bold, dense strokes to thin washes. To create texture and depth, the paint can be layered or subtracted with techniques such as stippling or scratching away the paint.8 After application, this vitreous medium is fired and bonds to the glass. While cold, or unfired, paint has occasionally been used on stained glass, La Farge was boldly innovative in his use of paint on glass.

Throughout his career, La Farge is known to have made efforts to manipulate colors and tones just as a painter would with oil on canvas. He claimed that, due to his innovations, his stained glass had “hundred of thousands of tones now easily attainable,” just like “the pigments in one’s palette.”9 Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS) results deriving from several paint samples from Peacock Window showed evidence of aged oil, shellac, pine resin, or tar.10 La Farge may have selected this composition of cold paint for a few reasons. Aside from being readily available, pine tar may have given the paint a textured body that was desirable for normal illumination. In addition, to preserve each carefully selected piece of glass, the use of cold paint allowed reversibility and eased the control of translucency.

Fig. 5 An example of La Farge’s dynamic application of painted brushstrokes on the reverse side of the peacock ocelli feathers in Peacock Window. These oil-based brushstrokes delineate specific areas of the ocelli, enhancing their definition and modulating the tonal variations present within the composition.

La Farge demonstrated with his cloissoné technique “not only taste and knowledge of the laws of colour, but a knowledge of the material and of the change in its colour which will be brought about by the heat to which it must be subjected.”11 Coloristic control of numerous connected glass pieces was undoubtedly complicated. Therefore, the use of cold paint likely allowed La Farge to alter tones of the peacock and peonies—the only cloisonné areas—without reservation and without risking the structural integrity and color changes that could happen during the firing process. On the back face of the middle glass plate, in the areas associated with the ends of the peacock’s tail, there are black and blue paint strokes that emphasize parts of the ocelli of each feather (fig. 5).12 Furthermore, behind the peonies, there are broad fields of paint with haphazard lines scratched away (fig. 6). The cold paint application is dynamic and loose throughout, easily shifting from smatterings of splotches to palette knife smears (fig. 7); finger markings are also visible on the front of the peacock. In the midst of these gestural applications, there is a distinct fingerprint mark in the same paint; the intentionality of, or identity associated with, the fingerprint is unknown, but this author cannot help but wonder if the maker intentionally left his mark, so to speak (fig. 8).

Fig. 6 This detail, located on the reverse of one of the peonies, reveals an additional painted area where the artist applied a wash of oil-based paint. The texture is created through the technique of hatching, achieved by scraping away the paint. While the definitions of the marks are not visible from the front view, they nonetheless contribute to a mottled effect on the peonies, subtly influencing their visual appearance.
Fig. 7 The front of the peacock features a fused-glass area decorated with oil-based and glass-based paint applied in splotches and with a palette knife. These techniques yield more-pronounced tonal variations than those on the reverse.
Fig. 8 A fingerprint, transferred and created with one of La Farge’s paints, is notably distinct and pressed into the paint, sharply contrasting with the surrounding gestural brushstrokes.

Fused Glass and Cloisonné

As the only window created purely for La Farge’s personal enjoyment, it is no surprise that the focal points—the peacock and peonies–incorporate his personally developed cloisonné technique. The process began with copper coils that were soldered together to form a network of cells in the shape of the subject. Flat glass was shaped and fitted into each cell. For this window, some of the cells were filled with two stacked pieces of glass, typically layers of flat clear glass over colored glass. The firing process then aimed to fuse the glass to the copper coil network as well as to fuse the stacked glass. In this window, La Farge fused the layers to the degree that the interface of the stacked glass bonded and yet retained its distinct layers and textures.

Fig. 9 Detail of the extensive craquelure of the fused glass in the peacock and peonies. La Farge layered colorless glass over hundreds of colors before fusing them together. The craquelure originating from the original manufacturing process, due to incompatible expansion rates of the glass, creates a mesmerizing effect under transmitted illumination.

