Worthy of Note : Re- the old Lady who owned it- and spoke so fondly of her ancestor, is typical and consistent of Scot's mental /memory abilities. My father was a Scot, and although I am now over 80, I remember with clarity & accuracy, many names of friends & some cases, amusing conversations with teachers from my early school years. My Mother's sister is 99- approaching 100yrs .When I last saw her 2yrs ago she very lucid, quick & tack sharp. Typical of the generation for 'Truth's sake', (I still do it myself) we are most particular (not over elaborating as suggested ) but to add many little pertinent details both in speech & in writing, to create for the hearer, or viewer a clear truthful & accurate picture. So in answer to the suggestion that Miss Beatrix Scott's letter of provenance to Christie's in London, "sounded like a sales pitch", is quite frankly nonsense, ( How could Christie's add such dates and particulars about an item/subject of which they formerly knew nothing ,unless some one gave them precise details & testimony ? ) & this also implies that some one at Christie's may have been too eager in their typing, why ? It is completely well recognized, known that down through the ages,that educated and erudite persons, particularly of high birth & ancestry, realized the importance of 'Accurate records' ! frequently adding the most tiny particular details for posterity. My assessment is she spoke the Truth.
I'm Scottish too, and think Scots are good story tellers and story keepers, who tend toward true details. This statement from Scott seems too florid and ridiculous - it's waxing lyrical about details she would know nothing about.
@@elipotter369 At ninety eight my father in law could remember dates times and places way back in his past. Incredible counting abilities and memory made him major for a time.His ancestry was Scottish and many of the family have the same characteristics.
As an Edinburgher I've seen this portrait dozens of times over the last 60 years, and I'm widely familiar with Raeburn's work. To me the attempt to attribute it to Danloux is utter tosh - Raeburn's brushwork is free and painterly, while Danloux is staid and academic. From the top of his hat to the tips of his skates this portrait is typical of Raeburn - you just have to open your eyes and look! And then there are the multiple close connections between the sitter and Raeburn, and no documented connection with Danloux at all. All they have is the format and the crackle - thin stuff indeed. I think that these curators can get too smart for their own good, and that they enjoy the attention and notoriety they gain by having a tilt at a national icon. To the point that they're prepared to accuse a respectable family of lying under oath for financial gain, just to defend their theory. Smacks of desperation to me. It's true that the background is not a literal depiction of Duddingston Loch though - I was brought up in Duddingston Village and have been pointing that out since I was a kid. There are three alternative lochs in the area but none of them fit very accurately - it's something of a romanticised composite rather than a literal depiction. I suspect that Raeburn will have sketched his subject on Duddingston Loch as tradition insists, and then added a semi-imagined background. It's a portrait, not a landscape, so I doubt that topographical accuracy was a priority...
In the gift shop at the Scottish National Gallery the staff members told me that items bearing Rev. Walker's image or silhouette were the best selling ones in the gift shop. Second most popular were items with reproductions of Sargent's beautiful painting of Lady Agnew of Lochnaw.
One difference between the styles of Rayburn and Donloux is that in some paintings Donloux’s characters almost appear to float on the background. They don’t seem to be integrated into the painting as a whole.
I am quite amazed that there is never any mention about visual properties such as proportion and the sense of dimension. At one glance one can clearly observe that the skating minister has feet proportionally slightly too small and upon instant glance it is clear that the French painter Danloux was so incredibly skilled in proportions I mean, just look at the hands!! No artist that can paint hands like that and have such an incredible sense of three dimensional observation and application will ever suddenly paint his subject's feet a tad too small. You can also compare the slight anatomical angles in sculptural presence and formation to give life and presence to the figure within the setting. The skater is way more 2D in comparison. Also ... see the acute awareness and delight Danloux takes in reflected light which is present even in his darkest areas as well as bouncing off his subjects' skin, the angles, the roundings, these qualities are not present in the skating Minister. Then, let's move on to the ear ... Danloux's ear has a clear three dimensional popping towards us on the z axis while minister's ear has been painted completely different. We can move allover and compare buffed edges, moisture in the eyes. Notice that, even though the Minister has detail in his black coat, Danloux would have taken way more care to sculpt the black into more nuanced form. My vote is that Raeburn painted it - both artists are exceptional. Danloux was an artist of meticulous detail with an incredible sense for 3 dimension and that French polished look that you mention. Raeburn is so skilled after all his thousand plus portraits which he seems to do with a quicker or slightly looser ease and mark-making / translation ... maybe he did step out of his usual format that day to create the Skating Minister Masterpiece and once again didn't sign it in order not to spoil the image with a name-mark - ... sometimes when one creates an image you just don't sign it because it pulls the eye and spoils it. The joy was simply in creating. Interesting video. Thank you. ...ps. Raeburn was used to portraits ... maybe that explains the proportionally slightly too small feet.
