Completed British 19th C, except portraits, Continental European after 1800, Continental European before 1800 26 Did Frans Wouters (1612–1659) paint 'Perseus and Andromeda'?

BCN_MUSL_74_59
Topic: Artist

Not after Rubens, but by a follower: might that be Frans Wouters? The small-scale copper support, and the physiognomies and figure types, all seem compatible with his.

(Frans Wouters on Art UK: http://bit.ly/1QyASHd)

Alastair Laing, Entry reviewed by Art UK

Completed, Outcome

This discussion is now closed. This painting has been attributed to Henry Howard (1769–1847). The Art UK record has been updated accordingly and the new information will be visible on the website in due course.

Thank you to all for participating in this discussion. To those viewing this discussion for the first time, please see below for all comments that led to this conclusion.

25 comments

The copper support is said to measure 75 by 63 cm, which is surely very large for a copper panel of this date and arguably larger than one would expect from Wouters. It is not a copy after Rubens, nor probably from his studio; it is perhaps a little later in date and it may not be an Antwerp painting. Perhaps the curator could check to see whether the three hand Antwerp guild mark is embossed on the reverse and perhaps the initials of the maker?

Alastair and Tim are certainly right to say that the connection with Rubens in the 'NICE Paintings' record is greatly exaggerated. I will amend this when this discussion reaches a conclusion. The NIRP researcher recorded it as being on "(?) board", presumably meaning panel, but we can also assume from the '(?)' that the support was not visible at the time of the visit some ten years ago.

Who then has identified the support as copper? If is perfectly possible to distinguish the difference between copper and wood panels from the front of the picture. They sound different, they look different and (on this scale) they weigh different. A copper panel of these dimensions would be much thicker than a small panel and therefore much heavier. It is also probable that if the painting were produced in Antwerp both copper and wood panels would carry the three hand mark. It would be very useful to know this and to see a larger dimension image.

Osmund Bullock,

I stand to be corrected - this is not my area at all - but to my eye Andromeda's face looks decidedly late 18th/early 19th Century. I would be most surprised if it (and indeed her figure) were 17th, though I suppose it could have been messed with later.

Alastair Laing,

I have never seen it, but it was identified as on copper when photographed for the PCF, which should not have left much room for doubt. Large coppers such as this are not that unusual; they were made for the Spanish market

The Barber link seems to be wrong. There is this one, oil on canvas however: https://rkd.nl/nl/explore/images/record?filters[naam]=Wouters,+Frans&query;=&start=74

In general Wouters' nude figures share the fleshiness of Rubens, while that in the Luton painting is smoother and somewhat classicised. To my mind, this, and the face, supports Osmund's suggestion that the Luton painting is late 18th/early 19th century, perhaps even British, even if based on a Wouters or other 17th century original.

Tim Williams,

Running with both Andrew and Osmunds observations, I think we're looking for circle of Francois Lemoyne (Le Moine). The nude certainly shares many elements - posture, flesh tones etc with those found in his works, as do the putti.

Bendor Grosvenor,

Hard to judge from photo here - any chance of a better one? My immediate thought, as with others above, is that it is perhaps not 17thC, but later.

Jade Audrey King,

I have asked the collection if they would permit this, and will relay any response.

Jade Audrey King,

Please find attached a high resolution image of this painting. This file is owned by the collection. It has been posted here at their discretion and is not to be reproduced under any circumstances.

1 attachment
Jade Audrey King,

The collection staff also note that they would be happy to facilitate a visit to our store should anyone be interested to see the picture in person. As there are plans to put this on display in our new gallery, after some conservation work and the staff don’t know much about the painting or painter, so any help would be gratefully received.

If Bendor Grosvenor would like to visit, he can contact Jana, directly.

Please let me know if I can pass on any contact details.

I visited Luton this afternoon. I am grateful to the curators for showing me the picture. It has an unusual history in that it was a gift in the mid-twentieth century from a shopkeeper who had discovered it in use as a shelf in his shop (quite a strong copper sheet, presumably the reverse upwards). Despite this, it is in reasonable condition and will be cleaned.

I am convinced this painting is by a British artist of the early nineteenth century. This has already been suggested by some respondents and the view is supported by a written opinion on file from the late Dennis Farr in 1959 while Assistant Keeper at the Tate (he subsequently served as a curator at Glasgow, curator of the Mellon Collection in Washington, Director at Birmingham and Director of the Courtauld Institute Gallery, 1980-93 - I see that he was born in Luton!).

He had been asked if the painting could be by William Etty (1787 - 1849). He thought not, but confirmed that it was English of that period and carried some echoes of Rubens. He advanced the names of Henry Howard (1769 - 1847) and Thomas Stothard (1755 - 1834). These are most interesting suggestions. Indeed, although this is not at all my field, I shall be surprised if the Luton picture is not by Henry Howard. I see that the Sir John Soane Museum holds a work by him which has a strong resemblance in many details to the Luton picture: see http://artuk.org/discover/artworks/the-vision-of-shakespeare-123994.

I shall be interested to hear from British painting specialists if they think this attribution by Dennis Farr is correct.

Al Brown,

None of the other works by Howard on Art UK use a copper support, though some are on panel. If this is on copper, are others known, or would this work be unique?

Martin Hopkinson,

NICE suggests that it may be on board not copper

This painting is definitely on a copper support. I removed the wooden backing to check this. There are no stamps or other marks on the reverse, as there probably would be in the case of an earlier copper panel. I don't see a reason why the copper support excludes the Howard suggestion, as the painting is clearly of that period.

Jade Audrey King,

The discussion has been linked to the British 19th C, except portraits group.

Henry Howard and Thomas Stothard are certainly good suggestions but I do not know of anyone who is a current expert on Howard. He seems to me a very reasonable attribution although the images I have seen generally show a rather more hard-edged, neoclassical finish. He is not impossible though. In the absence of a better-informed opinion, I would be happy to propose 'attributed to Henry Howard'.

In the absence of further comments I am making a recommendation that the painting be 'Attributed to Henry Howard (1769 - 1847)' based on the well-informed 1959 suggestion by Dennis Farr, supported by Tim Llewellyn.

Al Brown,

Was any of the above-mentioned conservation work carried out? And, if so, has it revealed anything new including a new image?

Edward Stone,

The collection has been contacted about Andrew's recommendation.