Cremorne Gardens, No. 2

James McNeill Whistler's Cremorne Gardens, No. 2 stretches a night-time gathering across an exceptionally wide canvas. Small figures circulate over a pale open foreground while dark trees and low pavilions close the upper field. Women's turquoise, cream, grey and pink dresses interrupt the subdued ground; men register as narrow black coats and top hats. Lamps strung among trees and buildings give the scene a scattered, festive rhythm without revealing one decisive event.^[1][4]

This is YMSM 164 and Metropolitan Museum of Art object 12.32. The catalogue raisonné dates it 1875–77, whereas the Met retains the broader institutional label `ca. 1870–80`. It is oil on canvas, unsigned and uninscribed. The Met measures it at 68.6 by 134.9 centimetres, or 94 by 160 by 8.8 centimetres in its frame. The John Stewart Kennedy Fund enabled its purchase in 1912.^[1][2][3]

When checked on 26 August 2026, the painting was on view in Gallery 768 at the Met Fifth Avenue. Gallery assignments change, so that statement is dated rather than permanent. The accession number remains the stable institutional locator.^[1][2]

At a Glance

• CatalogueYMSM 164
• Date1875–77
• SupportOil on canvas
• Dimensions68.6 × 134.9 cm; framed 94 × 160 × 8.8 cm
• SignatureUnsigned and uninscribed
• SubjectCremorne Gardens piazza and evening gathering
• Preferred titleCremorne Gardens, No. 2
• FrameGrau-style frame, about the 1890s
• CollectionMetropolitan Museum of Art, 12.32
• DisplayGallery 768 on 26 August 2026; verify current status

Contents

1. Which Cremorne picture is this?
2. Why date it 1875–77?
3. A canvas almost twice as wide as it is high
4. Looking from left to right
5. Light without a central firework
6. What was Cremorne Gardens?
7. Why the gardens closed in 1877
8. Fashionable women in public space
9. Were the women sex workers?
10. Figures that refuse street types

Which Cremorne picture is this?

Whistler painted six surviving nocturnal subjects associated with Cremorne Gardens. This one is the largest and most densely populated. It is an interior view across a broad piazza, not the distant constellation of riverside lamps in Tate's Nocturne: Blue and Silver—Cremorne Lights. It also lacks the dominating pyrotechnics of The Fire Wheel and The Falling Rocket.^[4]

The title's number does not supply a making sequence. Cremorne Gardens, No. 2 follows Cremorne, No. 1 in modern catalogue usage, but no document establishes which canvas Whistler began first. The nearby YMSM numbers identify different compositions rather than consecutive frames of one spectacle.^[3][4]

The distinction protects what is unusual here. Instead of watching Cremorne from the Thames, the viewer occupies the social space of the gardens. Architecture, trees, lamps, chairs and bodies share the same shallow field. Night remains important, but human proximity replaces the expansive water that governs many Whistler nocturnes.^[1][4]

Why date it 1875–77?

On 18 September 1875 Whistler's mother, Anna Matilda Whistler, added to a long family letter that her son's moonlight pictures included one recently finished view of Cremorne Gardens in Chelsea. The remark establishes an active Cremorne campaign by that date. It does not name or describe YMSM 164 closely enough to prove that this was the newly finished canvas.^[3][8]

Object-specific comparison gives the firmer range. YMSM 163, 164 and 165 are closely related in handling and subject. The long, narrow skirts and trains worn by the women correspond to fashions of the later 1870s, while Cremorne's closure in 1877 supplies a practical endpoint for direct observation of the operating resort. YMSM therefore prefers 1875–77 to the older `about 1872/7` range.^[3][4]

The Met's `ca. 1870–80` label is not evidence for another version or a decade of continuous repainting. It is a deliberately broad public date. Both records can be preserved while recognising why the specialist catalogue is more exact: correspondence, costume, comparison and site history converge without fixing a single evening.^[1][3]

A canvas almost twice as wide as it is high

The picture's proportions determine how it is read. At nearly 135 centimetres across and under 69 centimetres high, it behaves less like a window onto a central incident than a field through which attention travels. No figure occupies a commanding axis. The eye passes laterally from lights and pale dresses to empty ground, dark trunks, scattered furniture and another group.^[1][2][4]

