Rants, and Raves (even ones done when sober :D ) are only meant to live for a short time and then fade away, and so this one has outlived it's usefulness. So, the old Rant goes and the condensed mini version is all that remains.

The condensed Readers Digest version follows:

Painting and Art....."Good"! Seek to learn from, and improve upon those who came before. Help your fellow Artists learn more About the Art of painting, than just "self expression" if you have taught yourself rendering, and technical skills and methods. Like the painters and Artwork from the past that you like, whoever, or whatever that is. It's meant to be like that.
End of mini Rant.
Carl

Carl--

Didn't mean to make anyone skittish enough to need an asbestos suit. My wife can tell you two salient things: a) I can be a pedantic old git and b) I've been known to ratchet up my verbiage just to keep a healthy debate going.

But if I overdid it, I can easily apologize up front, because squelching discussion is the last thing I'm about.

To clarify, my question "Why?" was less toward "Why discuss it?" than toward "What is to be gained from exalting a single period in art to the exclusion of others?" I agree it is to our advantage to point out "quality" or "maturity" of technical expertise to each other. But to Jim's point, there is not the paucity of information out there now than there was 40 years ago, thank God.

My fear is that if you embue a single period or style with too much adoration, it limits discussion and evolution rather than fostering it. Especially when there is so much richness in the 500+ years of Western art to draw from. And at its worst, such a discussion becomes rearward rather than forward looking. We see it now, as some contemporary Classical Realists slavishly set up compositions of Pre-Raphaelite maidens and lute players, instead of images from our time, as if 19th-century academic training and pictorial content carries the only stamp of legitimacy. Why not, as you counsel, take the best methods and tools of the past and make powerful art for the 21st Century instead?

I'm as guilty of it as the next guy. Why does our society commission portrait after portrait of its children in white dresses and sailor suits, and we don't question it more? Or encourage more creative solutions? Of course my creditors love me for it, but I wonder if it's not more than a little lazy on my part. And sometimes I wonder if our fixation on the 19th Century as being the pinnacle of all that was good in painting, and the final realization of what all previous Realism was struggling toward, doesn't limit our thinking rather than free it. Do we have to crank out lesser Sargents or Zorns or Ingreses or Bouguereaus to earn the accolades of our peers or the recognition of the public?

I honestly don't have the answers to these questions, even if sometimes I pretend to. I'll step back now, as I'm looking forward to everyone's opinions.

And I appreciate the feedback. I need to dial the rhetoric down.

Best as always to my creative compatriots--TE

Hi all,

It is fascinating to read about the fixation towards 19th century painting here on the forum. This fixation is something which is for someone like me, living in the Netherlands unbelievable. To actually read that someone thinks that Bouguereau is better than all that came before, again unbelievable to my eyes and ears. And others endorsing this idea! In America you have the Aristotle by Rembrandt hanging in the Met, there are several Vermeer's in New York and Washington. Bouguereau better than Vermeer? The pinnacle of the art of painting in the 19th century? To me it's for the most part a boring era in painting until the impressionists came. I am amazed. Is this fixation for 19th century painting a general opinion amongst most of the portrait-painters/ realists in America? That's what I wonder, this is really one revealing thread.

Tom's self-reflection is refreshing. I have a theory as to how it happened American painters are so focused on this 19th century painting. It is probably because it is the only tradition in realist painting at a fairly high level they have experienced in the States. You have Sargent, we have Rembrandt. Sargent is alright, but which one of the two would you choose if you could ? If I travel to Amsterdam I see Delft, where Vermeer lived and worked, I go past Leiden where Rembrandt was born, I can see the Syndics or the Jewish bride in the Rijksmuseum. From where I live I am within one hour in Antwerp where Rubens lived and worked, I can go to Ghent, where the van Eyck masterpiece hangs. Really great realistic painting of exceptional genius is not a part of your culture. It's part of ours, my apologies if this sounds pretty harsh, I have to to tell the truth. It is why American painters are satisfied with mediocre art and dismiss genius. Bouguereau better than Leonardo?! I don't understand. Do what Sargent did to become a better painter. You should come to Europe for a while.

Greetings,
Peter

PS: I know Bouguereau was European too, but you get the general idea. ;)

[Original post deleted, 4 a.m., on grounds of being over the top, tedious, shrill, and too darn long. Gun not properly sighted in, either, and rusty.]

