Home / _2006-2015 Albums to Sort Out (Multiply +) / 2012_Jul 27 - Is this nude Louise Brooks?_profdash [2]

2012_Jul 27 - Is this nude Louise Brooks?
by David for group historicalziegfeld Jul 27, 2012

During the last week a large painting or painted photograph--life sized--surfaced in Chicago. The owner forwarded the images below to me inquiring whether this was Louise Brooks. Thomas Gladysz, head of the Brooks Society, is doubtful, thinking it may be Betty Compton. I am more inclined to think it might be. We know from Brooks's 1925 injunction against DeMirjian that she had posed for him in a nude shoot (images from that shoot appeared in ART & BEAUTY magazine in 1925). I invite the members her to offer their arguments pro & con.

1 comment

Add a comment

Notify me of followup comments :

Subscribe without commenting


  • historicalzg - 1Reply
    zfolliestribute wrote on Jul 31 '12
    Thats not Louise ..for sure its not her, the face is not the same or the haircut.

    profdash wrote on Jul 29 '12
    The blue eyes here suggest that this is not Brooks who had brown. DS

    profdash wrote on Jul 27 '12
    The image is signed De Mirjian, and the signature is that of John, rather than Arto DeMirjian, so it predates 1928. Could this be a lobby image for the Vanities. A publicity image for Compton from the 1924 Vogues? Brooks for the 1924 Scandals?

    obb1esso wrote on Jul 27 '12
    Looks like a painted enlargement of an ACJ picture. Don’t think it’s Louise Brooks, hair is to short by about half an inch and her bangs are to short. It’s a painting, it could be anyone.

    valentinovamp wrote on Jul 27 '12
    To me, it doesn't resemble Louise Brooks at all. Even the bob cut looks different. It does, in fact, look more like Betty Compton, even the hair is a dead ringer for the way Betty wore hers in the 1920s.
Total hits: 8471823
Most recent 10 minutes hits: 158
Current hour hits: 456
Yesterday hits: 7759
Last 24 hours visitors: 1384
Current hour visitors: 140
Recent guest(s): 24