Adriano Goby Art

Painted in the 19th century, this exquisite miniature portrait wonderfully exemplifies realism in traditional oil painting. The small artwork is painted in the conventional portraiture style of the Old Masters, and achieves soft realism with fine brushwork and a subdued, neutral palette. The half length portrait depicts a fine Victorian woman dressed in all black with a delicate lace collar and bonnet. She wears a ruby broach...

This beautiful portrait was painted circa 1725 and is a fine example of the English eighteenth century portrait style. The artist has chosen to depict the lady against a plain background wearing a simple red silk dress and transparent headdress hanging down the back. The sitter is not shown with jewellery or any other elements to distract the viewer’s attached, thus highlighting the beauty of the young sitter. This restrained manner achieves a sense of understated elegance. The portrait genre was valued particularly highly in English society. Neither landscapes nor allegorical pictures were ever priced so highly at exhibitions and in the trade as depictions of people, from the highest aristocracy to scholars, writers, poets and statesmen. With the rich colouring and lyrical characterisation, these works are representative of the archetypal English portrait and is are very appealing examples of British portraiture...

This portrait depicts an elegant, aristocratic women wearing a yellow silk dress with white chemise and a red mantle elegantly draped around her body. By tradition the portrait represents Mary Capel, Countess of Essex. Born Lady Mary Bentinck in 1679, she was the daughter of William Bentinck, 1st Earl of Portland, a Dutch and English nobleman who became in an early stage the favourite of stadtholder William, Prince of Orange (the future King of England) and his wife Anne Villiers (died 1688). Lady Mary's maternal grandparents were Sir Edward Villiers and Lady Frances Howard...

The portrait genre was valued particularly highly in English society. Neither landscapes nor allegorical pictures were ever priced so highly at exhibitions and in the trade as depictions of people, from the highest aristocracy to scholars, writers, poets and statesmen. This charming portrait, presented by Titan Fine Art, of a fashionable young gentleman and his faithful pet is an excellent example of 17th century child portraiture in England. There is a remarkable beauty and sensitivity to the portrait. The face, particularly well rendered, has captured the character of this young man – both charming and at the same time mischievous. Only the playful attention of a small dog suggests anything less than patrician dignity. Symbolism was important in portraiture and it provided a pointed and aspirational narrative that would not have been lost on contemporary viewers. For example, the presence of the dog, which was likely the boy’s pet, is at once a charming pictorial device and also a clear allusion to fidelity, trust and loyalty. The hairstyle and the attire, notably the type of cravat with the blue ribbon, help to date this portrait to between 1670 to 1685. Until the late eighteenth century children were dressed as adults - boys were dressed like men in breeches, vests, and coats between four and seven years of age. The expensive lace is an indication to his family’s wealth. Held in a good quality and condition antique gilded frame. Born in Suffolk, Mary Beale, nee Cradock (1633-1699) was employed by many of the most distinguished persons of her time including nobility, landed gentry, and clergymen. Technically accomplished, her paintings are noteworthy for their honest and sympathetic portrayal. In 1651 she married Charles Beale...