The foreground is strikingly open. Its pale brown-grey expanse gives the nearest figures room to breathe and separates their small colour notes. Some appear to stand alone; others face companions or sit near tables. The gaps are not missing narrative links. They are intervals that make bodily movement and stillness perceptible at a distance.^[4][13]

At the top, low architecture runs against a dark mass of foliage or sky. Taller trees and structures close the sides, preventing the panorama from becoming an unbounded landscape. This shallow enclosure makes the viewer aware of being inside a managed entertainment ground rather than looking across a natural clearing.^[4]

Looking from left to right

The left half begins with rows of small lights and dark verticals. Pale figures gather nearby, including a standing woman whose blue-green dress remains one of the clearest notes in the painting. Her form is narrow and elongated; background colour passes visibly through parts of it. Beside her, darker companions are indicated with much less paint.^[4][5]

Further right, figures disperse across the piazza. White-grey and warm cream dresses alternate with black coats. Heads can be counted more readily than faces can be read. Whistler gives posture through a tilted dash, a tapering skirt or the angle between two bodies, but he avoids the facial specificity that would turn a social type into an identified individual.^[4][13][14]

At the extreme right, chairs and tables become clearer. A seated man has generated more commentary than the other figures because early writers proposed him as Whistler. Yet the head contains no reliable likeness. His value within the composition is more secure than his identity: a dark, stable shape at the edge balances the brighter standing women elsewhere.^[4][11]

Light without a central firework

Rows of lamps are embedded in the middle distance. They run across parts of the architecture and between trees, sometimes as warm dots and sometimes as short pale strokes. Unlike The Fire Wheel or The Falling Rocket, no single explosion organises the picture. Illumination is distributed across the resort.^[1][4]

That distribution makes the gathering look intermittent. A group brightens, then the next passage sinks into brown-green darkness. The lights do not reveal every chair, face or pavilion. They establish the environment of commercial evening pleasure while leaving much of it unresolved.^[4][13]

The Met calls the work a `so-called nocturne`, acknowledging that the preferred title does not contain Whistler's usual musical category. Visually, however, it belongs to his night pictures through limited tonal range, abbreviated forms and artificial light. Calling it a nocturnal Cremorne painting is more precise than silently retitling it.^[1][4]

What was Cremorne Gardens?

Cremorne occupied a former private estate on the Chelsea bank of the Thames, west of Whistler's homes at Lindsey Row. After a short-lived sporting venture, the grounds developed into a public pleasure resort in the mid-1840s and expanded during the 1850s. Its attractions included concerts, dancing, theatre, galas, balloon ascents and elaborate fireworks.^[15][16]

The gardens were accessible by road and river. A pier and waterside entrance connected them to metropolitan travel, while long walks, planted areas, pavilions and performance structures created a setting in which looking at other visitors was itself an attraction. Fashion, movement and visibility were part of the business of the place.^[14][16]

The resort's character shifted with hour, event and observer. Families and fashionable visitors used it, especially by day. At night it drew a wider mixture of customers and workers. Music and spectacle offered genuine leisure, but the same economy created opportunities for drinking, disorder, sexual commerce and exploitation.^[1][14][15]

Why the gardens closed in 1877

By the 1870s Cremorne carried a strong public reputation for drunkenness, prostitution and vice. Chelsea Vestry and allied local interests campaigned against renewal of its entertainment licence. When the lease lapsed in 1877, the grounds closed and much of the site was subsequently redeveloped for housing and industry.^[15][16]

That history requires careful language. The official complaints document regulation, anxiety and reputation; they are not a census proving that every night visitor was disorderly or every unaccompanied woman sold sex. Victorian campaigns against leisure sites often joined genuine concerns about harm to moral policing of class and gender.^[14][15]

Whistler's date range brings the canvas close to the end of the gardens. Yet the painting contains no legible eviction, protest or final-night ceremony. Closure gives historical pressure to the scene without becoming its illustrated subject.^[3][15]

Fashionable women in public space

Women are the painting's most visible carriers of colour. Their long trained dresses produce pale, tapering shapes against the ground. Comparison with fashion plates from around 1878 helps explain those silhouettes: narrow skirts and substantial trains were current devices of display, materially awkward but visually conspicuous in spaces of promenade.^[3][4]

Patricia de Montfort argues that women in Whistler's Thames and Chelsea pictures should not be reduced to decorative accents. Women crossed bridges, shopped, worked, accompanied families and occupied new parks and embankment spaces. Their visibility helped define modern urban life even when law, income and convention limited their freedom.^[14]

That framework changes the question asked of the canvas. A pale dress need not be either a colour patch or a documentary person, since it can perform both functions. Whistler composed colour through women whose participation in public leisure had social meaning.^[14]

Were the women sex workers?

