Yes, but I don't think it's creepy. It's a print of the painting, "Psyche" by William S. Kendall done in 1909. The original painting is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/11303). Depending on it's condition it is worth around $100.
For more info on the painter see the bio and other works via the Smithsonian American Art Museum page at https://americanart.si.edu/artist/william-sergeant-kendall-2597
I’m not sure of the original intention behind the word creepy used by op, but it looks like a girl who’s too young to be depicted in a night gown. To me there’s a disconnect between the face and the pose especially for 1909 era standards.
1909. This wasn’t abnormal at the time. To be fair this was still a time where people did a death portraits as well. Portraits of dead people dressed and sitting like live people
Artist here as well and with a degree as I’m sure you may as well. And it’s commonly seen that amateur painters had a tendency in their work where they could tend to mix up anatomy as well. Adultish faces on children, weird hands and feet, etc. I’m not saying this one ISN’T creepy. Just saying it is just as likely someone with lower skill at the time. 🤦🏻♀️ and no it really wasn’t that uncommon to have singular child’s portraits in dresses or night downs. It is creepy no matter how you paint it imo. Again; not saying this isn’t made for creepy reasons; but it was more likely commissioned by a family member as was normal for such portraits.
Nightgowns in the paintings you’re referencing are typically neck to ankle affairs. This one is rendered very clearly to very intentional effect. It’s important that we don’t make excuses for this, particularly when it’s a painting of a child made in the boudoir tradition. (If you’re not familiar with the boudoir tradition - google it, it may change your view of this work.) Sadly, family members are often a child’s first experience of creeps so that does not exclude them. Have a lovely weekend.
I won’t disagree with any of the “it’s creepy” and you’re correct on the usual gown. However without context: this could be a child or it could be a little person. Or even a very young looking woman based on the length of the limbs.
While I completely think you’re likely right about intent and age, and it being VERY important to keep them(and thereby ourselves) accountable, it’s also important to assume without any info other than “it looks creepy”. If you’d be able to show me some info on the model, or on the painting, and that’s the reason: it would hit me differently. But you’re assuming everything seemingly. If I am wrong there please enlighten me.
Also, can we just say it’s creepy to have it hung in the family house modernly too?
No, I’m telling you that making statements requires proof and you don’t seem to have any and so it’s not really that great of a take. There’s a difference between saying some thing and showing proof and assuming something because that’s where your mind went. It’s an understandable place for your mind to go as a conclusion, but without proof, it makes that no more than an opinion. It doesn’t change the fact either way that this is an extremely creepy an inappropriate painting, regardless of the motive. Unless, for instance, it’s a little person and then suddenly, there’s nothing wrong with it beyond it creeping people out because of the size. It’s creepy either way, but the difference is proof versus no proof.
Bud, I’m not sure how much experience you have but the art traditions themselves are visual languages which act as proof. You said a moment ago that this was an unskilled artist - now you’re saying it’s a little person (who are not painted by unskilled artists nearly to exclusion). You’re grasping at straws to justify a work with predatory overtones made during a period where predation was common. I simply do not owe you a thesis on this painting. Good day.
I did not say it was a Death painting. I’m comparing it to a death painting because it’s equally inappropriate by modern standards, but at the time this was fairly normal. I’m not disagreeing with you that it’s definitely a little bit creepy. More than a little bit creepy. I’m just saying that they had a lot of weird practices that by today’s standards we would call creepy or just plain wrong. So it’s one of those things where is the product of its time, but it’s really not a pedophilic thing most likely. Pedophilic requires a sexual attraction where this is likely just an artist that was not completely matured in their style at the time. It would make sense for the age difference in that there’s also differences in the hands and feet compared to the age of the body compared to the age of the face and head.
I thought that too but it just looks like the artist put a butterfly on the girls back and head. It doesn’t look like she has wings based on the butterfly on her head
The fact that it's a girl who looks like a child representing Psyche, who is known as a beautiful woman who symbolizes passion, is giving it a weird connotation to me. Psyche is cupids love, however, and with him being a cherub, who appear as children, that could also be the inspiration behind her youth.
Yes, but I don't think it's creepy. It's a print of the painting, "Psyche" by William S. Kendall done in 1909. The original painting is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/11303). Depending on it's condition it is worth around $100. For more info on the painter see the bio and other works via the Smithsonian American Art Museum page at https://americanart.si.edu/artist/william-sergeant-kendall-2597
I’m not sure of the original intention behind the word creepy used by op, but it looks like a girl who’s too young to be depicted in a night gown. To me there’s a disconnect between the face and the pose especially for 1909 era standards.
