Lot Essay
These magnificent portraits, hitherto unpublished, are an important and unique addition to the body of works of both artists. Both paintings are dated 1833, when Vincente Lpez was at the peak of full maturity, and by which time his son, Bernardo Lpez, had already proven a talented successor, whose best works often approached his father's in quality. The year 1833 is significant for the death Ferdinand VII, Vicente Lpez's great patron. Having been the court portraitist par excellence, his works are a true record of the society of this period. Vicente's portrait of the Marquise of Ulagares is a characteristic work of this late Fernandine period, comparable with other great works, such as the portrait of Queen Maria Cristina de Borbn of circa 1829, in the Prado. The influence of Goya, Lpez's direct predecessor as royal portraitist, while somewhat diluted, is still evident. In contrast, Bernardo's portrait of the Marquise's son, while executed in the same watershed year, is more forward-looking in feeling, and more easily placed within the context of the late Romantic style which was to prevail under the new Queen, Isabel II. A parallel may be drawn between the present painting and Bernando's portrait of circa 1835 of his father-in-law, Jaime Terrent, in a Madrid private collection (See J.L. Morales y Marin, in the catalogue of the exhibition, Vicente Lpez, Madrid, 1989, p. 298, no. 81).
As no documentation relating to the commission of this pair of paintings has yet been discovered, it is difficult to say whether they were originally conceived as pendants, each to be executed by a different artist, or whether one was painted first, and the second immediately afterwards as a companion. Whichever the case, they are clearly a pair.
We are grateful to Professor Jose Luis Diez for confirming the attribution of these paintings having examined them in person. He plans to include them in his forthcoming catalogue raisonn.
As no documentation relating to the commission of this pair of paintings has yet been discovered, it is difficult to say whether they were originally conceived as pendants, each to be executed by a different artist, or whether one was painted first, and the second immediately afterwards as a companion. Whichever the case, they are clearly a pair.
We are grateful to Professor Jose Luis Diez for confirming the attribution of these paintings having examined them in person. He plans to include them in his forthcoming catalogue raisonn.