This exquisite portrait of a gentleman depicted in a sumptuous black coat edged with silver and slashed sleeves is an excellent example of the type of portrait fashionable in England and the Low Countries during the 17th century. The confident pose, striking orange sash - the colour of the house of Orange Nassau - and the leather gorget imbue the sitter with a sense of masculinity and power. The profusely decorated costume is of the highest quality and de rigueur of an elite class - the artist has carefully cultivated this portrait to emphasise the sitter’s wealth and standing in the society that he belonged to. The casual pose, with one arm resting on a hip, is much less formal than earlier decades, and it speaks of ‘sprezzatura’ – one’s appearance should not appear laborious, but instead, effortless. The oil on cradled panel portrait can be dated to circa 1650 based on the hairstyle and the attire - small falling collar, short doublet (doublets reduced in size to just below the ribcage in the late 1650’s), and the type of slashed sleeves with the sleeve seams left open to reveal the white fabric. The demand for portraits in the Netherlands was great in the 17th century. Bartholemeus van der Helst was considered to be one of the leading portrait painters of the Dutch Golden Age surpassing even Rembrandt as the most sought-after portraitist in Harlaam. The Dutch Golden Age, roughly spanning the 17th century, was a period when Dutch trade, science, military, and art were among the most acclaimed in the world. Dutch explorers charted new territory and settled abroad. Trade by the Dutch East-India Company thrived, and war heroes from the naval battles were decorated and became national heroes. During this time, The Dutch Old Masters began to prevail in the art world, creating a depth of realistic portraits of people and life in the area that has hardly been surpassed. The Golden Age painters depicted the scenes that their discerning new middle-class patrons wanted to see. This new wealth from merchant activities and exploration combined with a lack of church patronage, shifted art subjects away from biblical genres. Still life’s of items of everyday objects, landscapes, and seascapes reflecting the naval and trade power that the Republic enjoyed were popular. The new wealthy class were keen to have their portraits commissioned and many artists worked in this lucrative field. Such was the popularity of art that everyone had a painting, even the humble butcher, and hundreds of thousands of paintings were produced. By tradition the sitter is Maarten Tromp (1598-1653) who was an Admiral in the Dutch Navy (the reverse of the portrait contains an old handwritten inscription “van Tromp”). Certainly, the distinctive orange sash is similar to those worn by officers of the Dutch army in the Netherlands who served under the Princes of Orange and the House of Nassau. However, it should be noted that the physiognomy differs from other images of Tromp. Tromp was the oldest son of Harpert Maertensz, a naval officer and captain. He joined the Dutch navy as a lieutenant in July 1622 and was later promoted from captain to Lieutenant-Admiral of Holland and West Frisia in 1637. In 1639, during the Dutch struggle for independence from Spain, Tromp defeated a large Spanish fleet bound for Flanders at the Battle of the Downs, which marked an enormous change - the end of Spanish naval power. He was killed in action during the First Anglo-Dutch War in 1653 where he commanded the Dutch fleet in the battle of Scheveningen. Gloves were an absolutely vital accessory and the elaborate pair in this portrait are embellished with threads of silk and precious metals and salmon-coloured lining. He wears only one glove and holds the other, providing an opportunity to better display the cuffs and detail on his right wrist and forearm. The gloves are probably made from the most prized leather which came from Spain, in particular from Cordova. Cordovan leather was tanned with a special vegetal process that left it both highly impermeable and divinely soft. King Charles I, posed in a rather relaxed manner for Daniel Mytens’s portrait in 1631, is wearing gloves and boots in matching Cordovan leather. The hide is thick, but you can see just how supple it is from the way the gauntlet dimples and the long boot legs fold over themselves, rippling and wrinkling at the ankles. Apart from keeping hands warm the use of gloves during the 15th through the 19th centuries were full of symbolism and they were worn regardless of the season. They kept the skin unblemished - soft, smooth hands were considered highly attractive. This combination of necessity and proximity to bare skin made gloves a deeply personal gift and they took on a strong symbolic significance and were regarded as emblematic of fidelity and loyalty for hundreds of years. Such was the importance of their symbolism was that some gloves were never intended to be worn at all. Their luxury made them ideal gifts at court, and so in the 15th and 16th centuries, ambassadors often presented them as symbols of loyalty. Until the mid-19th century, it was customary to give gloves as tokens to guests at weddings and to mourners at funerals. Gentleman often gifted their bride-to-be with a pair of gloves (the obligatory gift) and were handed over at the betrothal and put on display before the wedding took place. It was probably their direct contact with the skin that led to the eroticism of gloves. Not only were pairs often exchanged between lovers, but from the 16th to the 18th centuries, it was common practice to remove one glove and give it as a gift to a favourite. The idea of the item being presented still warm from the wearer’s hand is certainly suggestive. Following the death of King George IV, his executors purportedly found over a thousand mismatched ladies’ gloves among his possessions. The sentiment of a 17th-century poem reveals the popularity of the practice: “Come to our wedding to requite your loves / Shew us your hands and we’ll fit you with gloves.” Such generosity might be pricey for the hosts, but gloves of varying quality could be offered depending on the status of the recipient. Pairs made with the finest Spanish leather might be reserved for immediate family, while coarse sheep’s leather could be distributed among the servants and tradesmen. The apportioning of quality according to class provided a very clear message of the gloves’ intended use. For refined guests, they were decoration; for the lower classes, they were functional. Bartholomeus van der Helst...