I find part of your argument ridiculous. I am 1.79m with European size 42 feet. I have a friend of the same height with size 44 feet & I worked with a man slightly taller than I with tiny feet.
Hah! This was a question on *The Chase* (TV Quiz Show) just yesterday here in New Zealand - Spooky it should pop up on my You Tube recommendations - unless they're watching me more closely than I thought.... hmmm
I don’t see any neoclassicism from this work. It’s rather show beauty of simplicity. It contains kind sprit of humble, humor and joy contras from grey cold back ground. Sorry it’s not French artist. I love so many French art but this is not the one.
AND he completely missed that she may have gone into as much detail as she did, precisely because she was talking to a lawyer about something that she considered important and valuable.
The Skater is a 1782 oil on canvas portrait of William Grant[1] by the American artist Gilbert Stuart. Painted while Stuart was living in London, it was the work that first brought the artist broad recognition
@@omi_god, It is not entirely different . It is in the same genre painted in the same years . I believe Gilbert Stuart not only painted the Skater but also The Skating Minister. And yes I have seen both paintings in real life. So put that in your pipe & smoke on it ..
@@Capricosm So your evidence is...1) the similarity of subject and 2) it was painted during the same period. By that reasoning you could attribute nearly every work of the late 18th century to about 4 or 5 artists.
I am an artist and the way to tell an artist from another is to look at their sketches. That will tell the story and then apply what you learn to the paintings.
“…it’s a rather too elaborated description for an 80 year old woman…” What an ageist and misogynistic ass. His reasoning doesn’t fly with me. I think she knew what happened in her own life. My grandmother was a Scot and sharp as a tack in her 80’s.
At 21:48 that guy is ONLY saying the description is to specific bc he doesn’t want it to be true! But in ALLL the other painting programs trying to find out the true history of a painting, this is EXACTLY the type of thing they use to prove it. Why would she lie about it? She’s nearing the end of her life?
I think it might be correct that the Loch does not depict Duddington at least not in a literal way but, it does show a loch and seems compelling to believe the painting could be that of Raeburn. Interesting, either way and I hope we don’t get too caught up in the nationality of the painter. It’s obviously a Scotch scene in a Scotch style of a Scottish subject. It’s lovely and compelling and charming and interesting and I am glad to hear about it!
The dynamic style is reminiscent of Raeburn. The “posed” style of the french alternative really doesn’t provide a basis for challenging the attribution
Surely there is a preparatory sketch, especially if the artist was Danleux. I would think Raeburn would have written letters to confirm the attribution. I would also like to see a scientific analysis of the paint. Bring in Fiona and Philip to answer these questions!
the problem with it is that whilst it has some very distinct Raeburn-esque qualities - the face, the landscape in particular - it is nonetheless unique amongst his work in its small scale. but Raeburn actually started off as a miniaturist, and there's no reason why he wouldn't, whilst at the peak of his powers, have decided to try something a bit different from his usual work. the painting has always been a bit of an enigma though, and it's nice that it still has people trying to unravel its secrets
Many thanks to all who have added their thoughts, insights and comments (!), and to let you know that the orchestral music - specially composed by Paul Millns - used in “Who Painted The Skating Minister?” is being released on 10th April by KUDOS Records and is now available to pre-order: acousticroutes.kudosrecords.co.uk/release/arts004/paul-millns-the-freiburg-ensemble-jlb-the-man-who-saw-the-future-original-tv-documentary-soundtrack iTunes music.apple.com/gb/album/jlb-man-who-saw-future-original-tv-documentary-soundtrack/1504130770?app=itunes&ign-mpt=uo%3D4 Spotify presave.kud.li/arts004
I have listened to the above 3 & 4 times in specific places, and made further conclusions. FWIW' as Raeburn & Walker were friends it is most highly likely that he would be allowed on one of his skating jaunts, and further more, in answer to the pose being unlike or uncharacteristic of Raeburn's other work ; well, just how else was he supposed to paint a skater on a frozen lake ?.. The pose captured, is absolutely spot on, and completely characteristic, appearing to be a strong confident skater, which is why it is so very popular & resonates with those who buy copies.
Every time you look at the painting it is so obviously by Raeburn and not the French painter. The way the scarf and the face are painted are typical of Raeburn’s relatively free brush work and genius at catching fleeting expressions that exemplify the character. There is a sense of animation in all Raeburn’s portraits , as if you are really in the presence of individual which the French artist lacks. Some of his portraits also show very animated poses , such as the archer, so it’s nonsense to say it couldn’t of been by him.
I agree, the ear for eg. so swiftly done and painterly, catching the moment.Felt rather than intellectualised. The man who was defending Raeburn seemed quite upset by this suggestion the French painter could have done it, and very relieved at the end. A true Scot!
The Skater is a 1782 oil on canvas portrait of William Grant[1] by the American artist Gilbert Stuart. Painted while Stuart was living in London, it was the work that first brought the artist broad recognition
Not so much changed my mind as inclined one way and then another as different people put their cases; in the end inclined in favour of the traditional attribution.
