Caitlin Hurd Art

Painted en plein air, in Sag Harbor, New York. Situated in the People's United Bank parking lot, Butko looks over to the opposite side of Main Street. Beneath tall, fully bloomed trees, illuminated storefronts glisten after they close up for the day. Victor Butko was born into a long line of artists, and has been mentored in painting since the age of 8. He is currently the youngest artist exhibiting at Thomas Kearns McCarthey Gallery, one of the foremost dealers in the United States for Russian Impressionist art...

Charming 1940's Claude Bouteur landscape Oil on a wood panel painting in a Post Impressionist style representing the banks of Seine River and the Pont Marie Bridge, a lovely composit...

The hair is made of actual gold leaf (imitation), so the hair shines and sparkles nicely in light. Original painting. Acrylic, oil, paper and gold leaf on high quality linen canvas s...

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...

This exquisite work is an accomplished example of the type of portrait in vogue in England during the third quarter of the 17th century. There was a large demand for paintings in England and the demand for portraits was greatest. Many artists worked in this lucrative field, even artists who initially trained in the more respected field of history painting, such as Peter Lely, turned their attention to portraiture to meet this demand. Moreover, it was not uncommon for the British, even for men, to present a gift of one’s portrait to a friend - portraits were first and foremost a memento. Woman at court often vied with one another in displays of rich and fashionable clothing. The drapery was either painted from the customer’s own clothes or was perhaps a creation using fabrics loosely tacked together in the studio. This was a common practice of Lely and his studio props included swathes of fabric and pieces of cloth. The sitter’s sumptuous attire and gauze scarf, fastened by a large diamond brooch, is of the finest material and is representative of wealth. Pearls were an obligatory accompaniment since at least the 1630s and they are worn in abundance – in her hair, on her attire, as a necklace, and as pear-shaped earrings called unions d’excellence, reflecting the difficulty of finding perfectly matched pearls of such large size. They could range up to 20 millimetres in diameter. Her hairstyle help date the painting to the early 1660’s. Peter Lely, the son of a Dutch...

Large scale mid-century modern painting by listed American artist Joseph Barber (1915-1998) The painting shows the beautiful stark landscape of an open wheat field under gray skies....

Titan Fine Art presents this portrait of a brave and chivalrous character. The gentleman has been depicted in armour, an elaborate full wig, and in accordance with the latest French fashion, an elaborate type of Venetian Gros point lace cravat and large silk bow (also called a cravat-string) – a type that were popular across Europe in the 1680’s. Point lace was fabulously expensive - a cravat was equivalent to six weeks income for a gentleman - and therefore indicative of a wearer's wealth and social class. A nobleman riding onto the battlefield would wear a lace cravat over his armour to demonstrate his status. The attire, along with the coat-of-arms, help to proclaim to every onlooker that the gentleman is a superior being. The depiction of the lace, apart from denoting the wealth of the sitter, was a deliberate way for the artist to demonstrate his own artistic ambition and technical skills Argent seasoned gule with three lozenges sable are those of the Crois family, who were minor nobility, originating from the Boulogne region in the north of France. The fact that the sitter is a high ranking noble excludes him as a member of the Crois family. As is so commonly the case, the coat of arms was a later addition, probably in the nineteenth century, by a family who sought to glorify their pedigree by adding their arms to the portrait. These arms are now an interesting part of the portraits history. The artist has captured a sense of the sitter’s character and the features of the sitter’s face have been rendered with great sensitivity. His confident gaze perhaps reflecting the near invincibility afforded by this steel suit. The work is a very good example of French portraiture from the period. Presented in an exquisite hand-carved and gilded seventeenth century frame - which is an exceptional work of art in itself. Pierre Mignard, known as le Romain, was a French painter of the court of the French King Louis XIV and was, with Charles Le Brun (1619-90), one of the most successful painters during the reign of Louis XIV. After training in Troyes, where he was born, and in Bourges, Mignard joined the studio of Simon Vouet in Paris in 1627. He went to Italy in 1636 and remained there until 1657. He studied the work of Correggio and Pietro da Cortona in Rome as well as copying Annibale Carracci's frescoes in the Palazzo Farnese. On Le Brun's death in 1690 he succeeded him as its Director and as First Painter to the King painting...

This exquisite portrait, presented by Titan Fine Art, belongs to a type of portrait known as ‘Les Belle Romanes’; Voet is perhaps best remembered for his series of them – a great set of portraits...

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...

