I might suggest
that perhaps a day or two at the local art museum -- or even a intensive 16-week online art history course -- would allow you to make an informed judgement about your "mid-century" painting.
But I'm glad you like it. That puts you in the company of the most-admired art collectors -- as I see it.
Oooh! The good art vs. bad art debate!
I love those! May I start?
The painting in question, while not my cup of tea, does suggest that the artist did, at least, receive some training and I think it is very probably a mid-century piece. To me, it shows a fairly deft hand, a somewhat developed style, and an estabished technique. It wouldn't surprise me at all if this artist had been relatively prolific.
Tang, it's great that you enjoy your picture. I'd suggest putting an appropriate frame on it.
Well Thankyou!
Thank you for your comments, I agree that the painting has been done with some skill ie the loose brushstrokes showing great suggested detail and the highlights on the gold earrings and necklace.
There was a gold frame on it but I took the canvas out of it - personally I did not like the frame - what would you suggest?
Howdy-
Pertaining to the advice of SDR, I'd like to add that I have learned a lot from art/design textbooks etc. that I have found at a variety of different sources, mainly thrift stores. Education doesn't have to involve tuition. The artisan approach isn't strictly for the uneducated either...but having the willingness to increase the knowledge to discern these things really helps to appreciate various art(s). Balance...
The painting
in question exhibits the skills of a competent and experienced commercial illustrator, certainly. The face is symmetrical; the eyes are of the same size and color and point in the same direction; hair is well rendered and the brushwork is confident (above the neck, anyway) and does the intended job. It avoids any of the traits that would distinguish it as the work of an individual with original ideas and something new to say. It might have been made in 1950, or in 1850 or 1750 -- almost.
Perhaps I acquired my thoughts about such things from a parent who was an artist and poet, with a successful if limited career as a painter and printmaker. She was careful to distinguish between one sort of art and another -- though in truth her own work fell somewhere in the middle of the range between Commercial and Fine . . .
I suppose
a gilded halo might spruce up this country girl -- but a more honest frame would be made "country style" -- of birch-bark, complete with knots ?
This could easily be an assembly-line painting, destined for those week-end parking-lot sales where you can get a "sofa-sized" oil for $69.95. The "hair girl" on this one was good, while the "dress person" and the "jewelry guy" were so-so. If the "face painter" was out sick, the whole operation ground to a halt . . .
"Skilled", yes.... but at what?
My sense is that this artist probably cranked out way too many of this very same portrait. (Substituting stylized oversized eyes for more carefully observed ones, etc.)
While the painting does have the flavor and the look of illustration of the time that it was produced in, I would not expect to find this artist in a museum.
Skill is indeed evident, but to a large degree, this artist was clearly painting for a market, going for a generic "look" rather than investigating anything of substance in a truly artful way.
Just my narrow opinion of course. Feel free to disagree. Thats half the reason for Art after all...
In fact, I wish the painting were a bit uglier or had half an once of EDGE to it.
Please, no gold.
Maybe a hint of disressed gilding on a liner, but I think a simple period scoop style moulding, not too wide, in combed or brushed limed oak or chestnut would do nicely.
I do agree with Mark, though, that the reverse sides of canvas paintings often offer more clues as to period and origin than the face sides will.
My guess is that the picture was hand-done as part of a large wholesale commission intended for the American mass market possibly in Europe or South America sometime in the 50's-'70's.
Well, the back doesn't tell us much.
Seeing the tack edge might help a little, but here's what I've got:
Primed cotton duck canvas stretched on a simple pine or fir strainer marked with a tracking number in graphite pencil mounted with a common brass-plated steel D-ring hangar.
Overall, I would call the condition "good".
The "1" in the number hints at foreign origin.
Please note that I've refrained from offering any critical opinion as to the artistic merit of your painting here. To me, - and I've said this before on this forum - there is no "bad" or "good" art. There is only art that you like and art that you don't. If you find the response that your painting evokes from you to be pleasurable, that's all that matters.
Now, if you happen across a painting that everyone else likes, too, then you're really on to something special!
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com