Almost certainly a Raeburn, just from the lacing on the skates. Things like that can't be imitated because they are the way the brain to hand language of the artist. Also there is this element of negative painting going on, really quite striking, the french artist goes in for very detailed backgrounds in comparison and does not used it, in fact the reason for the feeling of movement within the artists styles are completely different from one another. It helps a paintings recognition to have a little controversy, though in the case of this one maybe people are riding on the ministers coattails.
The art world is full of "emperors new clothes" type charlatans like Stephen Lloyd. When asked his criteria for judging the picture as Not by Raeburn, he simply gives a list of the things a credible art historian would use to authenticate a painting " its the way the figure is painted ,the crackelour etc
A clue? The auction of the Walker portrait listed that painting's size as 25 1/2 x 34 (at 24:59). To determine if that portrait is the skating portrait, can we compare the size of each? Does the skating portrait approximate that size? Wikipedia reports the skating Walker is 30 X 25. Could the painting have lost four inches in a century?
Who says you need a dead body to have a great mystery? In this case, we just have a 2D skating body. Wish the artist had signed the painting. On the other hand, Raeburn and Danleux must be getting a kick out of this on the other side.
The Skater is a 1782 oil on canvas portrait of William Grant by the American artist Gilbert Stuart. Painted while Stuart was living in London, it was the work that first brought the artist broad recognition. He then painted The Skating Minister.
@@omi_god ...you are a dill. It is the same subject matter in the same genre painted in the same years . I believe Gilbert Stuart not only painted the Skater but also The Skating Minister. And yes I have seen both paintings in real life. So put that in your pipe & smoke on it .
@@TR4zest , stop calling yourself Brian Jones. That's very disrepectful to a musician who was extremely talented and influential. You are making a fool of yourself.
I met a man in 1996 who informed me he was a descendant of the skating minister. I can't remember the whole conversation and his explanation, but he was of the same physique and facially the exact double of the skater.
If Raeburn was a trustee of the estate, the old lady was probably right in the Raeburn did leave her the picture. The question is, did Raeburn steel the picture (becaus it was so good?) as a trustee and then pass it off as his own?
I think Dr Lloyd is 'skating on thin ice' here - and really quite patronising to be honest. Raeburn might have chosen to experiment in the style of the visiting French artist Danloux or even just having some fun at the suggestion of the 'outre' Reverend. I feel the case was made for it being similar in technique to some of his other works and a close look at Danloux shows his preoccupation with 'specular light' and its effects, none of which is present here. That _Burlington Magazine_ cover really had skewed the colour of the painting as well - with way more red and blue than seen in the original (the vagaries and variance of my computer screen colour balance and camera light sources aside).
truly and when asked his criteria for judging the picture as Not by Raeburn he simply gives a list of the things a credible art historian would use to authenticate a painting " its the way the figure is painted ,the crackelour etc.. " what a charlatan !
The painting is by Gilbert Stuart. It is earlier than stated, beore Stuart went to London from Scotland. The ears identify it. Stuart could never paint ears.
I don't know what sort of London house you have in mind, but a new Morris Minor would have cost you £359 in 1949, so that probably makes £525 nearer £20,000 today. Still not a modest sum, but certainly nowhere near £5 million.
That Stephen Lloyd is either a conspiracy theorist or just plain stupid. ALL of the compelling evidence greatly favors Rayburn. Everything he says is conjecture and opinion. He should be embarrassed to be a senior curator.
I know who did it! Is Gilbert Stuart, American painter who was living in London. GS has another skater painting dated 1782. GILBERT STUART 1755-1828. American 🇺🇸
The French artist painted the royals and heroic figures. He painted no other more common portraits. He was an aristocrat and never would have painted a lowly minister much less one on skates.
It's a lovely painting, but regardless if it is or is not Raeburn's work, it doesn't compare to the beauty and virtuosity of his larger portraits. Bugs me to see this inconsequential "controversy" color popular opinion on Raeburn's oeuvre.
Danloux and Raeburn, didn't met them together during their lifetime? I thought it is the first question we need answer and why one didn't help the other one?
The experts don’t know how to paint when they said the crackle of the painting is intentional. Second expert is righ. You add more oil to the mix and when dried up it would crackle . It is an environmental issue not a trade of any artist. It depends if it is painted in winter and a fireplace is on and humidity on the ambiance. The experts won’t stop saying stupid things about art, they are historians not artist, so judge only history not techniques that they don’t have a clue. It’s embarrassing to hear them say what the say. No artist ever want the painting to crackle it makes it vulnerable to the pass of time.
one character in a painting does not mean all painting are yours. If that was the standard than fake or fortune would have a much easier time when it comes to identifying artists.