Some may have been. Cremorne's night economy included sex work, and contemporary observers often regarded fashionable or unaccompanied women there through that lens. De Montfort places such labour within a spectrum extending from opportunity to exploitation, illness and early death.^[14][15]

The Met's earlier interpretation proposed a particular encounter involving four prostitutes and a potential customer. This is a plausible curatorial hypothesis, not a visibly demonstrable plot. The figures have no readable expressions, and their positions do not securely disclose an offer, negotiation or payment.^[1][4]

To identify every painted woman as a prostitute would reproduce the period's moral surveillance rather than analyse it. To exclude sex work altogether would sanitise the historical resort. The evidence supports a middle position: the picture arises from a mixed social environment in which fashionable display, paid entertainment, labour and sexual commerce overlapped.^[14]

Figures that refuse street types

Victorian modern-life paintings often made class and morality readable through faces, costume contrasts and narrative encounters. Whistler does almost the opposite. His bodies are attenuated, partially transparent and physiognomically blank. They cannot be sorted confidently into virtuous family, dangerous stranger, customer and sex worker.^[13][14]

De Montfort stresses that this ghostliness resists the sharp `gold and mud` oppositions through which city life was frequently pictured. The figures are socially suggestive but narratively underdetermined. Their anonymity opens interpretation while setting a limit on it.^[14]

Some may not be direct portraits of visitors at all. Whistler could have absorbed postures in the gardens, made monochrome notes, remembered arrangements and used studio models. An urban subject need not be a report of one clock-time view. Its historical value lies partly in how it transforms experience.^[12][14]

Is the seated man Whistler?

Thomas Robert Way and G. R. Dennis proposed that the man seated at the far right represented Whistler. The 1905 memorial catalogue went further and presented the identification to exhibition visitors. Because the figure seems to watch rather than circulate, the idea of the artist as detached observer has proved attractive.^[11][17]

Albert Eugene Gallatin objected that no features support a portrait. Later examination agrees: the early reproduction does not provide a recognisable face, and the other figures are equally summary. A dark coat, top hat and seated pose are not sufficient likeness evidence.^[5][11][13]

The proposal belongs in reception history, not in the caption as fact. It shows how viewers wanted to anchor Whistler's dispersed gathering in a named consciousness. The painting itself declines to confirm them.^[11]

Very thin paint

YMSM describes the execution as exceptionally thin. Broad brushes carried long, diluted strokes across the background. In places paint was scrubbed onto the surface; elsewhere it was rubbed away. The resulting field is uneven in density without becoming heavily built.^[5]

Whistler switched to a smaller brush for costume and furniture. Dots, dashes and broken lines indicate a head, train, sleeve, chair back or lamp. Those marks are slightly more substantial than the washes beneath them, so a figure can emerge without receiving continuous contour.^[5][13]

This economy is not the same as carelessness. The marks distinguish walking from sitting, dark evening wear from light fabric and architecture from tree. Their reduction asks the viewer to complete relations, not to imagine information that contradicts the surface.^[5]

Background first, figures afterwards

The standing women at the left were painted after the background. Dark ground and wash remain visible through the blue dress, proving that Whistler did not reserve a clean opaque silhouette before filling it. The figure was assembled over an existing tonal field.^[5]

That sequence matters to appearance. A pale dress looks luminous because it incorporates the colour beneath, not because it is a solid isolated shape. The person appears simultaneously present and permeable. Similar effects occur across the groups, where an arm or skirt can dissolve after a few strokes.^[5][13]

The method also joins figure and place. Background is not scenery painted around completed bodies; it passes through their construction. Whistler's social field is materially continuous even when viewers want to identify separate participants.^[5]

Alterations beneath the present gathering

The canvas shows signs of revision. YMSM concludes that more figures originally occupied the two groups left and right of centre. Whistler reduced or displaced some of them, leaving the current gaps and partial traces.^[5]

This is a useful limit on instantaneity. The scene may evoke a passing crowd, but its distribution was edited. The open foreground and isolated bodies are products of selection as well as observation. A figure could be removed when it disturbed an interval, even if such removal made the social story harder to read.^[5]

