Is this considered realism?

Hi everyone - 

I was lucky enough purchase this painting yesterday at an estate sale.  Painted by Ignace Spiridon, probably around 1900, assuming it’s authentic.  Would you categorize this as realism?  I really am not sure.  Either way, a lovely painting.  Just curious as to evyerone’s opinion on the style.  



MichaelDanweshaSummerDiannaWIKENkaustavMBOB73allforChrist

Comments

  • edited July 2019
    Its lovely, her face, the fabric, the fruit, and right down to the dirt in her fingernails.

    It strikes me as realism

    spiffypix
  • Thanks for the feedback.  It was her very pink cheeks that were throwing me off, I think.  But yeah, the dirt in the fingernails...wow.

  • Found this on the internet.  May be useful here.  Definitely realism.  "Ignace Spiridon was an Italian painter who was born in 1845. Ignace Spiridon's work has been offered at auction multiple times, with realized prices ranging from $124 USD to $20,000 USD, depending on the size and medium of the artwork."
    spiffypix
  • Yes, I have learned a lot about him today...He actually painted Mark Twain!  Thank you so much for looking that up for me.  I truly wasn’t sure if it was considered realism.  Glad to hear that my gut was right.  😁 
    Marinos_88Hunter1
  • wow!! what a painting! congratulations on being the new owner!! every inch is painted with so much care!
    spiffypix
  • Thanks Anwesha!  I can’t believe my good fortune.  :)
    anwesha
  • edited July 2019
    Wonderful realism. Wonderful painting! Nice investment. 
    spiffypix
  • tassieguy said:
    Wonderful realism. Wonderful painting! Nice investment. 
    So happy to have it.  :)
  • You know what’s interesting, I found another version of this painting online that sold at auction in 2001.  But it’s just slightly different than mine..  little things, like, the auction piece has no grapes in the basket and her kerchief is different.  At first i thought mine was a forgery or copy but i’m Wondering if the artist painted a second version after refining a few things?  (She also appears to be Brunette n the auction piece)
    Julianna
  • This is why it is so important to state: "Study after: name of original artist here." when copies are painted.  Just saying.  They are both beautiful. 
    Juliannaspiffypix
  • What a fabulous find!!!!!!!!    It is a beautiful painting.  What a story there is going to be …  your reference that you found online is really fascinating and perplexing but I keep looking at your frame and those keys.....   gosh...……..  this is so fascinating.  Please keep us informed with what you find out!
    spiffypix
  • edited July 2019
    Julianna said:
    What a fabulous find!!!!!!!!    It is a beautiful painting.  What a story there is going to be …  your reference that you found online is really fascinating and perplexing but I keep looking at your frame and those keys.....   gosh...……..  this is so fascinating.  Please keep us informed with what you find out!
    I sure will keep you updated, Julianna.  The more I look at it, the more research I do, I really feel like the auction piece was the original and then he painted the second one in order to refine it.  It’s just so close to the original.... I’m not so sure the frame is that old.   But again, not sure.  The frame is wood.  There are a lot of holes from nails.  But it’s the fresh-ish gold paint that is throwing me off.  So, I’m wondering if it’s the old, original frame and it was refinished when the painting was cleaned.  🤷🏽‍♀️. Either way, i’m So happy they had it cleaned!  The difference between clean and dirty is staggering.  Oh and I have this in a couple of Facebook artwork groups and people are trying to tell me that this a textured print on canvas, such as a giclee.  
  • One more thing I found interesting - The image on the left was taken indoors, using incandescent light with a cellphone.  The image on the right was  taken outdoors in bright sunlight.  These photos are completely unedited   Look at the difference in contrast!  The light quality really makes the painting look very, very different.  Look at the redness of the kerchief!


  • CJDCJD -
    edited July 2019
    Very cool!

    Also, if that's not realism then I don't know what is!
    spiffypixallforChrist
  • This looks like the main piece and what a wonderful painting! It seems that it would give you some idea about the master's technique.
    spiffypix
  • Absolutely. In this back lit photo (back lit by the sun), you can see how he built up the paint in certain areas.  And notice the stretcher bar and keys block the light.
  • In the close-up photos you posted, it looks to me like it was painted in the fashion in an old style glazing used by adherents of "the brown school".  Makes me think your version is authentic
    spiffypix
  • Wow, interesting, Bsarts.   I’ll have to look into that ‘brown school’ stuff.  Thanks !
  • Realism doesn't get realer than this. Maybe a little influence from the romantism phase that lasted through the first half of the 19th century. Is there a signature on your painting? does it match the signature on the auction painting? Artists did paint the same painting adding and modifying things but I'm not an expert to know if this is an artist who did that. Be pleased that what ever the source, you have a beautiful painting.
    spiffypix
  • edited July 2019
    Thanks for the great insight, Bob.  It is signed and similar to other signatures, but unable to see the signature of the painting that I found online, as i was only Able to find a thumbnail.  There is a number on the back, written in pencil, “3/136”, which, in my head, means a third copy of this, his 136th painting.  I TOTALLY just made that reasoning up LOL!  But I guess it could make sense.  He has a lot of paintings but no biography that I could find.  🤷🏽‍♀️ 
    BOB73
  • @spiffypix, congratulations! Good eye!

    Your painting is from either the late 1800’s or early 1900’s. Can’t see the canvas thread count well enough to know for sure. If the weave is looser,(more space between the threads), it’s the former - which I suspect it might be due to how much the original appearing keys have oxidized, etc.

    The ‘H’ frame stretchers show it was made in Europe. Even back then American stretchers were mitered.

    The original frame looks like it may have been swapped out due to the spacers added between the frame and the canvas’ stretcher bars on two sides. Can’t tell more from the pictures.

    The numbers you see and the ‘35’ on the back of the canvas are probably a batch number and lot number from old auctions. If it had a great frame originally it may have had its own auction number - but then you probably wouldn’t have gotten a good estate sale deal - so there’s that.

    Please don’t hang it by that brittle old wire.  :)

     
Sign In or Register to comment.