Featured Old Oil Painting on Wood Panel

Isn't it lovely to be able to benefit from someone else's extensive research? And, coincidentally, the National Portrait Gallery currently has a Pre-Raphaelite exhibit.

Debora

 

Wonder if model isn't Fanny Cornforth.

Debora

 

Better to pick up the phone (oh the horror!!) and ask to speak to the archivist. Just check the time zones for the UK first.

 

I don't think so, the OP's lady is quite attractive.

 

Indeed there are.

 

Isn't that the essence of education? None of us are working ex nihilo.

 

Ex nihilo? Excuse me. Off to Merriam-Webster. Back shortly.

Pause.

Ah. Ex nihilo.

Debora

 

Many Pre-Raphaelites had a talent for making their female models look unattractive. When you see photographs of the women and girls they look much better, often pretty. Those painters could clearly paint, so I have often wondered if some of them were misogynists. And what is with all those big necks?

 

There are many standards of beauty.

Debora

 

Big necks being one of them?

 

At the risk of seeming pedantic (and speaking generally)... To appreciate any art movement, one has to understand what its painters were trying to accomplish, what problems they were trying to solve. For the Pre-Raphaelites that included the rejection of the then conventional standards of female beauty.

Debora

 

One does.

And yet many of them didn't seem to reject those, Millais for instance. The big culprit was Rosetti, although he did some beautiful paintings of his wife. Hunt seemed to try but didn't always succeed. I still think it was a personal thing, not stylistic.
Portraying the models as more ugly than they actually were has nothing to do with not complying with conventional standards of beauty imo. As many Pre-Raphaelite paintings showed, including the Tudor-esque girl you posted before.
Did they use stauesque women as models, as opposed to dainty girls? Yes, they often did. But those women weren't ugly. They were made ugly in certain paintings.

 

Nice work, here is the response from Christie's

Regarding the painting bearing the stencil ‘912 e’ it is part of a very large consignment of 279 pictures. They were all part of the property of Mr Henry Wallis deceased and the sale happened on 20th November 1891. However at this point the descriptions are very vague such as ‘ study of a head’ or ‘portrait of a lady’ and dimensions are not included in the description so it almost impossible for us to find the right one. We will be happy to show the catalogue to you or Alastair if this could be of any help.

 

Not overly helpful but thrilling! Thank you for sharing.

Debora

 

Can't be this Henry Wallis with that date. He lived until 1916.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Wallis

Debora

 

Here's a mention of the sale. "Modern Pictures" on November 20, 1891 realizing £3,924. And again, "Pictures" on March 5, 1891 realizing £4,033. Must have been a decent collection.

https://books.google.com/books?id=6...&q=Henry Wallis d. 1891 art collector&f=false

Debora

 

Think I found him! Died 1890. Engraver and picture dealer. Proprietor of French Gallery on the Pall Mall.

https://books.google.com/books?id=7c8j6oSojBIC&pg=RA3-PA1169&dq=Henry+Wallis+d.+1891+art+collector&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjOqf-lhIbnAhXeJzQIHevSBZ8Q6AEwAXoECAEQAg#v=onepage&q=Henry Wallis d. 1891 art collector&f=false

Debora

 

In my experience, every collection contains a few wannabe's, a few iffy's and in a sizeable cabinet of paintings, a fair percentage of fakes. Museum collections included.