Overall, this technique involved some challenges. For example, the fused glass created extensive craquelure, particularly in broader sections where there is a clear glass plate on top. These sections have jagged cracks in small- and medium-sized islands that do not follow any particular direction (fig. 9). These cracks further lead to extensive secondary networks of fine cracks, likely a result of fusing glass of different, incompatible coefficient-expansion rates.

During La Farge’s career, glass manufacturers in New York City began creating new varieties of opalescent glass that offered more consistent and predictable outcomes in terms of color, texture, and fusing.13 However, La Farge did not employ commercial glass of this type on Peacock Window. Rather, the use of incompatible fused glass suggests that he preferred to experiment, invent, and explore. As noted above, in a letter to Henry Adams, La Farge commented that despite facing production complications with Peacock Window, the results were “curious.”14 This suggests that even when he encountered technical obstacles, La Farge enjoyed the art of experimenting with his materials. In the end, the cracks he achieved create a marvelous illusionistic effect of glistening (fig. 10). This is perhaps one of the window’s most captivating characteristics, which Sloan and Yarnall describe as an “evolution to smoother surfaces and sharper delineation culminating in windows in which the distinction between painting and stained glass becomes elusive.”15

Fig. 10 The craquelure present throughout the fused glass areas, particularly in the tail feathers of the peacock, contributes to a distinctive shimmering effect.

It is worth highlighting one of the examples where fused glass creates an impressionistic effect in the window. The top plate of the peony in the top proper-right corner has large blisters, undulations, and cracks, some of which have jagged losses (fig. 11). Compared to other pieces, this one is encrusted with grime and perhaps even calcification. The piece is somewhat reminiscent of Louis Comfort Tiffany’s Cypriote opaque glass vases, which often possess a smooth pockmarked texture and small bubbles believed to have been created by adding small bits of glass and potash and fusing it to molten glass (fig. 12).16 However, instead of an archaeological texture with craters and opaque opalescent glass, La Farge brought light into the work through a dynamic, undulating, multilayered, cracked piece to create an ethereal and impressionistic peony. Its form–incapable of replication–and damaged condition seem to suggest that the artist desired to incorporate this piece in order to achieve the surreal mottled effect. Moreover, its inclusion would be characteristic of the artist, who was reportedly known to enlist “artisans to repeat what others might consider mistakes in making glass and [who] sought out pieces of glass that had been rejected as imperfect or damaged.”17 In other words, La Farge purposely incorporated elements others might have considered flawed.

Fig. 11 Detail of the peony in the upper proper-right corner under normal illumination, featuring a distinctive colorless glass piece characterized by blisters, cracks, and losses. The organic nature of the piece suggests personal manipulation, and the presence of embedded grime and calcification, which are absent elsewhere in the window, suggests a selection from an older glass source. This unique piece creates a blurred ethereal effect under transmitted illumination.
Fig. 12

Cypriote Vase, c. 1900, Designed by Louis Comfort Tiffany, made by the Tiffany Glass and Decorating Company, Corona, New York (1892–1902). Purchased with the Joseph E. Temple Fund, 1901. Image source: Philadelphia Museum of Art / Bridgeman Images.

A concept similar to that of La Farge but with a different outcome is visible in Tiffany’s use of crater-textured glass forms. Although the craters vary in size and pattern, there is a consistent softness, depth, and distribution throughout the piece.

Mosaic

Surprisingly, during close examination of Peacock Window, evidence of mosaicking was observed. Within the intricate coiled cells of the peacock’s primary feathers, there are regular parallel breaks along shared strips of glass (fig. 13a). Within one of these strips, there is a glass loss that exposes a grout-like material that exists below the fused glass and above a glass back plate. It is difficult to determine whether the grout was added before or after firing the cloisonné network, but the impression of the loss is cubical and reminiscent of tesserae in Roman mosaics (fig. 13b).

Fig. 13a Detail of Peacock Window captured using Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI), illustrating the variety of cubic-shaped glass tesserae created before firing and craquelure resulting from the fusing process. The cubical glass exhibits softer, more closely parallel cuts, in contrast to the finer, organic branching cracks present in the fused glass.
Fig. 13b Detail captured using RTI, revealing a loss of cubical-shaped glass from the peacock that has exposed a grout-like material underneath that resembles mosaicking.

