Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;moreotherstuff, post: 199072, member: 56&quot;]I wouldn&#039;t have thought this was a modern painting.&nbsp; From the style, I would have guessed late 19th or early 20thC, and looking at his other work I&nbsp; see a lot of the same stylistic sensibility.</p><p><br /></p><p>In Canada, we had Paul Peel painting pictures (aliteration!) like the Little Shepherdess, 1892, and many others.</p><p><img src="http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTA5Nlg4MDA=/z/ExkAAOSweW5U5IBy/$_35.JPG" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>American George Bellows painted &quot;42 Kids&quot; in 1907.</p><p><img src="http://www.artsmarttalk.com/uploads/5/4/2/9/5429354/5527941.jpg?378" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>Back in 1751, Francoise Boucher painted Mademoiselle O&#039;Murphy who, according to Casanova, was 13 at the time.</p><p><img src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/Fran%C3%A7ois_Boucher,_Ruhendes_M%C3%A4dchen_%281752%29_-_02.jpg/350px-Fran%C3%A7ois_Boucher,_Ruhendes_M%C3%A4dchen_%281752%29_-_02.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>These are paintings that are famous in their own right, but I wonder what the reaction would be if they were presented new today.&nbsp; (In truth, the Boucher in particular does come in for a fair deal of derision.)</p><p><br /></p><p>People who analyze such things estimate that the model for the Venus de Milo was probably about 16.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in