Well, I saw it in a travelling exhibition with other works by Raeburn and thought the brushstrokes were not the same hand signature. But haven't seen Donleaux's work to get an idea. I sometimes think these people who want to believe use exactly the same arguments to support opposing views, because there is no exact evidence available. I also think someone trained and proficient at producing art themselves would have a better idea of recognising a signature hand than these experts who are more academic/commercial and are viewers rather the doers of art. I don't care if it's by Raeburn or not, I would like to know what is true, and not keep up this charade just to satisfy sentiment and perceived commercial interests. It's still a lovely picture and can still be admired and put on ties, regardless of who made it.
Too tall for Putin. See the point about style and format; imitation of style a lot harder than format. Documentary evidence makes a solid Raeburn case. Had not seen that French artist before, as noted talented draughtsman. Good show.
If the work is unique, and is recognized, both by scholars of the period and by the public, whoever the artist is remains a work of art. You are too tied to names and not to art in its value. How to dress designer even if the dress does not enhance the figure it expresses the personality.
dr Thompson and john dick are correct, the painting of the skating minister is by the hand of sir henry raeburn and the identification is without question. the challenges in this film are interesting but are deficient and without merit.
If there are conventional portraits of Rev. Walker and his wife, I'd like to see Philip Mould and Fiona Bruce of 'Fake or Fortune' try to ferret them out.
I believe Gilbert Stuart not only painted the Skater but also The Skating Minister. And yes I have seen both paintings in real life. It is not by Raeburn whose style is stiff and starchy.
The brushwork is so distictively Raeburn's, that amazingly accurate but loose application you don't see in French academic painting.
I have seen this painting in real life & it is stunning.
Worthy of Note : Re- the old Lady who owned it- and spoke so fondly of her ancestor, is typical and consistent of Scot's mental /memory abilities. My father was a Scot, and although I am now over 80, I remember with clarity & accuracy, many names of friends & some cases, amusing conversations with teachers from my early school years.
My Mother's sister is 99- approaching 100yrs .When I last saw her 2yrs ago she very lucid, quick & tack sharp. Typical of the generation for 'Truth's sake', (I still do it myself) we are most particular (not over elaborating as suggested ) but to add many little pertinent details both in speech & in writing, to create for the hearer, or viewer a clear truthful & accurate picture. So in answer to the suggestion that Miss Beatrix Scott's letter of provenance to Christie's in London, "sounded like a sales pitch", is quite frankly nonsense, ( How could Christie's add such dates and particulars about an item/subject of which they formerly knew nothing ,unless some one gave them precise details & testimony ? ) & this also implies that some one at Christie's may have been too eager in their typing, why ?
It is completely well recognized, known that down through the ages,that educated and erudite persons, particularly of high birth & ancestry, realized the importance of 'Accurate records' ! frequently adding the most tiny particular details for posterity. My assessment is she spoke the Truth.
I'm Scottish too, and think Scots are good story tellers and story keepers, who tend toward true details. This statement from Scott seems too florid and ridiculous - it's waxing lyrical about details she would know nothing about.
@@elipotter369 At ninety eight my father in law could remember dates times and places way back in his past. Incredible counting abilities and memory made him major for a time.His ancestry was Scottish and many of the family have the same characteristics.
As an Edinburgher I've seen this portrait dozens of times over the last 60 years, and I'm widely familiar with Raeburn's work. To me the attempt to attribute it to Danloux is utter tosh - Raeburn's brushwork is free and painterly, while Danloux is staid and academic. From the top of his hat to the tips of his skates this portrait is typical of Raeburn - you just have to open your eyes and look!
And then there are the multiple close connections between the sitter and Raeburn, and no documented connection with Danloux at all. All they have is the format and the crackle - thin stuff indeed.
I think that these curators can get too smart for their own good, and that they enjoy the attention and notoriety they gain by having a tilt at a national icon. To the point that they're prepared to accuse a respectable family of lying under oath for financial gain, just to defend their theory. Smacks of desperation to me.
It's true that the background is not a literal depiction of Duddingston Loch though - I was brought up in Duddingston Village and have been pointing that out since I was a kid. There are three alternative lochs in the area but none of them fit very accurately - it's something of a romanticised composite rather than a literal depiction. I suspect that Raeburn will have sketched his subject on Duddingston Loch as tradition insists, and then added a semi-imagined background. It's a portrait, not a landscape, so I doubt that topographical accuracy was a priority...
I agree with you!
i don't care who painted it. i love the darn painting.!
In the gift shop at the Scottish National Gallery the staff members told me that items bearing Rev. Walker's image or silhouette were the best selling ones in the gift shop. Second most popular were items with reproductions of Sargent's beautiful painting of Lady Agnew of Lochnaw.
Lady Agnew is a stunning work and one of the many treasures worth seeing in Edinburgh!
One difference between the styles of Rayburn and Donloux is that in some paintings Donloux’s characters almost appear to float on the background. They don’t seem to be integrated into the painting as a whole.
