identify this painting?

October 30, 2007 8:51 PM

Can you identify this painting (164KB, flickr) for a friend? She's had it as wallpaper for awhile but doesn't know where she got it from. It looks Picasso-esque to me but I don't think it is him, not that I've got a great knowledge of his work.
posted by 6550 to media & arts (27 comments total)

It looks more Kandinsky-like to me, though I'm not sure that's it either.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 9:02 PM on October 30, 2007

Paul Klee?
posted by exquisite_deluxe at 9:19 PM on October 30, 2007

Looking through google images it doesn't seem quite right for Kandinsky or Klee, either.
posted by 6550 at 9:36 PM on October 30, 2007

It's somewhere between Cubism and Fauvism, I think. Are you sure it's a painting and not an illustration? I don't think it's Matisse, but it's also not exactly like Miro.

Definitely not Klee or Kandinsky. I'm going to say Joan Miro or Arshile Gorky, if not a contemporary illustrator.

Hmm. This intrigues me. Will do more searching, post back later.
posted by brina at 9:50 PM on October 30, 2007

Joan Miro is what came to mind first, especially the whimsicality, and use of concentric circles. This reference claims he was intrigued by the symbolism of feet.

However, the colours seem wrong for Miro, though he did do an enormous variety of work.
posted by Rumple at 10:00 PM on October 30, 2007

I don't know if it's a painting or an illustration; I don't really have any information beyond the image itself, unfortunately.
posted by 6550 at 10:01 PM on October 30, 2007

Rumple, I agree that the colors are wrong. In fact, they're wrong for just about anyone I can think of. They're too subdued, neither as vivid nor as muted as those that Picasso, Matisse, Miro, Gorky, et cetera used. What mostly bothers me is the light green background, which I've never seen in any of Miro's work.

Also, while Miro was big on the squiggly lines and complementary colors, he wasn't big on blobby stuff like this.

Hmm. I'm not turning up any results from any of the above artists.
posted by brina at 10:13 PM on October 30, 2007

looks like Miro to me
posted by seawallrunner at 10:19 PM on October 30, 2007

I wonder if the colors could have been changed; inverted or something.

But - It does have a kids' book illustration feeling to me, like a 1940s kids' book riff on the work of Picasso, Miro et al.
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:41 PM on October 30, 2007

I'm not sure a kids book would have naked breasts but I guess you never know.
posted by Bonzai at 11:09 PM on October 30, 2007

I was thinking more along the lines of The New Yorker, some sort of illustration mimicking or possibly even snarking about artists of that era.
posted by brina at 11:12 PM on October 30, 2007

looks more like miro than picasso
posted by londongeezer at 12:45 AM on October 31, 2007

Miro seems plausible, at least based on this painting with some similar figures to the unidentified one.
posted by 6550 at 12:52 AM on October 31, 2007

i'm almost certain it's the same artist as an illustrator from a children's book i read as a child.

i have no idea about the name.... but it was european. perhaps danish. and was about some weird prince doing a trip over the ocean.

sorry not to be more helpful.
posted by taff at 2:12 AM on October 31, 2007

It's not Miro, Klee, Kandinsky or Picasso. It looks like a modern illustration/cartoon that apes several styles at once. The colours seem far too garish for it to be anything from the early 20th c IMO, it looks like something you'd see in the kids playpit in Burger King.
posted by fire&wings at 3:15 AM on October 31, 2007

I agree with many others that it's none of the "big" names. I think it's just a Miro-esque illustration which not only cops his style, but also the foot imagery. To me, the composition and color is all wrong, even if the basic look is the same.
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 3:40 AM on October 31, 2007

I third the folks who say it's Miro-ish but not Miro himself, more likely somebody who has a lot of Miro in his swipe file. I miss Miro's wonderful, mad little people/creatures. There are some almost-creatures in this one but thjey look like they were done by somebody who has also seen Pokemons.

(Now watch somebody come up with proof that it is actually Miro. So, Joan, they stole Pokemons from you!)
posted by jfuller at 4:21 AM on October 31, 2007

There's no composition here. It's just a jumble. I think it's just an illustration borrowing elements from paintings of that era.
posted by DarkForest at 5:10 AM on October 31, 2007

I reckon Miro.
posted by Mocata at 6:04 AM on October 31, 2007

It is by Miro, and it's part of the Ubu Roi series. This particular painting is called Ubu Roi II and it was painted in 1966.
posted by iconomy at 6:29 AM on October 31, 2007 [2 favorites]

I think it is Alexandra Nechita.
posted by bkeene12 at 7:45 AM on October 31, 2007

Good one iconomy! I see that in your link the colours are much richer, especially the background.
posted by Rumple at 8:27 AM on October 31, 2007

It's a lithographic print, not a painting.
posted by peacay at 9:57 AM on October 31, 2007

I realized that after hitting post, but was too lazy to correct myself. I knew someone else would come along and do it.
posted by iconomy at 10:04 AM on October 31, 2007

Thanks for finding, iconomy!
posted by 6550 at 11:27 AM on October 31, 2007

i'm so glad iconomy posted that. when i looked again, more closely, it wasn't as much like the danish illustrator as i thought. sorry for the red herring... and glad it didn't herringise the thread.
posted by taff at 3:02 PM on October 31, 2007

Wow. Iconomy, the pic looks different -- and more Miro-ish -- in your link. I've been thinking about this thread for days.
posted by brina at 7:56 PM on November 2, 2007