Tim, yes there's kind of a soft whispered "r", in the pronunciation of "Ingres" but I don't know how to spell that in English.

Marvin, if you know off the top of your head where exactly the Paxton is located at the Met, and I'll bet you do, can you post it? Paintings aren't always where they're supposed to be, I've learned.

Michele, I am outraged to learn that I was in Seattle and missed seeing a Raeburn! Don't tell me it was at SAM, which was (depressingly) full of things like old clothes on the floor with buttons artfully scattered about.

Linda

A couple of observations (seriously), The Paxton is indeed very good. Now, those last two posted portraits rather look alike huh? This era produced paintings with great surfaces and depth and light and form, but sometimes the compositions were less than exciting or even new.

Lawrence was sweet, Renoir with more finish? I have problems with the area between the girls faces. The dark is a confusing shape at the profile where it slides into other girl's clothes. I sense he meant the near girl to be looking at her sister but the eyes don't focus. I mean no offense to any fans out there.

Linda,

Go to the Sargent area in the American wing. This is at one end of a long corridor like gallery. At the other end is the Eakins area. About halfway down on the left hand side is the opportunity to experience a level of perfection rarely if ever approached by mere mortals. The Paxton is quiet and small and surrounded by larger more boldly painted works. It is easy to just pass it buy. Be careful to call and make sure that gallery is open because it is closed one or two days during the week. They rotate the guards. It's always open on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays.

Michele,

The lack of emotional attachment in Ingres paintings is a function of his disinterest not a lack of ability so I don

Linda, the Seattle Art Museum (SAM) often does have some good stuff hidden away in the last room, after you walk quickly past the atrocious stuff in the main galleries. They recently had a show with works by Sargent, Hals, Van Dyke and Raeburn. For anyone out in this area, THE museum to go to for realist painting in Seattle is really the Frye, though.

Marvin, I'm with you on Renoir. I never liked his stuff. Mush is the right word.

I will hold to my opinion on Ingres though. A lack of heart and soul in a painting is still a fault, in my view. I'm sure he could have created works with more emotion. Too bad he didn't feel like it.

Michele and Marvin,

If Renoir was a clumsy and muddy painter, I wish I was as clumsy as Renoir. this painting is so alive! To me, one of the great paintings of the world (I'm sorry to be a little off-topic here, this one is not in the Met)

Peter

P. S. If Bouguereau knocks on the door I will give him my brushes to wash ;) And he may clean my palette too!

Peter, your work (like your portrait of Rene, for example) is better than that Renoir, in my opinion!

The proletarians...unite, (and vote for)
 

Rembrandt:

Karl Marx or Engels said, (not exact words)
"If someone finally dipicted, in Rembrandt's strong light, the breathing images of revolutionary leaders, that would be wonderful!"

More than reality
 

Referring back to the statements that claim that great painting is the copying of what is in front of one (or in the photo one is copying) and do-able in paint - that is called "COPYING".

Now, painting, as in Art, is the enhancement of reality, creation of the illusion of reality, making it more than the real color, more than the real person, more than a photograph. It is enhancement of reality - like a Raeburn or a Carravagio, or a Dewing (albeit strange anatomy at times...) or an Ingres.

Sargent enhanced reality and succeeded greatly. So did Bouguereau. Enter creativity and thought and sheer energized concentration of learned technical ability of a true artist - then we use the words "GREAT and INCREDIBLE" to describe the work.

A little late - but I wanted to chime in.

Denise

Michele - Thanks!

Peter