Portrait of Grace Saunderson, Viscountess Castleton (1635-1667) c.1665-67 Sir Peter Lely and Studio (1618-1680) Titan Fine Art present this work, which formed part of a collection of family pictures and heirlooms of the Saunderson, Viscount Castleton family and their descendants, the Earls of Scarbrough, at their magnificent family seat Sandbeck Park, where the Earls still reside today almost four hundred years later. It was painted in the studio of Sir Peter Lely...

This work, offered by Titan Fine Art, formed part of the collection of paintings and family heirlooms of Baron Hugues Alfred Frèdéric de Cabrol de Moute (1909-1997) and his wife, Baroness Marguerite (née d’Harcourt) de Cabrol de Moute (1915-2011). The couple had unimpeachable and enviable family backgrounds, and were descendants of ancient princelings; together they were one of the most prominent high-society couples of the twentieth century and counted the Duke of Duchess of Windsor amongst their closest friends. This portrait is that of Marie-Madeleine de Chamillart (died 28 May 1751) nee Nicolas de Lusse. She had a daughter, Anne, in 1692. In 1700 she married Clément Chamillart (1663-1708), President of the Accounts of the King's Chamber. The couple had a daughter, Madeleine (born 1701), who married Louis, the only son of Guillaume de Guitaut and Antoinette de Vertamont in 1719. Guillaume de Guitaut resided at Château d'Époisses in Burgundy France and his descendants still live today. A portrait of our sitter is still held at the Château. Clément Chamillart died in 1708 and our sitter remarried Jean-Baptiste de Johanne de la Carre (1678-1726), marquis de Saumery, maréchal de camp, in 1713. This marriage produced two daughters, Marguerite (died 1729) and Marie Madeleine (born 1720). Much of the beauty of this elegant portrait resides in its graceful composition – it is a fine example of French portraiture. Beautifully and meticulously rendered throughout, the sitter has been depicted three quarter length in an outdoor setting beside a potted orange tree. The lady is shown in a blue dress with silver detailed décolletage and large voluminous sleeves turned over to reveal elaborately detailed lining. The sumptuous fabrics convey a sense of wealth and prestige. The portrait is striking in its portrayal of the sumptuous fabrics and their decorative richness. The prominent sprig of orange blossom that she is holding is a traditional representation of marriage and eternal love in art, but it also alludes to youth and freshness, and by virtue of the great expense and difficulty with which it was often grown, to great wealth. In accordance with the sitter's age and the style of clothing and hair with the curls on the forehead, this portrait can be dated to the 1720s. Baron Hugues Alfred Frèdéric de Cabrol de Moute (1909-1997) was the son of Roger de Cabrol de Moute and Helen Mary de Lassence. He was one of the more engaging personages in that delightful social constellation of social figures who animated what has become known as "Cafe Society" which was international but inevitably most at home in Paris from the 1920's until the 1960's. He married Marguerite d'Harcourt (1915-2011), known as Daisy, in Paris in 1937, the only daughter of Étienne, Marquis d'Harcourt, and his wife, Marie de Curel. The Harcourt family belongs to the circle of the oldest families in France; the founder of the family, Bernard le Danois, received the seigniory of Harcourt in the tenth century, following the conquest of Normandy. In the 11th century, his descendants took part in the conquest of England alongside William the Conqueror. Later, the Harcourt family was divided into a French branch and an English branch, which successively received the titles of barons, viscounts, and counts. Marguerite "Daisy" Marie Brigitte Emmanuelle Ghislaine d'Harcourt, Baronne de Cabrol was one of the last survivors of twentieth century French high society. Through her mother, Daisy was a descendant of the great industrial family of Wendel, with iron and steel enterprises in Lorraine; she also descended from Nicolas Soult, one of Napoleon's Marshals and three times Prime Minister of France. The couple became friends of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor in 1947, and were invited to the Chateau de la Croë, their rented house on Cap d'Antibes. There they found the exiled Windsors living in unusual post-war luxury, serving delicious food and providing fresh sheets every day. Daisy suspected that the Windsors were bored, but, having nothing else to do, were condemned to an endless round of social engagements. She and Fred were among the few allowed to see the Duchess laid out after her death in 1986. Daisy was a considerable hostess, giving a ball every year for her charity, L'Essor, to which le tout Paris would come. One of these, in 1954, was at the Palais des Glaces, in Paris (later used in the film Gigi), at which she entertained Charlie Chaplin, the Begum Aga Khan and the Windsors. According to Nancy Mitford...

