I admit that for a long while I didn't know the difference between a putto and a cherub. Still have to think about it. For those similarly challenged, a putto lacks wings, while a cherub has wings. Not much in it...unless you happen to want to fly. Anyway, the figure below is officially a putto.
Picture
'Sherratt'-style putto before an oak leaf bocage
This Staffordshire figure is no ordinary putto, for it happens to be in the "Sherratt" style. The distinctive base and the bocage leaves and flowers are found on other figure in the "Sherratt" family. The figure can be found facing left or right, so pairs are possible...but in my opinion, pairs were assembled later in life, so the figures were probably sold as singles.  These puttos occur on a variety of "Sherratt"-type bases (even table bases that are footed) and with varying typical "Sherratt"-type bocages. The mystery is this: what is the fat fellow clutching in his hand? A cigar?
Picture
'Sherratt'-style putto in front of a turquoise bocage.
Here we have another pearlware "Sherratt" putto, but the base and bocage are different. Grab my book and look at the splendid "Sherratt" dandies on the cover. Like the putto, the dandies stand in front of a turquoise bocage and their base is also adorned with those signature "Sherratt" garlands. I really like this turquoise putto. The turquoise "Sherratt" bocage has always been one of my favorites...and those garlands make me melt each time.

Note that the turquoise putto has lost the large fig leaf found on the first putto--yes, the same fig leaf used for obvious purposes by nude males in classical sculpture. And the turquoise putto brings us closer to figuring out what our plump friend is doing. Can  you see that the object in his left hand has been carefully painted in red? I think it is intended to be a magnifier--and this ties in with my suspicion that the object in his raised hand is a kaleidoscope or small telescope of sorts. I have still not been able to link this to any classical connotation, so if you know please shout.
 


Comments

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:36:08

Joy! I see a spelling mistake in Myrna's superb blog. I rush to check and find this: putto n. pl. put·ti A representation of a small child, often naked and having wings...
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

 

Myrna Schkolne

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:50:12

David! You are right and now I will never again be confused. Putti have wings. Cherubs don't. Not trying to make the least excuse for my stupidity, but at least I am not the only bewildered soul out there because Wiki says
"By the time the Baroque Era came about, which might arguably have been the high point for Cherubim and Putti, both of these little beings were usually being depicted in the same way. Which one they were, simply depended upon the theme of the painting or sculpture: If religious (sacred) – they were Cherubs. If secular or mythic (profane) – they were Putti.

 



Leave a Reply