Pushing5150
Greenie
I actually found this dumpster diving.. I know that it is an oil on paper on canvas by Maurice Utrillo called Eglise de Banlieue Vers...
Painting
- Thread starter Pushing5150
- Start date
- Oct 26, 2004
- 24,095
- 22,873
- 🏆 Honorable Mentions:
- 2
- Detector(s) used
- Minelab Explorer
- Primary Interest:
- Shipwrecks
Some history about your artist:
[FONT="]Early 20th-century Paris was the chaotic incubator of modern art. Born into this tumult in 1883 as the fatherless son of a former circus acrobat, Maurice Utrillo lived the definition of "La Vie Boheme," a Bohemian life. In his youth, Utrillo's mother encouraged him to pursue art as an antidote to his alcoholism; advice he took enthusiastically. Maurice Utrillo's paintings of cities and landscapes highlight his self-taught skill in Post-Impressionism and Cubism techniques.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Maurice Utrillo paintings, prints, and lithographs number in the thousands, but his most popular come from his "white period," named for depictions of plaster walls lining bleached pathways. The value of Maurice Utrillo's prints has only increased since his death in 1955.
Don...[/FONT]
[FONT="]Early 20th-century Paris was the chaotic incubator of modern art. Born into this tumult in 1883 as the fatherless son of a former circus acrobat, Maurice Utrillo lived the definition of "La Vie Boheme," a Bohemian life. In his youth, Utrillo's mother encouraged him to pursue art as an antidote to his alcoholism; advice he took enthusiastically. Maurice Utrillo's paintings of cities and landscapes highlight his self-taught skill in Post-Impressionism and Cubism techniques.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Maurice Utrillo paintings, prints, and lithographs number in the thousands, but his most popular come from his "white period," named for depictions of plaster walls lining bleached pathways. The value of Maurice Utrillo's prints has only increased since his death in 1955.
Don...[/FONT]
Red-Coat
Gold Member
Welcome to Tnet
It may well be oil on paper on canvas but it’s certainly not by Utrillo. It has nothing which resembles his brushwork and, rather than being a print from the original work, seems to be an effort by an amateur to copy Utrillo’s painting but interpreted in a rather different style.
The original work on which it is based has the full gallery title “Eglise de Banlieue vers 1914” and has been much reproduced as a print, but it looks like this:
Many of the prints carry an acknowledgement to the Louvre in Paris (shown below), so I assume that’s where the original is.
It may well be oil on paper on canvas but it’s certainly not by Utrillo. It has nothing which resembles his brushwork and, rather than being a print from the original work, seems to be an effort by an amateur to copy Utrillo’s painting but interpreted in a rather different style.
The original work on which it is based has the full gallery title “Eglise de Banlieue vers 1914” and has been much reproduced as a print, but it looks like this:
Many of the prints carry an acknowledgement to the Louvre in Paris (shown below), so I assume that’s where the original is.
Red-Coat
Gold Member
PS: It's also possible someone has slapped some oil paint onto a print and 'gone-a-bit-impasto' with it.
Pushing5150
Greenie
- Thread starter
- #5
I have also done my research... The last time that a painting matching the one that I have was sold was an estate auction in Georgia for $90,000.. now I am not saying the one I have is the same one however I removed the one I have from the frame and the signature is in the right place .looks the same , and if not real a damn good forgery.. the dimensions are correct as well as the medium and since you appear to have done your research as well you know that the original one is indeed in the louvre.. but he apparently duplicated some of his works and if anything I may have one of those.. mine was in the rain when I got it (summer Shower), and has some damage unfortunately .. I am always very skeptical of.. well everything but I really searched the cellar regarding this painting .. and it is the same scene that you posted btw... Honestly I care more about the story it could possibly tell and making sure it remains alive to be appreciated more than anything.. real or not it is still beautiful and I plan on keeping it that way. P. S I am certainly not and expert in painting in even the smallest sense.. I am however an avid reader and absorber of knowledge . I never just believe. I require cold hard irrefutable facts to be satisfied.. I do not have those in this case so I plan on continuing to dig for them..! Thank you for your feedback truly and if you happen upon anything else about it I'm all ears! Thanks again!
Last edited:
- Oct 26, 2004
- 24,095
- 22,873
- 🏆 Honorable Mentions:
- 2
- Detector(s) used
- Minelab Explorer
- Primary Interest:
- Shipwrecks
Why not get it authenticated and remove all doubt?
Don....
Don....
Red-Coat
Gold Member
Hi, Pushing.
I can’t give you “cold, hard, irrefutable facts”, and especially not just from looking at a photograph, but…
Utrillo is certainly known as a fan of thickly-trowelled paint in many of his works. However, the more I look at this, the more it looks like someone has rather amateurishly over-painted a print of the original work with oils and gone a bit overboard with that technique. To my eye, the over-painter has struggled to retain detail is some areas; either clumsily painting round them, or subsequently heavily retouching them, and avoiding the tricky areas such as the tree branches.
Look more closely at these comparisons, and especially the church spire, the spiked ridge tiles on its roof to the right, the figures on the bridge and the stonework/parapets either side.
The signature on a print derived by a photographic process will of course match that of the original and – if the match is exact – that’s a bad sign for an original work.
Regardless of my opinion (for what it’s worth) the brushwork is so dramatically different that no authenticator is going to attribute this to Utrillo without some confirmatory provenance/provenience that leads back in some way to the artist.
Has a BBC programme called “Fake or Fortune” hosted by Fiona Bruce reached any US network yet? The premise for the show is that art experts research a painting or other work of art believed by the owner to be a long-lost or previously unknown masterpiece. It’s a great watch for anyone interested in the history of art, but one thing that always stands out is how important provenance/provenience is to the attribution… or not.
I can’t give you “cold, hard, irrefutable facts”, and especially not just from looking at a photograph, but…
Utrillo is certainly known as a fan of thickly-trowelled paint in many of his works. However, the more I look at this, the more it looks like someone has rather amateurishly over-painted a print of the original work with oils and gone a bit overboard with that technique. To my eye, the over-painter has struggled to retain detail is some areas; either clumsily painting round them, or subsequently heavily retouching them, and avoiding the tricky areas such as the tree branches.
Look more closely at these comparisons, and especially the church spire, the spiked ridge tiles on its roof to the right, the figures on the bridge and the stonework/parapets either side.
The signature on a print derived by a photographic process will of course match that of the original and – if the match is exact – that’s a bad sign for an original work.
Regardless of my opinion (for what it’s worth) the brushwork is so dramatically different that no authenticator is going to attribute this to Utrillo without some confirmatory provenance/provenience that leads back in some way to the artist.
Has a BBC programme called “Fake or Fortune” hosted by Fiona Bruce reached any US network yet? The premise for the show is that art experts research a painting or other work of art believed by the owner to be a long-lost or previously unknown masterpiece. It’s a great watch for anyone interested in the history of art, but one thing that always stands out is how important provenance/provenience is to the attribution… or not.
crashbandicoot
Gold Member
Nice info,well done Redcoat.
Red-Coat
Gold Member
Although not imaged after removal from the frame, @Pushing does day it's signed... but that doesn't mean too much if it has been laid down on a print reproduced from an original.
Top Member Reactions
-
2411 -
1123 -
1121 -
908 -
826 -
807 -
765 -
730 -
644 -
521 -
479 -
466 -
460 -
428 -
407 -
406 -
O
369
-
364 -
358 -
351