Portrait of Colonel William Helyar (1621-1698) and Rachel Helyar (c.1633-1678) c.1656 Circle of Robert Walker (act. 1637-1656) These fascinating portraits, presented by Titan Fine Art, depict Colonel William Helyar, High Sheriff of Somersetshire, and his wife Rachel Helyar nee Wyndham, a daughter and co-heiress of Sir Hugh Wyndham, 1st Baronet (died 1663) of Pilsden Court, Dorset. They are exquisite examples of portraiture during the Interregnum when England was under various forms of republican government. The history of the seventeenth century is in part the story of the Stewarts and their approach to government and the church; their ebbing and flowing popularity and the disastrous decisions that led to Civil War. But another fascinating dynasty also ruled Britain: the Cromwell’s. Between 1653 and 1659, following the Civil Wars and experimental Commonwealth, Oliver Cromwell governed as Lord Protector followed by his son Richard. Cromwell’s Protectorate is usually imagined as a grey, joyless, military regime. But the reality was rather different. Cromwell presided over a colourful and fashionable court where music and the arts flourished, masques were revived and the first English operas performed. Too often the London of the 1650s is painted as puritanical and repressive in contrast to the vivid, fun-loving capital of the Restoration. Yet, under Cromwell, this was the city where the first coffee houses were opening, where a young Samuel Pepys was embarking on his career as a civil servant with the patronage of one of Cromwell’s councillors and where Christopher Wren was enjoying his new Chair of astronomy at Gresham College, appointed after the personal intervention of Cromwell. When Cromwell was invested as Lord Protector for the second time in 1657, the lavish ceremony in Westminster Hall and procession through London matched any previous coronation for pageantry with thousands lining the streets, bells ringing, bonfires blazing and free French wine flowing through the city. The gentleman in our portrait is Colonel William Helyar (1621-1698), Sheriff of Somerset and as a Royalist during the English Civil War. As one of the most prominent old families of the South-West, the Helyar’s family roots in Somerset can be traced back to 1616 when the Reverend William Helyar (1559-1645), chaplain to Elizabeth I, who was also a cousin by marriage, purchased the family residence Coker Court in East Coker, Somerset. He married a Devonshire heiress and several estates were bestowed on him as a result. He was a warm supporter of Charles I in the Civil War and was in residence at Exeter in 1643 when the Parliamentarians pillaged the cathedral. Elderly as he was, he boldly resisted them, but was beaten, pelted with mud, and locked up in a ship in the port and only let out on payment of £800. He retired to Coker where he died in 1645. His eldest son Henry died in 1634 and he was succeeded by his grandson, Colonel William Helyar, the sitter in our portrait. Colonel Helyar raised a troop of horse for King Charles I and was a colonel in the king's army. He was at Exeter when it was captured by the Parliamentary forces in 1646 and thus deemed ‘Traitor to the Parliament’. His estates were sequestered, but they were returned and he was discharged and pardoned on payment of £1,522. During the Restoration he was a Sheriff and he also helped James II repel the Monmouth Rebellion. The companion portrait represents the Colonel’s wife, Rachel Helyar (baptised 24th June 1633 at St Mary Aldermanbury, London – died 1678). She was the youngest daughter and co-heir of Sir Hugh Wyndham, 1st Baronet of Pilsdon Court and Mary Wyndham nee Alanson (Sir Hugh should not be confused with his first cousin once removed from Somerset, also Sir Hugh Wyndham (bef. 1604 - 1684). Rachel is a thirteenth generation descendant of King Henry III. The couple resided at the family seat of Coker Court (interestingly, within the churchyard, lie the remains of the poet T.S. Eliot who once wrote a poem about East Coker). A marriage settlement in extant shows that the couple were married in 1656; the portraits were most likely painted to mark this important event in the sitter’s lives. Rachel holds roses, the flower of love, and the putto pouring water is representative of her purity, and possibly, the plighting of troth. Colonel Helyar wears a gold wedding band. The couple had four sons: George, William (MP) (1662-1742), John, and Richard. Colonel Helyar died in December 1697 and was buried at Whitechurch, Dorset 2 Jan 1698. This period in which this portrait was painted was known as the Protectorate (1653-1659). This period offered relative peace, as the English Civil War ended in 1651. It was an interesting time for portraiture in England and Scotland – in between the great artistic geniuses and dominance of Van Dyke and Peter Lely. Much of the foreign-born artistic talent had fled England and Scotland during the Civil War and the artists that had remained were in great demand, in part due to the newly exposed strata of society wishing to be painted. Sitters on both sides were depicted in portraits in very similar ways. They are not, on the whole, shown as the Roundheads and Cavaliers of popular history. In fact, it is usually impossible to guess their political allegiances from the style of their portrait and their Parliamentarian and royalist iconographies, as portraits on both sides followed the same conventions and looked identical. Colonel Helyar has been depicted in armour and holding a Marshal’s baton of command, confirming his status. There is a great sense of realism and a particular delicacy, note the finely rendered hand resting on the rapier. Rachel is wearing a satin dress with expansive sleeves and a crimson drapery over her shoulder and held up by her left hand. She wears large pearl...

