eBay

thriftdrifter · ‎11-28-2018

Curious about this oil painting. I believe the artist is Dunlop Kirton. It mesaures 12" across.

Any information is greatly apprecitated.....thank you in advance.

maxine*j · ‎11-29-2018

@argon38 wrote:
I didn't express it very well... I was just thinking that he might have had a different preferred technique (in terms of brush thickness, etc.) when working directly on wood. In other words, if we were comparing two paintings on canvas and one had a thick signature while lots of others had a thin signature, it might ring alarm bells. But we're not really comparing like with like, because one is on wood and the others are on canvas. So that could potentially explain the difference. I didn't mean to imply that artists in general use thicker brushes when painting directly on wood - I've no idea if that's the case or not.

Could be. If so, it's nothing within my ken of art and artists.

I would guess that you did, as I did, note that the "Dunlop Kirton" signatures available on-line (and I did searches using Google Australia, as well) are done with a fine line, as well as in cursive, with both names, and in high contrast.

Of course, I found paintings marked "Dunlop" and one marked "Kirton," but that doesn't help and, in an event, none of them seemed to me to be in the same hand as the "Dunlop Kirton" signatures I saw. I also saw one of his paintings identified by a seller, who had trouble reading it, as signed by "Dunlop Kitow."

Anyhow, I didn't bother to look for more examples after OP said she "compared the Dunlop Kirton signautre and it looked exact."

And, as I've said here and many times before, a signature is usually not the starting place in identifying a painting, in any event, and I agree that in content, style, color sense, etc., this could be the work of the man.

argon38 · ‎11-29-2018

@maxine*j wrote:

Could be. If so, it's nothing within my ken of art and artists.

I would guess that you did, as I did, note that the "Dunlop Kirton" signatures available on-line (and I did searches using Google Australia, as well) are done with a fine line, as well as in cursive, with both names, and in high contrast.

Well, if you sign with a fine brush, you'll get a fine signature; and if you sign with a thick brush, you'll get a thick signature. So the question really boils down to this: is there a plausible reason why he should have used a thicker brush on the OP's painting, and a finer brush on others? I just think the fact that the substrates are different might be enough to explain the decision.

But if you're hinting that "Dunlop"/"Dunlop Kirton" might be an invented name used by more than one artist painting highly similar scenes, then I'd accept that the possibility can't be ruled out, given the lack of reliable biographical information about the artist. There seems to be virtually nothing out there.

maxine*j · ‎11-29-2018

@argon38 wrote:
Well, if you sign with a fine brush, you'll get a fine signature; and if you sign with a thick brush, you'll get a thick signature. So the question really boils down to this: is there a plausible reason why he should have used a thicker brush on the OP's painting, and a finer brush on others? I just think the fact that the substrates are different might be enough to explain the decision.

But if you're hinting that "Dunlop"/"Dunlop Kirton" might be an invented name used by more than one artist painting highly similar scenes, then I'd accept that the possibility can't be ruled out, given the lack of reliable biographical information about the artist. There seems to be virtually nothing out there.

All I can do is repeat myself: In my experience, I've not known the material the support is made of to influence the choice of the thickness of the brush(es) used to paint on it.

And, yes, the paintings do have a sofa-art feel that made me wonder about multiple sources, although the ones signed "Dunlop Kirton" seem to e a bit less slick and a bit more expressive, to my eye.

sonomabarn67 · ‎11-29-2018

Have to admit that. in the field, I wouldn't have given this painting a second look. But now that we're here the canvas vs wood question would come down to the mix of the paint and solvent ratio and brush, and thickness of gesso more so than the substrate. Of course if you pound into the canvas with a dog-eared worn brush it will certainly give sloppy results.

thriftdrifter · ‎11-30-2018

I also wonder considering the size...12” if the artist just fit his first name only?....

maxine*j · ‎11-30-2018

@thriftdrifter wrote:
I also wonder considering the size...12” if the artist just fit his first name only?....

Anything is possible. You can come up with endless ideas to make this into a painting by Dunlop Kirton, even though not signed that way, if you want to. But what have you gained? Even if it is by him, it doesn't increase the value by much, if at all. As you said yourself, he's obscure, at best, even if he is "listed" somewhere.

Whether or not its creator is "listed," every painting is just what it is until you get into the higher realms, and this painting doesn't go there.

So why not just enjoy it for what it is, if you intend to keep it. If you intend to sell it, then sell it for what it is, on its own merits. It's a pleasant enough, decorative little painting, framed accordingly.

thriftdrifter · ‎11-30-2018

I do intend to keep it since I live at the shore and I think it’s sweet. Just wanted to give the artist credit. Came to the boards for a little info and feedback. At the end of the day I have what I want....nothing more....nothing less.

bije30 · ‎03-22-2019

I too have a "Dunlop" painting. It's a 12 by 12 canvas. Only first name. Seen the painting when Googled. Nice frame. Has a D marred in the back on frame with number.