Photo credit: Manchester Art Gallery
This looks as if it could be by Arthur Devis (1712–1787) or at least in his style. Devis often painted outdoor portraits of standing men in a similar pose, although his figures tend to be more slender.
The small size of the picture also fits the work of Devis, as does the doll-like quality of the figure (compared to a "figurine" by Martin Hopkinson in a prior discussion), the rather awkwardly posed stance, and the kind of sitter Devis depicted – members of the landed gentry.
Whether intentional or not, a picture by Devis would "belong" in Manchester because he was a Lancashire artist (born in Preston), and the sitter may well have been from the Preston area.
See below for comparison:
Well, I have zero proof proof except Style and Subject. Which lead me to believe that yes it was painted Arthur Davis. The legs and the Hand on the Hip seem to be the giveaway. Check these 3 paintings out. https://www.nga.gov/collection/artist-info.1224.html#works
I do have to wonder though, did Gainsborough steal the cocked hat from him or was it the other way around. Nice to see everything has always been the same.
That Pose also seems to be his go to Pose. You see it in his work over and over. http://manchesterartgallery.org/collections/search/collection/?id=1928.89
There is also a strong resemblance in the pose here to that in Devis's 1782 portrait of Captain Henry Wilson: https://bit.ly/2PDwpfF
This also might be worth considering:
Kieran, the portrait of William Monson and his wife is by Arthur William Devis (1762-1822), the son of Arthur Devis, who was a more accomplished painter than his father (and it shows in this picture, despite the similar male pose, which the son handles more gracefully).
As for the portrait of Henry Wilson also linked by Kieran, that does look like the work of Arthur Devis père, and I expect it has been misattributed to the son (unless it is a very early work by the latter). Again, the pose is the same, but the doll-like quality is much more typical of the father.
I considered Zoffany, but he did not use this pose much if at all (while Devis used it very often) and this picture fits Devis better.
I expect Manchester will have extensive files on this picture with expert opinions gathered over the years. It is likely that the obvious possibilities have been discounted - I don't see obvious signs of the quality of Zoffany or either Devis. The pose is surely just characteristic of the period.
Any input from the collection would be most welcome and obviously relevant, and I hope it is forthcoming. The pose per se proves nothing, but it is highly characteristic of full-length male portraits by Devis, and that was certainly not my only reason for thinking of him. Devis was never on the same level as Zoffany and was long forgotten after his death; his "revival" was due to his limitations, which happen to impart a certain naive charm to his work.
Other comparable pictures by Devis:
The portrait's previous discussion on AD is here: https://bit.ly/2RSvyKG
This doesn't look like either Devis to me. Certainly it has little in common with Devis père's works in the 1750s-60s, and I'm not sure comparisons with those help much: in those the figures and their faces were indeed doll-like, but I can't see any of that here myself. As for pose and surroundings, this is a common type for the period, as Andrew says; variations on the theme can be found in portraits by many, many artists - a much larger canvas, but here's a forebear of mine holding much the same one in reverse: https://bit.ly/2RVbgjW
Osmund, previous discussions are linked automatically: upper right (above the link to Understanding British Portraits).
Sorry, yes - when I opened the thread just now I spotted it immediately, even before I read your post!
I have come across a very similar portrait with similar wishy washy landscape background by John Hamilton Mortimer
The Mortimer painting is in the Yale Center for British Art:
Overall, it is more assured in handling than the Manchester picture and, in particular, the treatment of the landscape background is much stronger.
I considered Mortimer, Louis, but I thought he was better than this picture. The same applies to Francis Wheatley. It did bother me somewhat that this sitter looks more robust than most of Devis's subjects, but there are exceptions. I also considered the rather obscure Edward Haytley (active 1740-1764), who may have come from Lancashire but may be a little too early. Some Haytley portraits below:
I suppose there must be a Devis expert who could contribute here.
https://manchesterartgallery.org/collections/artist/?mag-agent-5311 This is Arthur Devis the Father. His son surpassed him.
This Devis has a very similar feel:
Is there any information on the sitter? And also what are the dimensions of the painting?
Dimensions are 60.5 x 50.2 cm. Presumably the sitter is unknown, but we have not heard from the collection as to whatever information they may have in their files, if any.
Naomi, please click 'More information' (above right, beneath title, artist and collection) to see details such as the medium and support, size and acquisition method. If these are known to Art UK, they will be displayed.
As has been noted previously, we really do need to know what information Manchester has on this picture in its files if we are going to make any progress. Can the collection be contacted about this?
The collection has been asked for snapshots of the reverse and frame, if possible. There is further information about this picture from the collection in the linked discussion, which suggested Henry Pickering as a possible artist.
We do have an image that includes the frame but I don't think that will tell you much. An image of the back is a bigger ask with tier 3 lockdown but I shall see what is possible. We shall investigate the files. Apologies in the delay in joining the conversation.
I know this dated c. 1770 by the collection, but it would be desirable to have a fashion expert such as Lou Taylor address the dating.
While the head is fairly well done, the body is awkward, especially in terms of anatomical proportions. On that basis, I would certainly exclude Henry Pickering, whose work was clearly better in that respect. Benjamin Wilson is less unlikely but probably not right, either.
Given the interest he's shown in the work of Zoffany, for instance, plus the fact he's Group Leader for British 18th century portraits, I should think Bendor Grosvenor could give a relevant opinion here.