Featured Any thoughts on this oil painting ?

Hi,

I'm in the process of clearing my father's house, which was a bit of a dumping ground for previous house clearances after deaths in the family.

I've come across this oil painting, unsigned, and painted on a board as opposed to canvas or solid wood. The frame is original as far as I'm aware. I'm guessing it will date from circa 1920 or thereabouts judging by the dates of other items that we have come across. This has been sitting abandoned in an attic room for the last 45 years at least, I remember seeing it as a young child.

Anyway, I'm interested in any thoughts folks may have on it - in particular what the subject matter is actually depicting.

Thanks for any insights !

Kevin.

 

https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/8993085_745-a45-18-kpm-porcelain-plaque-of-woman-in-chains

https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/58754705_kpm-porcelain-plaque-the-slave

 

Are you sure it is on board? Looks quite smooth. A board might have been applied to the back for stability.

 

It's definitely on a board that flexes a little, about 2-3mm thick

 

I've since made a few discoveries about this.

It's a copy of “Slave” by Zoé-Laure de Chatillon, née Delaune (1826–1908), a French painter.
Original was painted in 1871, and was "rediscovered" in Australia in 2005, and subsequently restored in Russia.

 

Thanks - I just came across this, and a reference to the original (details in another reply). Thanks for taking the time to dig deeper...

 

Is it Masonite?

 

Could it be a print on board? Have you put a loop to it?

 

Looks to be in good condition. Appears to be original frame. Lots of interest in women artists these days. Interestingly, your copy is cropped differently than the original.

Debora

 

It's definitely paint, in a couple places that has chipped off.

 

Thank you for asking this, as yes, it does appear to be something like masonite (after googling it!). Which puts the date of this a little later than I thought, probably the 1930s

 

I wonder if the copy was made after WW II? Masonite became quite popular then for artists who didn't want to pay for stretched canvases, etc.

The woman in the original has a pleading, resigned expression in her eyes.

In the copy the eyes look defiant, angry, bored too (like modern fashion models!).

I wonder if that was intentional? I like the expression on the original a lot better. Expressions is one of the hardest things to duplicate when painting copies of others' works.

 

Yes, I noticed the difference with the eyes. I've found about 6 variants on the internet, here's a couple more



Interesting that my version remains more faithful to the original in terms of the overall scene (Note the fern replacing the wild flowers in the lower image).

So there's been a few attempts at copying the original, I have no idea when that original went "missing" to be rediscovered in Australia in 2005.

 

@KevinStandage In the first version above the eyes have a stupid expression, and in the second version they are vengeful, treacherous!

With so many versions of this painting I wonder just how it was determined that the Australian find was The Original.

Could this very painting have been used as a model for students to copy in some museum art class I wonder?

And as a woman I can't help thinking what makes the subject matter so irresistible, a lovely female depicted, complete in jewelry, fine clothing, and makeup, as a "slave", that it became a cult figure to be painted again and again?

Was that really how men of that era liked to view their women? And why would a woman paint another woman like that? Revenge? Okay--call me paranoid for having theories there...

In the famous jingle of a cigarette commercial of the 1960s, You've Come A Long Way, Baby... [VA Sl-i-ms, anyone recall?] (Have we really?)

 

I've also come across an engraving, "La Captive" by M.Knoedler dated 1877.

Interesting that the eyes are similar, and that the crop is the same. So it looks likely my painting is a copy from this engraving which I guess was available to purchase for sometime.

 

@KevinStandage Of all the versions, I like yours the best, copy or not!

 

I know right? Me too! The KPM’s are really nice too. This copy is great though.

 

I think the original painting was probably dripping with subtext of the time and was quite contentious. It may have had very little to do with how men viewed women so much as how women viewed themselves in France at the time in a male dominated society. I think the image is subtly powerful rather than submissive. Blimey, that’s a bit deep for 1:00 am on a Saturday morning.

 

Quick update...painting sold hours after going up!