Ok Tim.... give it up! Nobody else is biting. What is the time you had in mind and why?

Carl

I don't want to say yet but I will say I'm sure I will agree with at least one SOG artist.

To be more specific, when do you stop seeing "almost correct" perspective? When do paintings hold togther flawlessly? When does the light source seem absolutely perfect? When is the design uncluttered with unneeded detail? When is the depth of field convincing?

Note: I'm sure drawing, like sculpture, was "mature" before painting.

Tim- ehm... How much is the prize-money?

Well, now this is a sort of different question when you narrow it down like that. With that tight a criteria, you'd have to pick the 19th Century and Bouguereau...end of story. That's in my oh so humble opinion. Though I'm sure you could find a ready army across the country to disagree with me. I was just looking at one yesterday, and it would fit your description very well indeed.

Oh boy... I'm getting the secret prize now Peter!

Carl

Okay, I'll be away for a while so I'll fess up. I think Carl and Marvin's 1865 is about right on. There are a few noteable examples before that time and Vermeer and Rubens' work can't be denied. We don't have to all agree on this. I just recently saw some work by "very famous artists" and the work looked out of whack, the compositions didn't make sense, etc etc. It's okay to reassess some of the age-old greats.

Now sculpture by 1500 was pretty awesome. I think that's interesting. Who can fault the Pieta?

Oh boy... Do we disagree in a big way, Tim !

Now... what are you going to give to Carl and Marvin?

greetings,
Peter

Peter, I knew several informed artists would disagree with me. More artists will come forward to agree with you.

Maybe I can post some examples by famous folks that show my point. That Dutch guy was pretty good, too, by the way.

Tim,

Could you post some examples of the works by famous masters who you feel are overrated? Would like to know more about why you would choose 1865 instead of a date in the 16th or 17th century.

I have another question. Do you feel that there is a tradition in painting still going on in the States, by artists who were thaught by artists who were thaught by artists that were trained by people like Sargent or other academiccally trained people in the 19th century? I ask that because while developments were cut off here in Europe, in America there were -maybe- some artists that kept something of the traditions in painting going?

Peter

That's a big question-I'll have to think about that one-you may have something there. I think the Italians are doing nice work, or Americans in Italy.

I think all things perfect themselves. The increase or advancement of any feild of endeavor slows as the longer people study and practice the thing. It is argued for example that no baseball players will ever hit 400 again because hitters and batters are both generally better now. The game is perfecting itself.

There are always expections to this idea, and it's the exceptions that capture our hearts and attention everytime.

From The Peanut Gallery
 

I know it's a little late to weigh in on this one, but the question sent me on a long search through my meagre art history resources. I would agree that sculpture and drawing were at a mature state of development by 1500 or so.

To my eye, Raphael's portraits of 1513 - 1516 show all the technical elements of refined classical portraiture. But he and the rest of the painters of the Italian renaissance had trouble with larger spatial themes. Ditto Velasquez, who is beautiful as long as he stays indoors.

The 17th century Dutch painters, tout ensemble, seem to have it all worked out. Clearly the landscape painters are technically about as good as it gets by this time. Vermeer could obviously handle landscape ("View of Delft"), and, figure/genre/portraiture with the utmost refinement. But the one painting where he puts it all together, "The Little Street", has always bothered me. He and many other Dutch painters of the period are very convincing most of the time, and Rembrandt is always convincing.

From Rembrandt on, I become more moved by the appeal of the subject matter than by the technical mastery exhibited. While there may be incremental improvements in realistic painting in the 19th century, I find many of the themes to be just dreadful in painters like Ingres, Bougereau, Waterhouse, David and the Pre-Raphaelites. Perhaps that's not a fair comment to make in this thread, since I think we're talking about technique. However, at some point even the most elegant and refined technique can't overcome a steady diet of treacle!

Please, don't anyone be offended by this emotionally based opinion. I don't like a lot of the literature of that period or much else that was produced during that era. It's not my fault: it's kind of like an allergy that I have.