Throughout the history of western art, intelligent artists have studied the work of their predecessors, absorbed the lessons and then added their own twist to an ever expanding pool of knowledge. Each generation learned from the previous while new frontiers were constantly being traversed.

For example, better colorists than Rembrandt followed him due to breakthroughs in paint manufacturing. These presented the opportunity for artists to paint out of doors enabling them to see naturalistic color effects for the first time while using a far wider range of available and affordable colors. This in no way negates the impact of Rembrandt's work. It just goes to show that by it's nature art is always evolving.

That is until approximately one hundred years ago when modernists decided to negate and disregard all that came before, literally throwing out the baby with the bath water.

This is why certain late 19th century painters, particularly Bouguereau, have achieved, in the minds of many, a rarified place in the pantheon of artistic adeptness. Those who deride Bouguereau site the saccharine nature of his pictures. To each his own in that regard, but there is no disputing his virtuosic handling of the human form and his innovative problem solving. Unlike many old masters, Bouguereau rarely ever painted a "bad" painting. The vast majority of his paintings are at a highly consistent masterpiece level.

Another stunning example of the culmination of all that preceded him, is William McGregor Paxton. He was the first artist to successfully marry academic form with impressionist color. Paxton, at his best, clearly outshines Vermeer, an artist who was a big influence on his own work. Paxton's great draftsmanship puts him in a class by himself in comparison to Vermeer, whom he was clearly indebted to.

And so it went until the twentieth century art establishment decided to ignore, downplay and invalidate all the came before. Bouguereau and Paxton were buried historically by artists, dealers and historians who realized they had no chance of equalizing, let alone surpassing, them. So they took the easy way out and chose to invalidate, rather than attempt to emulate.

Invalidating that which is superior is a technique by which lesser artists are able to look themselves in the mirror each morning. Self delusion is a far more comfortable posture than self evaluation, any day.

Interestingly Monet and Degas, two of the greatest heroes of the twentieth century art establishment, were asked who in retrospect would be considered the greatest artist of the nineteenth century. Their choice: William Adolph Bouguereau.

We artists today need to return to the past, revisit, pay homage to and learn from our artistic predecessors. Without trying to repeat what they did, we can learn from their excellent examples, use their training methods and techniques and hope one day we can carve out a niche for ourselves and possibly even inspire our descendants to soar to even greater heights.

Good Lord NO Tom! I just needed to burp, sorry to do so in public. :bewildere

Ouch Steven! Whip me, beat me, hurt me. :D

Gee

Post deleted, in response to someone else's similar actions.

Yep, some action on the forum. :)

Peter

Wow, I just read this thread for the first time.

I don't know what was in the bottle that Tim hopefully sent you Carl, but I think we should crack it open and break into a few rounds of

"Bye, bye, Miss American pie..."

;)

"Drove my Chevy to the Levee but the Levee wasssss dryyyy!" ;) Sorry Beth, but you're the singer here, I have a 2 note range and both of those are flat.

Congratulations on your acceptance to the show.

Or as Sticks McGee, and later Jerry Lee Lewis, requested: "Pass that bottle to me!"

Marvin's summation is well constructed and thorough, and I agree with prit' near all of it. One thing about this thread that's dismayed me, and that I may have unfortunately sparked, is the debate over Bouguereau. I see him for the giant that he is, with a near unassailable technique, even if most of his content does leave me stone cold. Besides, Tim's query was about chronology and not individuals.

That wasn't my point, and in naming WB to try, badly, to articulate what I'm really trying to say, I helped steer this down the "My artist can beat up your artist!" path--a slippery slope even on a good day. Everyone has their favorites, and will passionately defend them as we've seen.

But Carl's imaginary ramble through the museum has given me a way to clarify, maybe. My point is, it's maybe less rather than more helpful to oversell a particular artist, school, or era when trying to point the way to artistic quality or maturity. There's just too much to learn from the whole Long March for this to be very profitable, to my mind.

If Carl's fledgling Young Realist came to me and said "Oh Great Master (hey, it's my movie ain't it?), what should I study?" I'd say "Tour the whole museum, child." (Except for that turn through the 20th Century, though that may also be instructive, at least to identify where things can go cosmically wrong.)

But this is the last from me on this, as I've taken too much space. And again, I'm more interested in what y'all think.

Cheers, and a tip of the glass to you all.--TE