I purchased the these paintings together from a dealer, and I believe they were probably part of the same estate originally purchased commercially in the 20s as part of a decorative scheme. One can only guess as as to the reasons such paintings should exist, unsigned, in such original frames. My guess asks us to consider that these paintings were made around 1920, evidenced by oxidation levels, cracking and other signs of age, of the frames and canvases themselves. The Art Deco nature of the lady with the birds is apparent, her costume and hair, the geometry of the composition and classical references contained within it were all part of that movement which borrowed from it's predecessor Art Nouveau. Stylistically, though it's pallette is more pastel, the painting shows Victorian, even Pre-Raphaelite influence. Her frame is more heavily Nouveau influenced. The other piece is revival of the Barbizon Style.

The 20s were not referred to as "roaring" for nothing. I think the politics and economics of the time may have had a direct part in the creation of these paintings. It was boom times, opulent, with an infant upper middle class flexing its economic muscle and wanting high - end decorative items. This was concurrent with a new type of worker coming available for the first time to the labor market--educated women. And in what were these daughters of the newly rich educated? Quite often, it was Fine Arts, with the intent surely in many cases of doing nothing more than adding to their culture and refinement. But when these young ladies came upon the labor market, they naturally sought work first of all in that which they were trained. It was surely, with a few possible exceptions, of course, difficult for these women to earn any recognition as an independent studio artist. Unfairly it has always been so for women. I've seen many old paintings signed with the first initial or last name only, when they were done by female and less often so when done by a male. In the 20s large, colorful, professional-looking Art pieces were not easily produced by printing or photographic means [not that they are so now]. Therefore, commercial studios that employed artists making decorative pieces--paintings, sculptures, fine pottery--could probably sell all they could produce, and gladly welcomed these educated women into the fold. There are other reasons to believe these pieces were done by such artists and not by their male co-workers. They are remarkably sensitive paintings, very mature as well. Most believe sensitivity comes more naturally to women, something male artists constantly strive to elevate, all that right brain stuff. Furthermore, I believe they're both so good that even under commercial circumstances, had they been executed by a man, it would've been a selling point, and they would have been signed. I can make no better conjectures. Obviously a lot of educated care went into the production and presentation of these pieces. I praise their makers.

Steve B. Lance