Sorry about the mis-spelling of names.
Moral of the story: don't leave an Englishman with a plummy accent in charge of Scotland's glorious heritage.
I am quite amazed that there is never any mention about visual properties such as proportion and the sense of dimension. At one glance one can clearly observe that the skating minister has feet proportionally slightly too small and upon instant glance it is clear that the French painter Danloux was so incredibly skilled in proportions I mean, just look at the hands!! No artist that can paint hands like that and have such an incredible sense of three dimensional observation and application will ever suddenly paint his subject's feet a tad too small. You can also compare the slight anatomical angles in sculptural presence and formation to give life and presence to the figure within the setting. The skater is way more 2D in comparison. Also ... see the acute awareness and delight Danloux takes in reflected light which is present even in his darkest areas as well as bouncing off his subjects' skin, the angles, the roundings, these qualities are not present in the skating Minister. Then, let's move on to the ear ... Danloux's ear has a clear three dimensional popping towards us on the z axis while minister's ear has been painted completely different. We can move allover and compare buffed edges, moisture in the eyes. Notice that, even though the Minister has detail in his black coat, Danloux would have taken way more care to sculpt the black into more nuanced form. My vote is that Raeburn painted it - both artists are exceptional. Danloux was an artist of meticulous detail with an incredible sense for 3 dimension and that French polished look that you mention. Raeburn is so skilled after all his thousand plus portraits which he seems to do with a quicker or slightly looser ease and mark-making / translation ... maybe he did step out of his usual format that day to create the Skating Minister Masterpiece and once again didn't sign it in order not to spoil the image with a name-mark - ... sometimes when one creates an image you just don't sign it because it pulls the eye and spoils it. The joy was simply in creating. Interesting video. Thank you. ...ps. Raeburn was used to portraits ... maybe that explains the proportionally slightly too small feet.
I find part of your argument ridiculous. I am 1.79m with European size 42 feet. I have a friend of the same height with size 44 feet & I worked with a man slightly taller than I with tiny feet.
Hah! This was a question on *The Chase* (TV Quiz Show) just yesterday here in New Zealand - Spooky it should pop up on my You Tube recommendations - unless they're watching me more closely than I thought.... hmmm
I know the feeling
If you think that is spooky then dont think about visiting Edinburgh
I don’t see any neoclassicism from this work. It’s rather show beauty of simplicity. It contains kind sprit of humble, humor and joy contras from grey cold back ground. Sorry it’s not French artist. I love so many French art but this is not the one.
Gotta love the rolling 'r' ... astounding painting
dude just insulted 80 year old women! wtf? My great grandmother wrote out a lot of her life story after age 93...and it was delightful reading!
AND he completely missed that she may have gone into as much detail as she did, precisely because she was talking to a lawyer about something that she considered important and valuable.
@@omi_god Good point. Absolutely agree.
Pity you can’t get it published, I’d love to read something like that.
I'm going with Raeburn on this one, the arguments against are unconvincing.
Me too.
The Skater is a 1782 oil on canvas portrait of William Grant[1] by the American artist Gilbert Stuart. Painted while Stuart was living in London, it was the work that first brought the artist broad recognition
@@omi_god, It is not entirely different . It is in the same genre painted in the same years . I believe Gilbert Stuart not only painted the Skater but also The Skating Minister. And yes I have seen both paintings in real life. So put that in your pipe & smoke on it ..
@@Capricosm Both of men with skates ... but very different styles.
@@Capricosm So your evidence is...1) the similarity of subject and 2) it was painted during the same period. By that reasoning you could attribute nearly every work of the late 18th century to about 4 or 5 artists.
I didn’t know that the former PM Tony Blair (at 2:34) was so passionate and involved in fine art!
The bastard gets in everywhere 😆
I am an artist and the way to tell an artist from another is to look at their sketches. That will tell the story and then apply what you learn to the paintings.
@@capricosm8086 All artists sketch
@@capricosm8086 Who said pencil???
Artists sketches can be with their brushes. They do studies, Color studies etc.
@@capricosm8086 ua-cam.com/video/ewKqTmEldgA/v-deo.html
@@capricosm8086 ua-cam.com/video/cDKFfvXM2fY/v-deo.html
@@capricosm8086 I am an artist of more than 35 years and only an idiot would make a statement like that. You are an idiot
How strange Raeburn never signed his work.
“…it’s a rather too elaborated description for an 80 year old woman…” What an ageist and misogynistic ass. His reasoning doesn’t fly with me. I think she knew what happened in her own life. My grandmother was a Scot and sharp as a tack in her 80’s.
At 21:48 that guy is ONLY saying the description is to specific bc he doesn’t want it to be true! But in ALLL the other painting programs trying to find out the true history of a painting, this is EXACTLY the type of thing they use to prove it. Why would she lie about it? She’s nearing the end of her life?