This beautiful portrait was painted circa 1725 and is a fine example of the English eighteenth century portrait style. The artist has chosen to depict the lady in a simple blue silk dress and without jewelry or a background, thus allowing the viewer to concentrate solely on the beauty of the sitter. The effect of this restrained manner creates a sense of understated elegance. The portrait genre was valued particularly highly in English society. Neither landscapes nor allegorical pictures were ever priced so highly at exhibitions and in the trade as depictions of people, from the highest aristocracy to scholars, writers, poets and statesmen. With the rich colouring and lyrical characterisation, these works are representative of the archetypal English portrait and is are very appealing examples of British portraiture...

Titan Fine Art are pleased to present this charming bust-length portrait, which is a good example of the style of portrait painted in England in the second quarter of the seventeenth century. The attire consists of the finest silks, and the full billowing sleeves, bows, and hairstyle help in dating this portrait to circa 1637. The accessory par excellence – pearls – are worn as a necklace and were a very popular accessory. The artist makes no attempt to obey the rules of Baroque and instead sensitively depicts in complete honesty his sitter against a plain wall, and without distracting backdrops and flowing draperies – this work is very redolent of the sumptuous half-length female portraits that Cornelius Johnson...

The sitter is elegantly attired in a blue silk dress over a white frilled chemise and a striking crimson mantle. The artist, Thomas Murray, can be described as one of the most successful and talented during the last part of the seventeenth century. It is not surprising that Murray painted the portraits of King William III, Queen Mary, Queen Ann as well as several other high-ranking individuals. The influence of Sir Godfrey Kneller is evident and even expected considering the importance of Kneller, and even though the formula employed for head and shoulders portraits of woman during the period is similar, Murray’s work is distinguishable by a refined and elegant manner, a smooth overall feel, and often, distinctive eyes. Murray is known to have employed not only the same pattern as our portrait but the three distinctive colours (blue, white, red) many times. Thomas Murray was born in Scotland but moved to London to study with a member of the De Critz family. Later he was a pupil of the English portraitist John Riley (1646-1691), who was court painter to King William III and Queen Mary, and was practising as a painter on his own in the 1680s. In 1691 he took over Riley’s studio when that artist died in 1691 and he established a very successful practice. The Rev, James Dalloway accounted that Murray “was remarkable for his personal beauty and for the elegance of his manner” and he was also noted to have been hard working, courteous and popular with his customers. His portraiture retains an individual style and easily recognised but his earlier work is similar to John Closterman, who was a fellow pupil, and many consider this period to be his finest. Murray invested wisely in property and when he died in 1735, he left around £40,000. He had no children and he bequeathed his money to a nephew with instructions that his monument, with a bust, should be erected in Westminster Abbey, provided that it did not cost too much – but his nephew decided that it was indeed “too expensive” and the plan did not proceed. He is buried in St. Paul's, Covent Garden. Murray’s work is represented in many British country houses and private collections, the National Portrait Gallery London, Royal Society and Middle Temple in London, and in the Uffizi Gallery in Florence. A good example of 17th century British portraiture...

Titan Fine Art present this striking portrait, which was painted by one of the most talented artists working in England during the last half of the 17th century, John Greenhill. Gre...

Portrait of Young Gentleman, Lord George Douglas, in an Arcadian Landscape c.1710 Attributed to Charles D'Agar (1669-1723) Depicted with bow in hand and situated against an Arcadian...