Featured Is this a photo, lithograph, or some other kind of print?

That's pretty much the same image. So I take it that even the Germans admired the original piece of art and that is a copy of the image. Makes me wonder if the original art was considered some kind of masterpiece.

 

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mary_Magdalene_by_Bartolomé_Esteban_Murillo,_San_Diego_Museum_of_Art.JPG

 

Given the popularity of the subject... I start to wonder if the print-maker simply bungled the attribution.



CLARIFICATION: Not claiming to know the correct attribution.

 

After seeing stuff like this

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1870-PHOTO...535633?hash=item3d50ea45d1:g:NVEAAOSwhVxaHd0c

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1870-PHOTO...175208?hash=item3d51034a68:g:~RYAAOSw4PxaHwsp

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1870-PHOTO...111833?hash=item3d510252d9:g:rFcAAOSwGzhaHwRB

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1870-PHOTO...456596?hash=item5453291e94:g:nbAAAOSwUchaHwjY

And that person has several more silver print albumen photograph's.

I think that's exactly what I got. A photograph of a real piece of art. Anyone else think so?

 

You can see a lot of his art styles looking here to see what he was capable of producing. He did some really amazing work back in the day.

http://www.artnet.com/artists/bartolomé-esteban-murillo/

 

Maybe a stipple engraving?

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

This is reminding me of what I went through trying to find the primary image behind a figure that I & nearly every other seller of cameos & auctioneer of paintings assumed was Mary Magdalen. There have been more than one painting sold over the years, so obviously copies, often described as being after Guido Reni or someone from his studio. A number of cameos, a number of paintings; image was fairly well known at one time. I looked at every image of the Magdalene I could find, made a special trip to the NYPL to consult the only book out there that tried to capture every extant Reni & looked at all the Mary Ms.



The one thing I did learn from my survey was that the figure I was looking for did not meet the conventions for the Penitent. She looks up, chin lifted, but eyes are not rolled back, head is not thrown back. Praying hands are steepled, not tightly clasped. In fact, who she looks most like is Reni's Immaculate Conception.



I just couldn't settle for assuming it was Mary M. A couple of the cameos I have photos of have the top of an anchor showing behind her & the only painting I could find with a known author is titled 'Hope', even though the little museum where it lives says it is after a Reni Madonna. When I abandoned Mary & pursued Hope, I found her fairly quickly.



The text on the print names Reni as the painter & La Chiesa di S. Pietro in Vincoli as its location. Absolutely cannot find a pic of the original anywhere on the Internet. You could say she's unknown, but maybe hiding in plain sight. Same church has Michelangelo's Moses; this is a minor treasure for them.

Something of the sort is happening with this Murillo Magdalen.

 

I totally agree with the Immaculate Conception thought - although the faces are much closer, I couldn't find an exact match in Murillo's work.

To be honest, this didn't hold my interest as much as another current research project, so I didn't spend much time on it.

 

It's Hope who looks like Reni's Immaculate Conception, except you know it's not because of the gown slipped off the shoulder, which, along with the loose hair & prayerful attitude, is what makes her look like the Magdalene rather than the Virgin. She has features of both, & it made me crazy for 2 or 3 years.

 

Took a risk today and took my scanner apart so I could scan a section of the piece and see if that can help nail down the print type. Basically its the last ditch effort before I have to find someone that is a REAL expert at being able to identify the print by actually having the ability to see it live and in person. I understand it can be difficult to be 100% positive on my pictures. I shake too much and move around and don't have a tripod or good lighting for that matter. So the first scan was bad because the picture was not against the glass. makes it look like a modern photo though . Now the second image I put both my hands on the picture and pressed it down to the glass to get a better image. You will have to ignore the edges because they are blurry and I wasn't trying to destroy my print.


So can anyone tell 100% for certain with that second scan what type of print I have going on here? Thanks again for everything everyone has done to help identify the art piece. This is going to be in my personal collection probably for the rest of my life. I like to keep rare and unusual stuff like this. Thanks again!

 

Might be a collotype.

 

Looks very much like the format of this Sir Galahad print I have:




Mine is a stone lithograph.

I'm going to take a guess and say this is not a Murillo. The printing house that ended up with the stone likely needed to attribute it to someone and Murillo came the closest.