The adjustments do not make the work unfinished. They show that Whistler tested population and balance on the same surface. In a picture built from small marks, subtraction could be as consequential as adding another person.^[5][13]

Darkening, fading and transparency

Thin light paint can become more transparent as it ages, allowing the ground to play a stronger role. YMSM also notes that the picture has darkened slightly. These changes may alter the relative visibility of faint features and erased forms without providing a simple reconstruction of an original state.^[5]

The Met's 1985 catalogue connected the fugitive appearance to light paint over a dark prepared surface. Its broad account of Whistler's fluid `sauce` is consistent with the visible result, but YMSM's object-specific description remains the safer authority: washes, scrubbing, broken marks and changing transparency can be stated; a complete recipe cannot.^[5][13]

Reproduction intensifies the problem. If the dark field is crushed, figures disappear; if the image is brightened, the nocturnal enclosure weakens. The Met's Open Access master is therefore valuable for identity and close visual study without becoming a neutral substitute for the object's scale and surface.^[1][2]

Did cleaning erase two portraits?

The Pennells wrote in 1920 that Thomas Robert Way had cleaned the painting and that portraits of Whistler and Frederick Leyland, visible when they first photographed it, later disappeared. The story has often been repeated because it turns ambiguous condition into dramatic loss.^[5][12]

Their own 1908 reproduction undermines the claim. The figures were already featureless there. Both YMSM and the Met's later catalogue conclude that the image does not support the disappearance of two recognisable portraits through cleaning.^[5][13]

Optical change remains possible. Fading, transparency, darkening or treatment could make minor marks more or less visible. None proves that those marks once formed Whistler and Leyland. Conservation history should distinguish plausible physical change from the named identities attached to it.^[5]

A later Grau-style frame

The present surround is recorded as a Grau-style frame dating from about the 1890s, with a moulding approximately 12.7 centimetres wide. This places it within the period when Whistler increasingly used restrained gilded frames associated with Frederick Henry Grau.^[3][5]

There is no secure first-frame history for the picture. The existing object should therefore not be called Whistler's original frame or treated as evidence of exactly how the canvas looked in the 1870s. It belongs to a later stage of the painting's presentation.^[5]

Even so, its broad gold edge changes the picture's effect. The dark garden is held within a luminous perimeter, and the long horizontal format becomes more emphatic. That visual contribution can be described without claiming authorship that the record does not prove.^[5]

Whistler offered two Cremornes in 1877

In November 1877 Whistler offered Alfred Chapman `two Cremornes` for £80. Chapman agreed to acquire one, and the work securely connected with that transaction is YMSM 168. The document does not identify both offered canvases.^[6][9]

YMSM 164 should not be inserted into the gap simply because it later had an uncertain ownership history. Several Cremorne pictures were available, and title variants were unstable. The correspondence establishes market activity around the group, not this painting's sale.^[6][9]

That restraint prevents a false straight line from Whistler's studio to Chapman and the Met. The documented early owner of Cremorne Gardens, No. 2 was Thomas Way, under circumstances reported after the event by his son.^[6]

Bankruptcy and Thomas Way

Thomas Robert Way wrote that Whistler had `more or less destroyed` the canvas around his 1879 bankruptcy. According to the memoir, auctioneers considered it unsaleable, and Thomas Way bought it before the White House contents were sold. He later gave it to his son.^[6][10]

The account fits the painting's altered, thin and damaged-looking reputation, but it remains retrospective family testimony. `Destroyed` may describe Whistler's own cancellation, physical condition, an unfinished appearance or Way's sense of rescue. It should not be converted into a technical diagnosis unsupported by examination.^[5][10]

The painting hung in T. R. Way's rooms. Whistler apparently did not know where it was until he encountered it there around 1896. That rediscovery transformed a disregarded bankruptcy remnant into a contested asset.^[6][10]

The 1896 dispute

Way recalled Whistler saying that he had never received consideration for the picture and asking for its return. Way interpreted the request commercially: the artist probably knew where it could be placed at a substantial price. Whistler's statement instead framed the issue as uncompensated ownership.^[6][10]

Thomas Way did not return the painting. His retention contributed to the rupture between printer and artist in 1896, according to T. R. Way. The episode joined friendship, labour, bankruptcy and rapidly rising values in one quarrel.^[6][10]

