Two persons sent emails with responses to questions I asked in the previous post regarding the prints - thanks for this! The emails below show that not all prints have the Raymond and Raymond stamp and that some prints have a signature inside the brim of the hat.
John in Tennessee wrote:
"I too own one of these white clowns and would like very much to understand its origin.
John in Tennessee wrote:
"I too own one of these white clowns and would like very much to understand its origin.
Having some family connections to the art world I have had this print before two of north America's print experts - the first said it was an authentic Picasso screen print and to be prepared to insure it for lots of money. The second said it was a fake, that Picasso did not do screen prints, that the image was not even by Picasso.
Oddly enough when pressed the second expert allowed that if I looked hard enough I might find the image in a Picasso Catalog somewhere.
Of course the work is clearly not a screen print, however the brown paper appears to be woven in a Herringbone pattern, one supposes that as this pattern shows through the gouache a cursory glance might give the idea that the work is a screen print. Examination with a loop or a touch reveals thick paint most likely gouache, obviously not a screen print. Of course the image is a Picasso image as has been documented.
As an aside the image on your blog that is stamped Raymond and Raymond does not appear to be on the same paper as my example but this could be a resolution problem with the image.
My example has no stamps front or back, nor any marks at all, other than what appears to be a signature done in black paint with a thin brush just above the hair on the hats inside brim, left side as one looks at the image.
I will send an image of my "Picasso" along with a number of images of different representatives of this work I've collected off the web. I do not recall seeing stamps on any other examples but they may be hidden if present. My image is picassoprint.jpg the others are off eBay or from folks with whom I've exchanged emails regarding this conundrum.
Careful examination of the various images shows considerable differences, suggesting they were partially or complete handmade. Some are quite rough. Also some of these images were apparently signed, one below the image, one like mine in the hat brim.
What fun thanks for the blog and your work."
An image of John's own print is next to this post. The signature on the brim of the hat can be seen, but no details can be made out. I will ask John for a close up.
Martha wrote:
"I have a white clown Picasso as well. My aunt owned an art gallery many years ago (in the 1940's or 50's I think). She is deceased now. She kept this for herself and gave it to my mom in the 1970's and told her it was very valuable. We have another, unsigned, that is made of the same material and technique and looks like a Matisse. She had been an art dealer and kept the work for herself."
So we have found that not all prints are stamped with Raymond & Raymond, but many questions remain:
- What other sources, other than Raymond & Raymond, are there for these prints? Do you have a print - does it have a stamp or a label? Does the paper have a watermark?
- Is the print documented in any gallery catalog or is there any other hard documentation, in addition to the Raymond and Raymond stamp on one particular print?
- Were they printed in conjunction to a specific exhibition at the gallery, or where they just reproduced in isolation?
- I do not know this for certain but I imagine that the copyright owner of the original (Picasso himself or the owner of the original?) would have to approve the reproduction of the original painting - was Picasso alive when the prints were made and did Picasso authorize these?
- When it comes to technique and the look and feel of the paper, are there any authorized prints by Picasso that were made on a similar paper or with a similar end result?