While the mosaicking was difficult to recognize among the extensive craquelure mentioned above, the intentional breaks from the tesserae-making process are distinguishable. The tesserae edges are regular and parallel to each other, and also have rounded edges, the consequence of cut edges softening and rounding from being heated in the fusing process. In contrast, the breaks created from fusing are irregular, winding, and fine. Remarkably, the grout ground does not entirely block light coming through the window, thus allowing illumination of the primary wings. Overall, these details indicate that the window was initially constructed with mosaic details adhered using grout. In other windows, La Farge experimented with elements of fusing and his signature cloisonné, but it is here, in a single section of this window, that he combined fused glass plating, mosaics, and cloisonné.

Putty

Putty is a compound made of clay and often mixed with an oil-based medium intended to strengthen and waterproof a window, as well as to block light leakage that could disrupt the visual unity of a stained-glass artwork. Putty is typically neutral in color and assists in the readability of a window, serving as functional rather than calling attention to itself. Interestingly, however, La Farge focused attention on the putty of Peacock Window and incorporated it in the design.

In Peacock Window, the putty used for the peacock is pigmented and a color complementary to adjacent glass was consistently chosen (fig. 14). In some areas, the colorant under normal illumination creates a shade of the same color in transmitted illumination. However, much of the putty does not allow light to pass through and, as a result, contributes to the overall darkness of the window. This suggests that La Farge may have accounted for the window’s aesthetics in both transmitted and reflected light throughout the day, when light might pass through the glass from different directions. This is possibly because the window was not designed for a particular space, and therefore the quality and direction of light was unknown to him. It should be noted that this window consists of many glass pieces with grozed18 edges that do not tightly fit in the cloisonné or against the lead came, thus creating gaps and a greater need for putty. These gaps do not appear to be attributable to previous conservation or restoration interventions. More likely, the incorporation of colored putty arose from need and led to an exploration of how a material of less significance could be utilized beyond its function.

Fig. 14 Initially perceived as dense and challenging to interpret, this detail of the peacock under normal illumination reveals how La Farge colored his putties to match the hues of adjacent glass. Green-toned putty is utilized in the gaps beside the green glass, a technique also evident with the purple and orange putties. The use of colored putty may have been intended to avoid adding to lead lines and instead add color to the area in normal and/or transmitted light.

Copper Foil

Louis Comfort Tiffany, also an acclaimed artist and La Farge’s greatest competitor in the United States during this time, was known for his stained-glass works that heavily incorporated the copper-foiling technique, which uses copper foil in place of lead came. With copper foiling, each piece of glass is cut, smoothed, and then edged with foil. Edged pieces are joined to one another by soldering along the foil. This technique allows for greater flexibility in design, as the foil can accommodate intricate shapes and smaller fragments of glass (fig. 15). Furthermore, with this method, the glass can be plated to varying depths, and the solder lines can be varied in width even along the same edge or line. Copper foil’s flexibility also allowed Tiffany to create three-dimensional stained-glass lamps.

Fig. 15 This diagram illustrates the copper-foiling technique used in stained glass. The edges of flat glass pieces (indicated in green) are joined by wrapping the connecting edges with copper foil. These foiled areas are then soldered on the front and back (not depicted). Copper foil allows for thinner lead lines, varied widths along the same line, and joining intricate shapes and small glass pieces.

In his stained-glass windows, when employing the copper foil technique, La Farge generally adhered to the traditional method. However, with Peacock Window, he departed from this method and instead attached the copper foil to the inner heart of the lead came around the perimeter of the peacock and peonies. The foil extends up to the top flange, and its appearance varies depending upon how far in or out the foil extends (fig. 16). Thus, variations in the lead lines are achieved in a single lead came and are comparable to the tapering of brushstrokes. Additionally, copper foil appears to have been used as a stopgap along the perimeter of the fused areas (fig. 17). Some of the edges of the glass fall short of the heart of adjacent lead, creating gaps that may have been too large for putty to be effectively secured. In these cases, the flange extends even farther out to block light.19 The achieved effect could have been accomplished in other ways; for instance, the gap could have been closed by filling with came or a lead strap.20 But La Farge’s practice is yet another way in which his decision to experiment with materials exemplifies the desire to explore and push the boundaries of traditional stained-glass production techniques.21