Way's memoir provides unusually close testimony, but it is not disinterested. It defended his father and explained a broken relationship after Whistler's death. The most responsible reconstruction preserves both the reported words and the son's interpretation without pretending to know Whistler's sole motive.^[10]

An uncertain path into the market

It is unclear exactly when Way sold the canvas. Charles Lang Freer noted a Cremorne with small dancing figures at Agnew in 1903. In 1909 he recorded that it was being offered through F. C. Yardley. Those notices complicate any single transaction from Way to a final buyer.^[6][13]

The Pennells said Way sold it to Alexander Arnold Hannay a few years after Whistler's death for £1,200. It was certainly in Hannay's Albemarle Street house in 1910. That year it was offered to the National Gallery of Victoria for £4,000.^[6][12]

Joseph Pennell advised Melbourne that the picture was a good and beautiful example but that the price was too high. His judgement shows how rapidly Whistler's posthumous market could outpace even supporters' valuations. The rejected offer also prevented an Australian public destination before the Met acquisition.^[6]

The secure 1905 exhibition

The New Gallery's Whistler memorial exhibition of 1905 included the painting as catalogue number 25, lent by T. R. Way. This is the first secure documented exhibition. The catalogue used the preferred title and told visitors that the artist appeared seated at a table on the right.^[6][17]

Later writers tried to extend the exhibition history backwards, identifying it with an RBA picture in 1887 or a Brussels exhibit in 1888. YMSM rejects those proposals as probably wrong because Way's account says Whistler did not rediscover the painting's whereabouts until about 1896.^[6][7]

The 1905 display remains consequential without invented precursors. It placed a previously obscure, disputed canvas inside the principal posthumous survey and helped stabilise both its title and public status.^[7][17]

Why the Met once called it unfinished

Percy Moore Turner sold the painting to the Metropolitan Museum in 1912 using the John Stewart Kennedy Fund. Acquisition curator Bryson Burroughs described it as an unfinished work of considerable promise and explained its ambiguity through incomplete execution.^[1][6][18]

The Met's later collection catalogue reassessed that view. Whistler's broken marks and thin bodies were deliberate enough to sustain the composition; calling them unfinished imposed expectations of modelling and finish that the artist had set aside. Burroughs nevertheless perceived the work's suggestive colour and the way night transformed the site.^[13][18]

The disagreement is useful reception evidence. It shows that entry into a major museum did not end uncertainty about what counted as completion. Repeating `unfinished` as a condition fact would be misleading, but the category through which the museum first explained its purchase remains historically important.^[13]

The painting at the Met today

The Met now records the canvas in the American Wing, although Whistler made it in London after settling permanently in Europe. Departmental classification concerns museum organisation and the artist's nationality; it does not turn Cremorne into an American subject.^[1][2]

Current measurements also correct older repetition. YMSM's header gives 68.5 by 135.5 centimetres, while the Met's live record gives 68.6 by 134.9. The current holder's examination governs, with the small difference acknowledged rather than silently harmonised.^[1][2][3]

The museum marks the painting and its principal image as public domain. Its Open Access policy permits copying, modification and distribution for commercial and non-commercial purposes. A high-resolution official file can therefore be used while keeping the title, artist and accession accurate.^[1][2]

Why Cremorne Gardens, No. 2 matters

This painting widens the meaning of Whistler's nocturne practice. Night is not only river, fog and distant illumination. It is also a social interior in which dresses, hats, chairs, trees and lamps emerge briefly from a shared ground. The panorama turns a crowd into intervals without denying that the bodies occupied a historically charged public place.^[4][14]

Its uncertainty is productive only when controlled. The far-right figure may suggest an observer but cannot be named; some women may be sex workers but cannot all be classified; cleaning may have altered transparency but did not demonstrably erase two portraits; the canvas may look unfinished to one viewer while its revisions show purposeful selection.^{[5][11][13][14]}

The provenance completes that lesson. A painting rejected as unsaleable, retained by a printer, disputed by Whistler, priced aggressively after his death and historicised as unfinished entered the Met within thirty-three years of the bankruptcy. Its present quietness carries histories of leisure, gender, work, treatment, friendship and value that no single anecdote can contain.^[6][10][13]