I was drawn to the skates from the begini9ng. Then, at 12:50 I noticed the skate's similarities as well; and so, I would have to agree.
I think it might be correct that the Loch does not depict Duddington at least not in a literal way but, it does show a loch and seems compelling to believe the painting could be that of Raeburn. Interesting, either way and I hope we don’t get too caught up in the nationality of the painter. It’s obviously a Scotch scene in a Scotch style of a Scottish subject. It’s lovely and compelling and charming and interesting and I am glad to hear about it!
The dynamic style is reminiscent of Raeburn. The “posed” style of the french alternative really doesn’t provide a basis for challenging the attribution
Art would be more culturally-valued if every painting drew such scrutiny, remembering, perspectiving, seeking, passion. Beautiful.
Surely there is a preparatory sketch, especially if the artist was Danleux. I would think Raeburn would have written letters to confirm the attribution. I would also like to see a scientific analysis of the paint. Bring in Fiona and Philip to answer these questions!
the problem with it is that whilst it has some very distinct Raeburn-esque qualities - the face, the landscape in particular - it is nonetheless unique amongst his work in its small scale. but Raeburn actually started off as a miniaturist, and there's no reason why he wouldn't, whilst at the peak of his powers, have decided to try something a bit different from his usual work. the painting has always been a bit of an enigma though, and it's nice that it still has people trying to unravel its secrets
Many thanks to all who have added their thoughts, insights and comments (!), and to let you know that the orchestral music - specially composed by Paul Millns - used in “Who Painted The Skating Minister?” is being released on 10th April by KUDOS Records and is now available to pre-order:
acousticroutes.kudosrecords.co.uk/release/arts004/paul-millns-the-freiburg-ensemble-jlb-the-man-who-saw-the-future-original-tv-documentary-soundtrack
iTunes
music.apple.com/gb/album/jlb-man-who-saw-future-original-tv-documentary-soundtrack/1504130770?app=itunes&ign-mpt=uo%3D4
Spotify
presave.kud.li/arts004
ua-cam.com/video/a1S0jNL7ZrU/v-deo.html
I have listened to the above 3 & 4 times in specific places, and made further conclusions. FWIW' as Raeburn & Walker were friends it is most highly likely that he would be allowed on one of his skating jaunts, and further more, in answer to the pose being unlike or uncharacteristic of Raeburn's other work ; well, just how else was he supposed to paint a skater on a frozen lake ?.. The pose captured, is absolutely spot on, and completely characteristic, appearing to be a strong confident skater, which is why it is so very popular & resonates with those who buy copies.
Every time you look at the painting it is so obviously by Raeburn and not the French painter. The way the scarf and the face are painted are typical of Raeburn’s relatively free brush work and genius at catching fleeting expressions that exemplify the character. There is a sense of animation in all Raeburn’s portraits , as if you are really in the presence of individual which the French artist lacks. Some of his portraits also show very animated poses , such as the archer, so it’s nonsense to say it couldn’t of been by him.
I agree, the ear for eg. so swiftly done and painterly, catching the moment.Felt rather than intellectualised. The man who was defending Raeburn seemed quite upset by this suggestion the French painter could have done it, and very relieved at the end. A true Scot!
Agree!!!
PS. It's a stunning piece of work and that won't change so there is nothing stopping people from enjoying it whomever painted!
I have a mental list of the great paintings that I would most love to have in my own home - The Skating Minister is always on it.
I totally agree with you. Is an AWESOME painting. No distractions, just the elegant figure in the center. I LOVE it!!!
Fake or Fortune is also a great watch.
Artists - sign and date your works.
What I have noticed is that the two artists have different pallet than the painting in question.
The Skater is a 1782 oil on canvas portrait of William Grant[1] by the American artist Gilbert Stuart. Painted while Stuart was living in London, it was the work that first brought the artist broad recognition
An interesting watch altogether.
Did anybody else change their mind more than once? No spoilers.
Not so much changed my mind as inclined one way and then another as different people put their cases; in the end inclined in favour of the traditional attribution.
Every time Loyd spoke, I believed him less.
No
Almost certainly a Raeburn, just from the lacing on the skates. Things like that can't be imitated because they are the way the brain to hand language of the artist. Also there is this element of negative painting going on, really quite striking, the french artist goes in for very detailed backgrounds in comparison and does not used it, in fact the reason for the feeling of movement within the artists styles are completely different from one another. It helps a paintings recognition to have a little controversy, though in the case of this one maybe people are riding on the ministers coattails.
“This was painted by a French artist. How do I know? I just do.” Surely you need more than that as evidence!