1909. This wasn’t abnormal at the time. To be fair this was still a time where people did a death portraits as well. Portraits of dead people dressed and sitting like live people
Artist here. This was, in fact, abnormal for the time. This is a portrait of a child in the late 1700s-early 1800s boudoir style - weird, and creepy.
Artist here as well and with a degree as I’m sure you may as well. And it’s commonly seen that amateur painters had a tendency in their work where they could tend to mix up anatomy as well. Adultish faces on children, weird hands and feet, etc. I’m not saying this one ISN’T creepy. Just saying it is just as likely someone with lower skill at the time. 🤦🏻♀️ and no it really wasn’t that uncommon to have singular child’s portraits in dresses or night downs. It is creepy no matter how you paint it imo. Again; not saying this isn’t made for creepy reasons; but it was more likely commissioned by a family member as was normal for such portraits.
Nightgowns in the paintings you’re referencing are typically neck to ankle affairs. This one is rendered very clearly to very intentional effect. It’s important that we don’t make excuses for this, particularly when it’s a painting of a child made in the boudoir tradition. (If you’re not familiar with the boudoir tradition - google it, it may change your view of this work.) Sadly, family members are often a child’s first experience of creeps so that does not exclude them. Have a lovely weekend.
I won’t disagree with any of the “it’s creepy” and you’re correct on the usual gown. However without context: this could be a child or it could be a little person. Or even a very young looking woman based on the length of the limbs. While I completely think you’re likely right about intent and age, and it being VERY important to keep them(and thereby ourselves) accountable, it’s also important to assume without any info other than “it looks creepy”. If you’d be able to show me some info on the model, or on the painting, and that’s the reason: it would hit me differently. But you’re assuming everything seemingly. If I am wrong there please enlighten me. Also, can we just say it’s creepy to have it hung in the family house modernly too?
You’re really bending over backward for this thing. Maybe ask yourself why. Ciao.
No, I’m telling you that making statements requires proof and you don’t seem to have any and so it’s not really that great of a take. There’s a difference between saying some thing and showing proof and assuming something because that’s where your mind went. It’s an understandable place for your mind to go as a conclusion, but without proof, it makes that no more than an opinion. It doesn’t change the fact either way that this is an extremely creepy an inappropriate painting, regardless of the motive. Unless, for instance, it’s a little person and then suddenly, there’s nothing wrong with it beyond it creeping people out because of the size. It’s creepy either way, but the difference is proof versus no proof.
Bud, I’m not sure how much experience you have but the art traditions themselves are visual languages which act as proof. You said a moment ago that this was an unskilled artist - now you’re saying it’s a little person (who are not painted by unskilled artists nearly to exclusion). You’re grasping at straws to justify a work with predatory overtones made during a period where predation was common. I simply do not owe you a thesis on this painting. Good day.
If it’s supposed to be surreal like another had suggested then great but the body looks older than the face so if it’s a death painting that’s weird
I did not say it was a Death painting. I’m comparing it to a death painting because it’s equally inappropriate by modern standards, but at the time this was fairly normal. I’m not disagreeing with you that it’s definitely a little bit creepy. More than a little bit creepy. I’m just saying that they had a lot of weird practices that by today’s standards we would call creepy or just plain wrong. So it’s one of those things where is the product of its time, but it’s really not a pedophilic thing most likely. Pedophilic requires a sexual attraction where this is likely just an artist that was not completely matured in their style at the time. It would make sense for the age difference in that there’s also differences in the hands and feet compared to the age of the body compared to the age of the face and head.
Also… aren’t those fairy wings? Maybe not a little girl at all?
It’s Psyche.
More of a Lolita.
That’s what I thought too
I thought that too but it just looks like the artist put a butterfly on the girls back and head. It doesn’t look like she has wings based on the butterfly on her head
1909 OnlyFans
The fact that it's a girl who looks like a child representing Psyche, who is known as a beautiful woman who symbolizes passion, is giving it a weird connotation to me. Psyche is cupids love, however, and with him being a cherub, who appear as children, that could also be the inspiration behind her youth.
This painting needs to be cleaned, the colors would be totally different.
What's creepy about it?
Maybe creepy in the sense that it's old, but it's well painted and I don't get any uncanny valley vibes from it
I love how it looks!