The critical dichotomy between conservative critics and progressive critics became evident early on as Modern Painters I was attacked by the conservative Art Union Journal in June 1843, but welcomed by the radical Westminster Review (see Works, 3.xliii and Westminster Review, August 1843). There were many sympathetic reviews including those which appeared in the Globe, 30 August 1843, the Weekly Chronicle, 16 September 1843, the Churchman, October 1843, the Foreign and Colonial Quarterly Review, October 1843, the Gentleman's Magazine, November 1843, the Britannia, 9 December 1843, the Church of England Quarterly, January 1844, the Spectator, 7 December 1844 and the Artist's and Amateur's Magazine, December 1844. The majority of critics praised the originality and boldness of an aesthetic system based on the close observation of nature, but were less happy with what they perceived as an over-emphasis on the landscapes of Turner. The Church of England Quarterly Review was one of the first periodicals to quote from the work at length in order to convey to readers Ruskin's arguments and prose style.
Modern Painters I was attacked by John Eagles of Blackwood's Magazine, the critic who had initiated the critical attack on Turner, and George Darley of the Athenaeum. Ruskin entered into dialogue with these critics in the Preface to the second edition of Modern Painters I (March 1844) following reviews in Blackwood's Magazine, October 1843 and the Athenaeum, 3 and 10 February 1844. Support for the Ruskin's work came, particularly during 1846 and 1847, from periodicals with a religious or moral agenda. Shortly before the publication of Modern Painters II, Fraser's Magazine published a sympathetic review stressing the moral emphasis of Modern Painters I, a trend to be followed by the newly-founded periodicals of dissent (see Fraser's Magazine, March 1846, and Reviews of Modern Painters I, July 1846-January 1848).