The art world is full of "emperors new clothes" type charlatans like Stephen Lloyd. When asked his criteria for judging the picture as Not by Raeburn, he simply gives a list of the things a credible art historian would use to authenticate a painting " its the way the figure is painted ,the crackelour etc
A clue? The auction of the Walker portrait listed that painting's size as 25 1/2 x 34 (at 24:59). To determine if that portrait is the skating portrait, can we compare the size of each? Does the skating portrait approximate that size? Wikipedia reports the skating Walker is 30 X 25. Could the painting have lost four inches in a century?
thats a lot of trim... or wikipedia is incorrect (we all know that never happens)
No one suggested it was the same painting.
Rich people lived in large homes or even castles. The temps overnight in winter and then the heating it up could cause cracking.
Who says you need a dead body to have a great mystery? In this case, we just have a 2D skating body. Wish the artist had signed the painting. On the other hand, Raeburn and Danleux must be getting a kick out of this on the other side.
@JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE - Calm down.
@JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE - Cap it all my dear Jonathan!
Wouldn't it be awesome if someone found a painting of his wife skating in a matching piece?
The Skater is a 1782 oil on canvas portrait of William Grant by the American artist Gilbert Stuart. Painted while Stuart was living in London, it was the work that first brought the artist broad recognition. He then painted The Skating Minister.
@@omi_god ...you are a dill. It is the same subject matter in the same genre painted in the same years . I believe Gilbert Stuart not only painted the Skater but also The Skating Minister. And yes I have seen both paintings in real life. So put that in your pipe & smoke on it .
@@omi_god ...you must be blind .
Just because you repeat this does not make it any more credible. Actually, the opposite.
@@TR4zest , stop calling yourself Brian Jones. That's very disrepectful to a musician who was extremely talented and influential. You are making a fool of yourself.
Excellent doc.
Many thanks!
I met a man in 1996 who informed me he was a descendant of the skating minister. I can't remember the whole conversation and his explanation, but he was of the same physique and facially the exact double of the skater.
If Raeburn was a trustee of the estate, the old lady was probably right in the Raeburn did leave her the picture. The question is, did Raeburn steel the picture (becaus it was so good?) as a trustee and then pass it off as his own?
So the rather eccentric minister didn't want a normal sort of portrait, so he asked his friend to paint one...
Thank you, algorithms. This is great!
I think Dr Lloyd is 'skating on thin ice' here - and really quite patronising to be honest.
Raeburn might have chosen to experiment in the style of the visiting French artist Danloux or even just having some fun at the suggestion of the 'outre' Reverend.
I feel the case was made for it being similar in technique to some of his other works and a close look at Danloux shows his preoccupation with 'specular light' and its effects, none of which is present here.
That _Burlington Magazine_ cover really had skewed the colour of the painting as well - with way more red and blue than seen in the original (the vagaries and variance of my computer screen colour balance and camera light sources aside).
truly and when asked his criteria for judging the picture as Not by Raeburn he simply gives a list of the things a credible art historian would use to authenticate a painting " its the way the figure is painted ,the crackelour etc.. " what a charlatan !
Interesting, but I'd prefer to have seen it on FAKE OR FORTUNE with my Phillip & Feona.
Pj Lewis Dr Bendor Grovsnor could tell us who painted this.
Yes and me!
The painting is by Gilbert Stuart. It is earlier than stated, beore Stuart went to London from Scotland. The ears identify it. Stuart could never paint ears.
According to my late mother, this man is supposed to be an ancestor of mine!
I would like to think Raeburn.
At 19:53 in 1949 £525 was not a modest sum , which at the time could buy five houses in London. Hence equivalent to approx £ 5 million in 2019.
I don't know what sort of London house you have in mind, but a new Morris Minor would have cost you £359 in 1949, so that probably makes £525 nearer £20,000 today. Still not a modest sum, but certainly nowhere near £5 million.
Modest compared to how much people value the painting today.
@@saxon-mt5by , what rubbish. Your maths is appalling.
That Stephen Lloyd is either a conspiracy theorist or just plain stupid. ALL of the compelling evidence greatly favors Rayburn. Everything he says is conjecture and opinion. He should be embarrassed to be a senior curator.
He has made a name for himself based on this so I doubt he cares.
I know who did it! Is Gilbert Stuart, American painter who was living in London. GS has another skater painting dated 1782. GILBERT STUART 1755-1828. American 🇺🇸
The French artist painted the royals and heroic figures. He painted no other more common portraits. He was an aristocrat and never would have painted a lowly minister much less one on skates.
Such a great picture. Don’t know why the guy had to be so snippy!
It's a lovely painting, but regardless if it is or is not Raeburn's work, it doesn't compare to the beauty and virtuosity of his larger portraits. Bugs me to see this inconsequential "controversy" color popular opinion on Raeburn's oeuvre.
Don't artists usually sign their work.
Well, that settles it! Obviously a Raeburn!!
Is that watermark necessary?
Henry Raeburn is the shit. Legion of honor in SF has the portrait ‘sir Joseph Campbell’ it’s so beautiful in person
Danloux and Raeburn, didn't met them together during their lifetime? I thought it is the first question we need answer and why one didn't help the other one?