Fig. 16 Detail of copper foil along the heart of the lead around one of the cloisonné peonies in Peacock Window. A joining plate that fit beside the peony into the heart was temporarily removed for treatment, revealing the copper foil. The copper foil tends to extend the top flange of the peony, helping to create a thicker lead line. This method is visible around all cloisonné areas.
Fig. 17 Surrounding the peacock, including along the proper left border of the head, the copper foil serves a dual purpose: it extends the flange at the top and is also applied along adjacent glass plates to address any gaps. This copper foil supports the putty, which in turn blocks light leakage.

Corrosion

Fig. 18 Under normal illumination, black wax-like markings on a colorless glass plate were apparent, especially after surface cleaning. The markings show that the artist made a change in his choice for the shape.

During the conservation treatment of Peacock Window, the dating of one clear plate of glass within the window came into question. This piece, situated on the front and to the proper-right of the peacock, has several black wax-like markings that appear to be the result of early workshop modifications. Several outlines seem to demarcate changes to the shape of the glass piece, and the X mark was perhaps used to designate a selection for cutting (fig. 18).

The provenance of the window indicates that it moved from La Farge’s studio directly to the Worcester Art Museum, whose records do not include any treatment of this particular plate.22 Furthermore, there appears to be no visible evidence that the window’s lead network was disturbed or tampered with following its initial construction. This supports the likelihood that this curious piece of glass was originally inserted by the artist. Still, the presence of black markings on a clear front plate seemed questionable. In addition, the glass has a speckled pockmarked surface due to glass corrosion. While there are museum records of damage from condensation and evidence of corrosion in a drip-mark fashion on the proper-left margin, this damage impacted the opposite end of the window. The surrounding materials of the corroded glass do not show signs of corrosion, and the black markings sit in the pitted corrosion marks. Therefore, the piece was likely corroded prior to the window’s fabrication, and the black markings were made after the presence of corrosion (figs. 19a–c). Thus, it is likely that the corroded piece was intentionally selected by the artist. If this is indeed the case, it provides another example of La Farge exploring various unconventional methods to achieve different illusionistic effects in stained glass. Indeed, the corrosion does alter the way in which the foliage behind the plate appears, creating a mottled effect. The black markings do not readily disrupt the effect in transmitted light, perhaps due to the overall dark background of the design. A clear plate with no corrosion would instead have shown the sharp outlines of the foliage, bringing it to the foreground— inconsistent with the treatment of other foliage in the window.

Fig. 19a Whether the colorless glass plate with glass corrosion was selected intentionally or occurred after manufacture came into question. The black wax-like markings are present only in the corrosion pits, suggesting that the corrosion was present at the time of the selection of the glass plate.
Fig. 19b The corroded glass plate overlying the green foliage mutes the colors and imparts a delicate, organic, speckled appearance when viewed under transmitted illumination.
Fig. 19c When the corroded glass plate is removed, the foliage loses these characteristics, resulting in their appearing brighter with less variation in color tones and a flatter texture. These characteristics also shift the foliage forward into the same plane as the peacock.

Rehomed

When La Farge was working on Peacock Window, his opinion of the piece reflected not elation, but contentment and openness to the window’s transformation. In his letter to Adams, he wrote that the window was “not quite what I had hoped for then,” but also “curious and I think pretty fine.”23 After its completion, however, La Farge proudly exclaimed to his friend Russell Sturgis, “Nothing of the kind has ever been and any one such seen anywhere on earth.”24

There are several reasons why La Farge may have ultimately decided to sell Peacock Window. An inexperienced businessman, he went bankrupt in 1885 and did not recover or regain the popular success he had enjoyed in the early 1880s.25 In addition to his ongoing financial issues, the artist suffered from failing health. While La Farge dismissed any speculations of his health concerns, by 1901 he had taken out life insurance and arranged for his ongoing commissions to be taken care of in the event of his death.26 Although rebuffed by the artist, rumors of his declining health spread during the period of time in which he was reworking Peacock Window.

