Clicking on the image opens an enlargement (of another impression).
Scroll down for print description.

La Puce
The Flea

Date: 1936
Medium: Sugar-lift aquatint, grattoir, and drypoint

Dimensions:

Print 325 x 220 mm, 12 7/8 x 8 5/8"; sheet 370 x 276 mm, 14 1/2 x 10 7/8"
Signature: Bears "Picasso" signature in pencil in the lower right.  It is impossible to authenticate this signature.  It is likely forged, but the print itself is unquestionably original (see discussion below).
References: Bloch 359; Baer 606 II B; Cramer 37; Horodisch, pp.54-55; Robert Flynn Johnson, p.135; Burr Wallen 17 (Picasso Aquatints, Univ. of California Santa Barbara, from the collection of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art); Elliott, Picasso on Paper, National Galleries of Scotland, 2007, illustrated p.72
Edition: This is one of several very rare proofs on Vidalon paper apart from the already rather rare edition of 35 on Chine, all of which followed steelfacing, before the cancellation of the plate.  The entire edition and one additional proof on different paper were included in the "Suite", or deluxe edition, of Picasso: Eaux-fortes originales pour loes textes de Buffon, published by Martin Fabiani in Paris, 1942.  Each Suite consisted of two full sets of the 31 images illustrating Buffon's Histoire Naturelle (see discussion below), plus one impression of La Puce.  (The next 190 copies of the illustrated book did not include La Puce, but rather were limited to the other 31 designs Picasso created to illustrate the text.)  There were also 17 proofs prior to steelfacing, including 15 on Montval paper, and several additional proofs on Montval after steelfacing.  This print is considered rare, because the edition was less than the typical edition size of 50, plus a variable number of artist's proofs.  The edition was not signed, but some of the proofs on other paper were.  Specifically, Baer states with regard to the 15 proofs on Montval, "dont au moins 2 signées" (of which at least 2 were signed).  She is, however, silent with regard to whether the proofs on other paper were signed.  Though Baer is known to have made mistakes--not to have in an eight-volume magnum opus would have been impossible--it is nonetheless prudent to assume that the signature on our print is of questionable authenticity.  Certainly she endeavored in general to indicate the presence of known signatures as accurately as she could.  Picasso could have signed an occasional print at the time of publication unbeknownst to Baer, or later as a favor to its then owner, but this is entirely speculative.  Signatures in today's market are commonplace among the 31 other images and are usually suspect.  (See further discussion below.)  Yet other signed impressions of La Puce have been known for quite some time.  For example, one was sold at Christie's New York on November 20, 1989 with the inked title. More importantly, I am not convinced by the handwriting of the signature in our impression.
Paper:

Vidalon cream wove; deckled edges on the right and at the bottom; untrimmed

Watermark:

Ambroise

Impression: Fine
Condition: Fine, framed
Price: Upon request


Burr Wallen provides the following interesting insights into the background of this amusing work, "Commissioned by Vollard as early as 1931, Picasso's delightful aquatints for Buffon's Histoire Naturelle were worked in 1936, but they were not published until 1942 [after Vollard's death] by Martin Fabiani.  It was probably Vollard who conceived the idea of Picasso illustrating the monumental eighteenth-century scientific treatise by France's revered Georges-Louis Leclerc, comte de Buffon (1707-1788).  A commercial rival to Diderot's grand Encyclopédie in the Age of Enlightenment, the [44 volume] Histoire Naturelle brought Buffon both fame and fortune....

"Picasso selected thirty-two common species from Buffon's massive zoological repertory.   Picasso clearly enjoyed the opportunity to produce his own version of a modern bestiary, a theme that had already inspired two outstanding livres de peintre: Jules Renards's Histoires naturelles, illustrated by Toulouse-Lautrec (1899), and Guillaume Apollinaire's Le Bestiare, ou cortege d'Orphée, containing thirty woodcuts by Raoul Dufy (1911).  More recently, Max Ernst had illustrated his own Histoire naturelle (1926)....  The eight plates selected for exhibit...show remarkable virtuosity of aquatint technique."

And Goeppert and Cramer add the following delightful commentary, "Picasso had written the name of the animal below each of his etchings....  These names, written in large letters, were intentionally omitted in the impressions of the plates for the book, and figure only on the impressions of the suite which accompanies the deluxe edition.  Picasso had made a 32nd etching, entitled La puce, for the book.  As the species had not been described by Buffon, the print was not used in the book, but was added to the suites.  In it, we see 'une pucelle' (this is a play on words: puce in French means flea, and pucelle means young girl or virgin) snatching a flea.  The person depicted is the callipygian Aphrodite (that is to say, Venus with the shapely buttocks), but the facial features are those of Marie-Thérèse Walter [his mistress].  Unlike with Hellenistic models, which the viewer has to walk around in order to admire completely, the pucelle of Picasso can be fully enjoyed at a single glance because the artist has presented all her physical charms frontwards."

I have always loved this exquisite print, not only for its beautiful, not to mention stylistically unique, rendering of Marie-Thérèse, but also for the humor of this afterthought to the 31other zoological illustrations.  I bought this impression of the print for its beauty, not for its signature, and am offering it for sale at an "unsigned price".  The type of pencil used in this signature is atypical for Picasso, but, then again, he may have signed it in passing at a much later date.  One could also quibble with the forms of some of the letters, though I have seen other signatures with these forms.   All in all, three experts have examined this signature (one in the flesh but with a conflict of interest, the other two through digital photos), and all believed that it looks authentic.  A fourth expert felt adamant that it is not.   Now that I have examined the piece "in the flesh", I believe it is more likely than not that the signature is forged. I certainly cannot pass it off as an authentic signature in good conscience.   As in many other cases with Picasso prints, notably The Vollard Suite and especially in much of its small-margined edition of 260, accepting the signature as real requires a leap of faith.  (For a more complete discussion of Picasso's signatures and their forgeries, please refer to the chapter on signatures in my manuscript, A Guide to Collecting Picasso's Prints, at http://ledorfineart.com/Chapter_12.html.) 

This richly inked and textured design, reflecting Picasso's extensively worked copper, must be seen "in the flesh" to be fully appreciated.  Clearly Picasso enjoyed himself in creating this marvelous work.


Previous Print   |   Return to Catalogue   |   Next Print

Ledor Fine Art
Berkeley, CA; USA
Phone: (510) 845-3121 FAX: (510) 898-0900
kobi@ledorfineart.com