The works of William Smith were regularly exhibited at the Royal Academy in London between 1813 and 1859. Yet little is known about this artist. He lived in Shropshire and was active...

This magnificent grand-scale work, offered by Titan Fine Art, formed part of a collection of family pictures and heirlooms of the Rivers Baronets and their descendants for over 325 years, before it was dispersed by the last in the line in 1988. The work was painted by the most technically proficient painter in England after the death of Van Dyck, and the dominant court painter to Charles II and James, Duke of York, Sir Peter Lely. It is no surprise that for years Lely had no serious rivals, was enormously influential and successful, and one of the country’s most important painters – and his work influenced countless artists over generations. The exquisite carved and gilded auricular frame is an astounding work of art in itself. The sitters in this exquisite double portrait are Sir John Rivers, who succeeded as the 3rd Baronet Chafford in 1657 (c.1638 - c. 1679), and his wife, Lady Anne Hewitt (c.1640-c.1689). They are seated in an outdoor setting beside a fountain modelled as a female figure with water issuing into a scallop-shell. The water, the elaborate sculpted fountain with its scallop-edged bowl, and the open shell in her hand are symbols of fertility - as such they make an appropriate allusion to Lady Anne’s potential as wife and mother, recalling Proverbs, chapter 5, verse 18: “Let thye fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of thye youth”. This reference was realised, as Sir John and Lady Anne produced at least six children; their son George (1665-1734) became 4th Baronet of Chafford. The composition, thus, represents a celebration of marriage and was likely commissioned around the time of the betrothal (the marriage took place 26th Feb 1662 or 1663). The statues in the left margin are 'Youth and 'Old Age' and are a typical form of Memento Mori reminding virile young man that even they will lose their youth and grow old. The Rivers family, originally of Kent, traces its history to Sir Bartholomew Rivers, in the reign of Edward IV. The family included several prominent members including several knights, a Commander in the King's Army, a steward of a ducal estate, a Lord-Mayor of London, and an M.P. John Rivers (c.1659-c.1651) was made 1st Baronet of Chafford in 1622 by King James I. The Chafford estate was the family seat and it remained so until the early 1700s with the death of Sir George Rivers, 4th Baronet (1665–1734), whose sons had all died. The Chafford estate was left to his daughters while the baronetcy passed to nephew John Rivers, 5th Baronet (c. 1718–1743), and then Sir John’s brother, Sir Peter Rivers-Gay, 6th Baronet (c. 1721–1790). Upon Sir Peter Rivers Gay's death the estate passed to his eldest son, Sir Thomas Rivers Gay, 7th Baronet (c. 1770–1805). Sir Thomas, dying in 1805 with no children, bequeathed the estate to his mother Dame Martha Rivers Gay, who managed the estate until 1834 when she settled it on the then Sir Henry Rivers, 9th Baronet (c. 1779–1851) her younger son, before dying shortly thereafter in 1835. Sir Henry had married in 1812 to Charlotte Eales, with whom he had 6 sons and 8 daughters. Upon his death in 1851 the estate passed to his eldest surviving son Sir James Francis Rivers, 10th Baronet (1822–1869). Sir James married Catherine Eastcott in 1867 but died childless in 1869, and the estate passed to his only surviving brother Sir Henry Chandos Rivers, 11th Baronet (1834–1870) but he died a year later in 1870 also childless; with no male heir the Baronetcy was therefore extinguished. The estate was bequeathed, in trust, by Sir Henry Chandos Rivers to Thomas Frederick Inman, a solicitor of Bath, who then managed the estate as a trustee on behalf of Sir Henry Chandos Rivers' sister Katherine Rivers (c.1826-1895). It then passed to Katherine River’s daughter, Katherine Wall (born c.1855), who had also inherited Worthy Park House from her father, George Alfred Ellis Wall (1825-1875). Until 1958 our portrait is known to have hung at Worthy Park House. Upon Katherine Wall’s death, the Rivers estate passed to her daughter, Katherine Eleonora Rivers Fryer (1889-1963), who married Colonel James Alexander Butchart 1877-1853. In 1958 the family sold Worthy Park House but our portrait was loaned to Southampton Museum and Art Gallery. After the death of Katherine and Colonel James, the estate was left to their only son, Charles Bruce Rivers Butchart (1917-2005) and upon Charles’ retirement to a nursing home in 1988, and without heirs, our portrait, along with the residual assets of the Rivers estate were sold, thus ending over 325 years of continual family ownership. Lady Anne Rivers is thought to have been born circa 1640. She was the fourth child of the second marriage of Sir Thomas Hewitt (or Hewett) (1606-1662), 1st Baronet of Pishobury, Herts, and his wife Margaret Lytton (died 1689). Sir Thomas was an English landowner and M.P. for Windsor and upon the English Restoration...