Although La Farge organized considerable publicity to promote this particular piece, even his wealthiest clients were not interested in acquiring it.27 He was also unable to find buyers through art dealers. Perhaps the experimental nature of the window was not appealing to his usual circle of clientele.28 High praise, however, was bestowed upon the artist and the window by critics at the time. In 1908, for example, the Burlington Magazine commented: “Of such a work no reproduction can give any conception—perhaps a reproduction in monochrome is less likely to give a false conception of it than would be any attempt at colour-printing.… For any notion of its glory one must go to the work itself.”29 There was also an overwhelmingly positive assessment by art critic Royal Cortissoz in the New York Tribune in early 1908.30

La Farge’s strong desire to have his Peacock Window displayed in a public space reveals that his efforts to sell it were not simply fueled by financial need. When he approached the Worcester Art Museum as a potential buyer, the artist proposed to sell it for less than he had previously been asking. His private secretary wrote on his behalf to the director of the museum, “Mr. La Farge’s price for this has been seven thousand dollars, but if the Worcester Museum would be interested to have it, I know, because of his anxiety to have it placed in a public museum, that he would sell it for less than the original asking price.”31 To the artist’s relief, the museum accepted and purchased the window at the artist’s asking price of $7,000 on March 31, 1909. La Farge died the following year.

Conclusion

John La Farge’s Peacock Window is distinguished by its deeply personal significance to the artist and the creative freedom it exemplifies. Upon its completion, the window garnered acclaim, and today it is universally recognized as a pivotal piece in the artist’s career. La Farge’s correspondence highlights his fervent desire for public exhibition, underscoring the work’s importance within his artistic trajectory. It is frequently regarded as the most comprehensive and final expression of the potential of fused and cloisonné glass, exemplifying La Farge’s mastery through its intricate construction and illusionistic effects. Yet, its complexity may have posed challenges for potential buyers, pushing artistic boundaries so far that some were uncertain about fully embracing its unconventional qualities.

The prolonged display of Peacock Window has, at times, obscured its captivating essence due to condition issues and a lack of thorough study. A renewed commitment to understanding and conserving the work is essential—not only to restore its visual impact but also to publicly showcase La Farge’s legacy as a pioneering figure who transformed the medium of stained glass. Peacock Window, created at the twilight of his life, diverges from the artist’s earlier stained-glass representations of peacocks, which were often constructed using harmonious blues and greens amid vibrant foliage. Instead, this window signifies a daring final exploration of artistic boundaries. La Farge presented a peacock that glows amber, intricately composed of numerous small pieces accented with flecks of green, blue, and violet, emerging from a dusky atmosphere like a phoenix reborn.

Acknowledgments

I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to the conservation staff at the Worcester Art Museum—Rita Albertson, Paula Artal-Isbrand, Birgit Strahae, and Bill MacMillan—for their unwavering trust and support throughout this project. Our valuable discussions greatly enriched my understanding and problem solving regarding the study and treatment of the window. A special thanks to Elizabeth Athens, the museum’s assistant curator of American Art at the time of my fellowship, for making this exhibition possible and for providing me with the opportunity to delve into the Peacock Window. I am also grateful to Rebecca Ploeger for her insightful scientific analysis, which informed this study. Many thanks to Drew Anderson for his continued mentorship, accessibility to the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s La Farge windows, and sharing his observations and extensive experience in stained glass. In addition, I would like to acknowledge the American Glass Guild community for sharing their experiences with La Farge windows, which greatly shaped my work. Finally, I extend my sincere gratitude to the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation for their financial support of my fellowship.

Bibliography

Adams, Henry. John La Farge. New York: Abbeville, 1987.

Cox, Kenyon. “Two Specimens of La Farge’s Art in Glass.” The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs 13, no. 63 (1908): 182–83, 185. http://www.jstor.org/stable/857519.