Sometimes it is not the Artist but his student who wanted to learn from the Artist himself. I do re-enactments.
Oh drop the bullshit. It's Raeburn.
I’m so ignorant, but the two artists paint eyes totally differently. Even I can see it.
Well spotted!
Of course it’s by Raeburn. Sounds like someone trying to make a name for themselves by suggesting otherwise.
I couldn't possibly comment...
The experts don’t know how to paint when they said the crackle of the painting is intentional. Second expert is righ. You add more oil to the mix and when dried up it would crackle . It is an environmental issue not a trade of any artist. It depends if it is painted in winter and a fireplace is on and humidity on the ambiance. The experts won’t stop saying stupid things about art, they are historians not artist, so judge only history not techniques that they don’t have a clue. It’s embarrassing to hear them say what the say. No artist ever want the painting to crackle it makes it vulnerable to the pass of time.
Where are the arms on the skating minister?
one character in a painting does not mean all painting are yours. If that was the standard than fake or fortune would have a much easier time when it comes to identifying artists.
The national gallery of Scotland can get it wrong ,as in the case of Charles Edward stuart
Raeburn - next
Well, I saw it in a travelling exhibition with other works by Raeburn and thought the brushstrokes were not the same hand signature. But haven't seen Donleaux's work to get an idea.
I sometimes think these people who want to believe use exactly the same arguments to support opposing views, because there is no exact evidence available.
I also think someone trained and proficient at producing art themselves would have a better idea of recognising a signature hand than these experts who are more academic/commercial and are viewers rather the doers of art.
I don't care if it's by Raeburn or not, I would like to know what is true, and not keep up this charade just to satisfy sentiment and perceived commercial interests.
It's still a lovely picture and can still be admired and put on ties, regardless of who made it.
Too tall for Putin. See the point about style and format; imitation of style a lot harder than format. Documentary evidence makes a solid Raeburn case. Had not seen that French artist before, as noted talented draughtsman. Good show.
It’s definitely Sir Henry Raeburn 🏴
This painting is obviously the work of Beyoncé
Actually, she stole it from Bob Fosse.
I knew it!!
This is obviously by Reaburn.
If the work is unique, and is recognized, both by scholars of the period and by the public, whoever the artist is remains a work of art. You are too tied to names and not to art in its value. How to dress designer even if the dress does not enhance the figure it expresses the personality.
Rosario Lettera, ummm, yea. You just described the entire world of art. It’s more about the name than the quality of the work.
Terry Gause look at the crap Damien Hurst comes out with. When he decided to try and paint for real, he couldn’t do it.
It can't be a common work of the two painters? I find similarities with the boths painters
I have to say, i can see no resemblence from henry to the frenchman
The arrogance of Dr. Steven Lloyd... 🧐 I loved the plot twist!
Stephen Lloyd is a Bendor Grosvenor wannabe.
He could not shine Bendor's shoes.
dr Thompson and john dick are correct, the painting of the skating minister is by the hand of sir henry raeburn and the identification is without question. the challenges in this film are interesting but are deficient and without merit.
Tony Blair lookalike winner 1998.
It is a mystery to be solved.
To worry about such a thing is to question one's sanity
Who narrated this? I swear it sounds like our very own “Roger Mackenzie”…Richard Rankin. I’m a sucker for a Scottish accent!
The arguments for either artist seem weak.
My great grandfather's cousin's brother painted that picture.... Someone needs to paint a mask on the old doc....
I guess that's Britain's "Whistler's Mother" (Arrangement in grey and black, no. 1).
Never knew ministers could skate.
This proves the art experts know nothing ..They can't even agree who painted it ..
Jeremy Smith it’s all about egos.
It’s all about creating “arguments” or finding a new angle to keep themselves employed.
If there are conventional portraits of Rev. Walker and his wife, I'd like to see Philip Mould and Fiona Bruce of 'Fake or Fortune' try to ferret them out.
yes...me too! They'd get to the bottom of this one!
So the Scots all think it was painted by a Scottish painter and English I think it was painted by a French painter. Not very surprising.
Gees this french artist was mind blowing
I believe Gilbert Stuart not only painted the Skater but also The Skating Minister. And yes I have seen both paintings in real life. It is not by Raeburn whose style is stiff and starchy.
I agree with you!
Stephen Lloyd looks like Tony Blair, even talks like him, too.
Tony is his Dad.
Tonys luv child.
The resemblance is disturbing.
cupcakefairy87 Yes, and just as detestably up himself as well.
Tony was known for telling the truth
So the French dude was the only artist that could paint subjects in motion? Bwaahahaha
sweety we are the best, we the frenchies
Lechiffresix six certainly the most egotistical.
Zoom in on the Reverend's profile and you see Putin
So whats the difference in millions?
Raeburn's Skating Minister is priceless, but you can probably secure a reasonable Danloux for around £50/70k. Hope that helps!