having been painted

[struggler]

Hi everyone, hope you have a nice dream tonight.

This is a question about the precedence of events.
The sentence is like this:
George showed me some pictures painted by his father.

Since the pictures were painted before he showed me, so should I change the sentence to:
George showed me some pictures having been painted by his father.

The change makes the precedence of events clear.
Is it all right?
Thanks.

 

[Kamila M]

Wouldn't it better to wirte
George showed me some pictures that his father had painted. ?

 

[billmcd]

Hi everyone, hope you have a nice dream tonight.

This is a question about the precedence of events.
The sentence is like this:
George showed me some pictures painted by his father.

Since the pictures were painted before he showed me, so should I change the sentence to:
George showed me some pictures having been painted by his father.

The change makes the precedence of events clear.
Is it all right?
Thanks.

Because the sequence of actions is obvious in your example (you could not show the pictures if they hadn't been painted) it would not be necessary to change your original sentence.

 

[Raymott]

Hi everyone, hope you have a nice dream tonight.

This is a question about the precedence of events.
The sentence is like this:
George showed me some pictures painted by his father.

Since the pictures were painted before he showed me, so should I change the sentence to:
George showed me some pictures having been painted by his father.

The change makes the precedence of events clear.
Is it all right?
Thanks.

No, that's a wrong use of that difficult construction.
"George showed me some pictures [that had been] painted by his father." is the meaning of the sentence.
But it's unnecessary. He obviously couldn't show the pictures before they were painted, so there's no ambiguity about the sequence of events.

Here's a proper example of the phrase you used:
"Having been painted by his father, the painting was kept hung on a wall in George's study."
It's difficult because you have two references in the first clause - something that was painted and 'his'. The second clause has to begin with what had been painted - the painting.