Crouch, Edith. Tiffany Studios’ Techniques: Inspiration for Today’s Artists. Atglen: Schiffer, 2011.

La Farge Family Papers, MS 24, Yale University Archives, New Haven, CT.

La Farge, John. The American Art of Glass. New York: J. J. Little, 1893.

Sloan, Julie L., and James L. Yarnall. “Art of an Opaline Mind: The Stained Glass of John La Farge.” American Art Journal 24, nos.1/2 (1992): 4–43.

Sloan, Julie L., and James L. Yarnall. “John La Farge’s Patent for the American Opalescent Window.” Journal of Stained Glass 28 (2004): 31–45.

“Stained Glass: An Introduction.” Victoria and Albert Museum. Accessed May 10, 2024. https://www.vam.ac.uk/articles/stained-glass-an-introduction.

Worcester Art Museum Archives, Worcester, MA.

Weinberg, Helene Barbara. “John La Farge’s Peacock Window.” Worcester Art Museum Bulletin, n.s., 3, no. 1 (November 1973).

Yarnall, James. John La Farge: A Biographical and Critical Study. Farnham: Ashgate, 2012.

Notes

  1. John La Farge to Russell Sturgis, March 23, 1908, La Farge Family Papers, MS 24, ser. 1: Correspondence, Yale University Library, New Haven, CT (cited hereafter as La Farge Family Papers). ↩︎

  2. The exhibition aimed to highlight the artistic innovations and historical significance of stained glass in America, focusing on the works of Louis Comfort Tiffany and John La Farge. The museum’s own Peacock Window was selected for inclusion, providing a rare opportunity for the conservation lab to closely examine its condition, which had become increasingly questionable over time. After obtaining a greater understanding of the window, specialized lighting was employed in its display, in order to display its illusionistic effects in their full richness. ↩︎

  3. Julie L. Sloan and James L. Yarnall, “Art of an Opaline Mind: The Stained Glass of John La Farge,” American Art Journal 24, nos. 1/2 (1992): 32–33. ↩︎

  4. Located in Museum Villa Stuck, Munich. ↩︎

  5. John La Farge to Henry Adams, November 19, 1907, La Farge Family Papers. ↩︎

  6. Sloan and Yarnall, “Art of an Opaline Mind,” 32–33. ↩︎

  7. Peacock Window at the Worcester Art Museum features a design and color palette that is darker and moodier compared to other peacock-themed windows by the same artist, such as Peacocks and Peonies II at the Smithsonian Institution. See “Peacocks and Peonies II,” Smithsonian American Art Museum, accessed October 28, 2024, https://americanart.si.edu/artwork/peacocks-and-peonies-ii-14199. ↩︎

  8. See Victoria and Albert Museum, “Stained Glass: An Introduction,” accessed May 10, 2024, https://www.vam.ac.uk/articles/stained-glass-an-introduction. ↩︎

  9. John La Farge, The American Art of Glass (New York: J. J. Little, 1893), 13. ↩︎

  10. Paint samples were analyzed by Rebecca Ploeger, conservation scientist, SUNY Buffalo State University, Buffalo, New York, October 18, 2017, using Py-GC-MS. ↩︎

  11. Kenyon Cox, “Two Specimens of La Farge’s Art in Glass,” The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs 13, no. 63 (1908): 185. ↩︎

  12. Ocelli are iridescent eye-like patterns at the end of a male peacock’s train feathers; they have a dark black and purple center surrounded by rings of blue, green, and gold. ↩︎

  13. Sloan and Yarnall, “Art of an Opaline Mind,” 19. ↩︎

  14. La Farge to Adams, November 19, 1907. ↩︎

  15. Sloan and Yarnall, “Art of an Opaline Mind,” 24. ↩︎

  16. Edith Crouch, Tiffany Studios’ Techniques: Inspiration for Today’s Artists (Atglen: Schiffer, 2011), 302. ↩︎

  17. Sloan and Yarnall, “Art of an Opaline Mind,” 8. ↩︎

  18. Grozed edges are chamfered edges that result from shaping stained glass. ↩︎

  19. Lead came has an H-shaped cross-section into which flat glass is slotted. The center part is called the heart, and the perpendicular lengths that slightly cover and hold the flat glass are referred to as flanges. ↩︎

