|
| 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.
|
|
|