Frequently Asked Questions

References

1. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, “Cremorne Gardens, No. 2,” object 12.32, accessed 26 August 2026, https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/13223.
2. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Collection API, object 13223, and Open Access policy, accessed 26 August 2026, https://collectionapi.metmuseum.org/public/collection/v1/objects/13223 and https://www.metmuseum.org/policies/image-resources.
3. Margaret F. MacDonald and Grischka Petri, “Cremorne Gardens, No. 2 (YMSM 164): Date,” James McNeill Whistler: The Paintings, a Catalogue Raisonné, University of Glasgow, updated 23 October 2020, https://www.whistlerpaintings.gla.ac.uk/catalogue/display/?mid=y164.
4. MacDonald and Petri, “Cremorne Gardens, No. 2 (YMSM 164): Subject and Titles,” University of Glasgow, updated 23 October 2020, https://www.whistlerpaintings.gla.ac.uk/catalogue/display/?mid=y164&xml=sub.
5. MacDonald and Petri, “Cremorne Gardens, No. 2 (YMSM 164): Technical Description,” University of Glasgow, updated 23 October 2020, https://www.whistlerpaintings.gla.ac.uk/catalogue/display/?mid=y164&xml=tec.
6. MacDonald and Petri, “Cremorne Gardens, No. 2 (YMSM 164): History,” University of Glasgow, updated 23 October 2020, https://www.whistlerpaintings.gla.ac.uk/catalogue/display/?mid=y164&xml=his.
7. MacDonald and Petri, “Cremorne Gardens, No. 2 (YMSM 164): Bibliography,” University of Glasgow, updated 23 October 2020, https://www.whistlerpaintings.gla.ac.uk/catalogue/display/?mid=y164&xml=bib.
8. Anna Matilda Whistler to James H. and Harriet Gamble, 9–20 September 1875, GUW 06555, The Correspondence of James McNeill Whistler, University of Glasgow, https://www.whistler.arts.gla.ac.uk/correspondence/recno/display/?cid=06555.
9. James McNeill Whistler to Alfred Chapman, November 1877, GUW 09037, The Correspondence of James McNeill Whistler, University of Glasgow, https://www.whistler.arts.gla.ac.uk/correspondence/recno/display/?cid=09037.
10. Thomas Robert Way, Memories of James McNeill Whistler, the Artist (London and New York: John Lane, 1912), 134–38, https://archive.org/details/memoriesofjamesm00wayt.
11. Thomas Robert Way and G. R. Dennis, The Art of James McNeill Whistler: An Appreciation (London: George Bell and Sons, 1903), 61; Albert Eugene Gallatin, The Portraits and Caricatures of James McNeill Whistler (London, New York and Toronto: John Lane, 1913), 7–8.
12. Elizabeth Robins Pennell and Joseph Pennell, The Life of James McNeill Whistler, 2 vols (London and Philadelphia, 1908), 1:258; revised 6th ed. (Philadelphia, 1920), 187; and The Whistler Journal (Philadelphia, 1921), 117, 134.
13. Natalie Spassky et al., American Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art, vol. 2, A Catalogue of Works by Artists Born between 1816 and 1845 (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1985), 367–70, https://www.metmuseum.org/art/metpublications/American_Paintings_in_The_Metropolitan_Museum_of_Art_Vol_2.
14. Patricia de Montfort, “Women in Whistler's Images of Chelsea and the Thames,” British Art Studies 22 (2022), https://doi.org/10.17658/issn.2058-5462/issue-22/pdemontfort.
15. Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, hosted Chelsea Creek historic development and townscape assessments, accessed 26 August 2026, https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/documents/LR41%20HTVIA%20Lo%20Res.pdf.
16. London Museum, “The Waterside Entrance to Cremorne Gardens” and “What were London's pleasure gardens?”, accessed 26 August 2026, https://www.londonmuseum.org.uk/collections/v/object-99256/the-waterside-entrance-to-cremorne-gardens/ and https://www.londonmuseum.org.uk/collections/london-stories/what-were-londons-pleasure-gardens/.
17. International Society of Sculptors, Painters and Gravers, Memorial Exhibition of the Works of the Late James McNeill Whistler (London: William Heinemann, 1905), cat. 25, https://library.si.edu/digital-library/book/memorialexhibit00whisd.
18. Bryson Burroughs, “Cremorne Gardens No. 2 by James McNeill Whistler,” Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art 7 (April 1912): 74–75, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3252725.