  20. A lead strap is a strip of lead, such as the flange of a lead came, that visually covers a gap to block transmitted light but does not interlock the glass pieces. ↩︎

  21. While copper foil is used in stained-glass repairs, the locations of the specified copper foil were not characteristic of repairs. There are no breaks in the lead or around the perimeter of adjacent glass that would suggest reasons for or evidence of copper foil repairs. Furthermore, previous condition records do not report treatment in the noted areas, and there is no visible evidence that the lead network had been accessed and altered. Loose foil along the heart of the lead also did not have any adhesive residue that could suggest more-modern intervention. ↩︎

  22. J. Dudley Richards to Philip J. Gentner, director, Worcester Art Museum, April 1, 1910, Worcester Art Museum Archives, Worcester, MA. ↩︎

  23. La Farge to Adams, November 19, 1907. ↩︎

  24. John La Farge to Russell Sturgis, March 23, 1908, La Farge Family Papers. ↩︎

  25. Julie L. Sloan and James L. Yarnall, “John La Farge’s Patent for the American Opalescent Window,” Journal of Stained Glass 28 (2004): 41–42. ↩︎

  26. John La Farge to Bancel La Farge, August 30, 1901, La Farge Family Papers. ↩︎

  27. James L. Yarnall, John La Farge: A Biographical and Critical Study (New York: Ashgate, 2012), 255. ↩︎

  28. Yarnall, 255. ↩︎

  29. Kenyon Cox, “Two Specimens of La Farge’s Art in Glass,” The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs 13, no. 63 (1908): 185. ↩︎

  30. Yarnall, John La Farge, 255. ↩︎

  31. Grace Edith Barnes to Daniel Merriran, March 24, 1908, Worcester Art Museum Archives. ↩︎

Fig. 1 John La Farge, Peacock Window, 1892; reworked 1907–8. Stained glass, 101.5 x 50.7 cm. Worcester Art Museum. This image shows the front of the window with transmitted illumination showcasing the artist’s innovative use of color and light through the manipulation of the stained-glass medium. Photograph by Stephen Briggs. Image source: Worcester Art Museum / Bridgeman Images
Fig. 2 This diagram illustrates the traditional leading technique in stained glass. Flat glass pieces (indicated in green) are interconnected by slotting them into lead came (shown in gray). The lead joints are subsequently soldered at both the front and the back, enhancing structural integrity (soldering details not depicted).
Fig. 3a Detail of the lower proper-left side of Peacock Window that captures the blues and greens in the water. Through the careful selection, shaping, and layering of glass, the artist achieved the impression of softly rippling water.
Fig. 3b Detail of the upper proper-right side that captures the deep violets and magentas of the sky, creating an atmosphere of dusk or dawn.
Fig. 4 The 2018–19 exhibition Stained Glass: Tiffany and La Farge at the Worcester Art Museum featured two large lancets by John La Farge (left), three church windows by Louis Comfort Tiffany, including a monochrome illustration of a missing panel (center), and La Farge’s Peacock Window (right). Despite its small scale, Peacock Window exemplifies the artist’s mastery of the medium and its pivotal role in the evolution of stained-glass artistry.
Fig. 5 An example of La Farge’s dynamic application of painted brushstrokes on the reverse side of the peacock ocelli feathers in Peacock Window. These oil-based brushstrokes delineate specific areas of the ocelli, enhancing their definition and modulating the tonal variations present within the composition.
Fig. 6 This detail, located on the reverse of one of the peonies, reveals an additional painted area where the artist applied a wash of oil-based paint. The texture is created through the technique of hatching, achieved by scraping away the paint. While the definitions of the marks are not visible from the front view, they nonetheless contribute to a mottled effect on the peonies, subtly influencing their visual appearance.
Fig. 7 The front of the peacock features a fused-glass area decorated with oil-based and glass-based paint applied in splotches and with a palette knife. These techniques yield more-pronounced tonal variations than those on the reverse.
Fig. 8 A fingerprint, transferred and created with one of La Farge’s paints, is notably distinct and pressed into the paint, sharply contrasting with the surrounding gestural brushstrokes.
Fig. 9 Detail of the extensive craquelure of the fused glass in the peacock and peonies. La Farge layered colorless glass over hundreds of colors before fusing them together. The craquelure originating from the original manufacturing process, due to incompatible expansion rates of the glass, creates a mesmerizing effect under transmitted illumination.
Fig. 10 The craquelure present throughout the fused glass areas, particularly in the tail feathers of the peacock, contributes to a distinctive shimmering effect.
Fig. 11 Detail of the peony in the upper proper-right corner under normal illumination, featuring a distinctive colorless glass piece characterized by blisters, cracks, and losses. The organic nature of the piece suggests personal manipulation, and the presence of embedded grime and calcification, which are absent elsewhere in the window, suggests a selection from an older glass source. This unique piece creates a blurred ethereal effect under transmitted illumination.
Fig. 12

