Yep....yep...definately can make it out...it says ...Rolf Harris(joke for the UK people)
Titian (1485-1576) was one of the earliest artist to paint on canvas instead of wood but the substrate has subsisted until the present time.
Looks like a R at the beginning then an M then trails off into something like Mitas, Mitut????
With more light on the subject, the painting appears to have done by a student. It's still old but an expert might not be able to ID the painter. I wouldn't be looking for appraisals above $50,000.00. Whether it's worth spending the money to have an accredited appraiser give you a document is up to you.
Artists have been painting on boards since there were boards to paint on so that is not likely to provide much information. I'm an archaeologist not an art appraiser but as my area of study is the historic period (post 1500) and I would date the style of the dress in round numbers to 1650-1750) and the mirror in the late 17th early 18th century. This may well be a student copy. The artist seems to have trouble drafting hand and feet and the head looks to small for the trunk. It also looks like a bust that has been grafted on to another composition (personal opinion what do I know?). It may well be a 19th century copy of an earlier painting. As other posters have advised, you should probably have it looked at by a professional appraiser.
I totally agree with Acquiunk. There's a distinct lack of professionalism in the technique, composition and color.
To my eye, the last word of the writing on the back of the painting is "exhibition." Possibly the word before this is "Lido."
I would agree with Lightwizard and Acquiunk that this is very likely a student work. Also, I would agree that its being painted on wood is of no special significance.
If it's student work of the 19th century or earlier, it is very likely a copy. If the clothing can be dated more exactly, it may become practical for you to scan major European painting of the appropriate period.
The painting may be allegorical; a woman holding a mirror certainly is a familiar element in messages on the subject of vanity.
The 1868 puzzles me; it is not a date, however, that I would consider consonant with the style of dress in the painting.
Why would a student work be in an exhibition? Perhaps, it was in an art academy exhibition.
I've been acquainted with painters who are still painting in the Romantic style which I think this belongs to. There's a crudeness to the image that makes it looks very experimental -- it has an unfinished quality that makes it appear the painter was intimidated by the canvas. It doesn't appear to be faked by a modern painter and that's nearly out of the question because its in no particular identifyable period. It's in glazes but there's only a partial understanding of how that technique is brought to its fruition.
Hello,
I checked signatures from famous painters at
http://www.artarchiv.net/doku/artistsignatures.htm and the nearest I found was Gabriel Metsu 1629-1667. Hovever, the quality of his works seems so much higher than in the "lady with mirror" so it could possibly not be him.
I noted that he used to set his signature somewhere in the motive and not at the border, is that common?
Like others, I think it's a 19th century painting, especially due to the facts, Acquiunk noted above.
The exhibition might have been the Royal Academy Exhibition of 1868.
Some notes about this exhibition are to seen (in original and as transcripts)
HERE
Hi Lightwizard, Walter Hinteler, Material Girl, Aquiunk, hodak,
and Miklos7 !!!
Ossobuco sent me here to find you who are knowledgeable in the visual arts. I had asked her how I can find out the approximate value of some paintings my dad inherited. They are landscapes by W. Frederic Jarvis. At this point, I'm not looking for exact appraisals, but just an idea of the range of prices that Jarvis's works might command. I looked on line and there was one art site which has some of the Jarvis paintings, but price information is apparently available only to paid members of the site.
A friend of my dad said that the larger painting (a desert scene -- maybe 16X20) is probably worth little, but the smaller ones (maybe 12X10) might be valuable (whatever that means). These are also landscapes, but richer looking, -- really, my visual memory is poor, so I don't recall what they are, exactly, but they are appealing.
My dad is 83 years old and I don't know if he wants to sell these pieces, or if he is just curious to know their value. Do you have any suggestions?
Appreciatively,
Seattlefriend
Seattlefriend, hi!
I was just thinking, I bet people will say to take it to Christie's or Sotheby's to look at, and thought to myself, well, that's good if you live in New York.
(People have said earlier on this thread that what they give you is not a full appraisal, which costs more. I gather just a look-see doesn't cost that much.)
But then I thought Christie's etc might have a place in San Francisco, or, hey, Seattle.
and here it is - about halfway down the page.
http://www.seattleataglance.com/list_auctions.htm
Sotheby's is there too, with a street address.
Thanks Jo !! My Dad just sent me an e-mail to say that if I'm interested in these, he will put my name on them. Isn't that nice?? If he gives them to me, I will keep them, not sell them. I would still need to get an appraisal for insurance.
I'm still hoping to see some prices of Jarvis paintings that some person or gallery has for sale. If they are 'quite valuable', then I would feel obligated to compensate my four sibs somehow. If they are just valuable to me because I like them, then I can accept them worry-free.
Jeanne
Jeanne
Well, with Sotheby's in Seattle, and having them look at them costing close to nothing, I would do that if I were you.