Cypriote Vase, c. 1900, Designed by Louis Comfort Tiffany, made by the Tiffany Glass and Decorating Company, Corona, New York (1892–1902). Purchased with the Joseph E. Temple Fund, 1901. Image source: Philadelphia Museum of Art / Bridgeman Images.

A concept similar to that of La Farge but with a different outcome is visible in Tiffany’s use of crater-textured glass forms. Although the craters vary in size and pattern, there is a consistent softness, depth, and distribution throughout the piece.

Fig. 13a Detail of Peacock Window captured using Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI), illustrating the variety of cubic-shaped glass tesserae created before firing and craquelure resulting from the fusing process. The cubical glass exhibits softer, more closely parallel cuts, in contrast to the finer, organic branching cracks present in the fused glass.
Fig. 13b Detail captured using RTI, revealing a loss of cubical-shaped glass from the peacock that has exposed a grout-like material underneath that resembles mosaicking.
Fig. 14 Initially perceived as dense and challenging to interpret, this detail of the peacock under normal illumination reveals how La Farge colored his putties to match the hues of adjacent glass. Green-toned putty is utilized in the gaps beside the green glass, a technique also evident with the purple and orange putties. The use of colored putty may have been intended to avoid adding to lead lines and instead add color to the area in normal and/or transmitted light.
Fig. 15 This diagram illustrates the copper-foiling technique used in stained glass. The edges of flat glass pieces (indicated in green) are joined by wrapping the connecting edges with copper foil. These foiled areas are then soldered on the front and back (not depicted). Copper foil allows for thinner lead lines, varied widths along the same line, and joining intricate shapes and small glass pieces.
Fig. 16 Detail of copper foil along the heart of the lead around one of the cloisonné peonies in Peacock Window. A joining plate that fit beside the peony into the heart was temporarily removed for treatment, revealing the copper foil. The copper foil tends to extend the top flange of the peony, helping to create a thicker lead line. This method is visible around all cloisonné areas.
Fig. 17 Surrounding the peacock, including along the proper left border of the head, the copper foil serves a dual purpose: it extends the flange at the top and is also applied along adjacent glass plates to address any gaps. This copper foil supports the putty, which in turn blocks light leakage.
Fig. 18 Under normal illumination, black wax-like markings on a colorless glass plate were apparent, especially after surface cleaning. The markings show that the artist made a change in his choice for the shape.
Fig. 19a Whether the colorless glass plate with glass corrosion was selected intentionally or occurred after manufacture came into question. The black wax-like markings are present only in the corrosion pits, suggesting that the corrosion was present at the time of the selection of the glass plate.
Fig. 19b The corroded glass plate overlying the green foliage mutes the colors and imparts a delicate, organic, speckled appearance when viewed under transmitted illumination.
Fig. 19c When the corroded glass plate is removed, the foliage loses these characteristics, resulting in their appearing brighter with less variation in color tones and a flatter texture. These characteristics also shift the foliage forward into the same plane as the peacock.
of