Ok Jim, you certainly have my apology for misunderstanding you.

I was not going to discuss any of this further, however this is a reasonable question from someone who

Maybe this a as good a thread as to bring up a name - Rubens. We all know he did not make all those paintings and that it was closer to Disney than to one painter. But these works of Rubens are more widely varied than Disney's for quality at least. Some of those babies are hard to look at. Babies are cute normally. Look at "Leda and the Swan" - really bad drawing. I know, the works he did mostly himself are good and some are spectacular. (Stay cool Peter). I think "A Lion Hunt" is about as good as composition ever got.

But it's kind of part of the question as this business fleshed itself out. When did artists start painting their own paintings and worry that years later people would look at the corporate productions and have to try to sort through the work to identify the actual painter?

As I wade into this subject.....

I have just returned from a semi-intensive Russian art trip. I visited the Hermitage, (my fifth trip), the Russian Museum, Tretyakov, and Pushkin, as well as the Institute of Art in St. Petersburg,

I think it is of no question that there was a tremendous leap to those of us who revere realism, in the 15th Century portraits over the (mostly) religious images that we saw previously.

I asked a cleric at Segeiv Posad (Russian Orthodox Vatican) about this, and he stated that the paintings (icons, etc.) we saw were as God saw man, not as man saw man. The small adult shaped babies, funny proportions, stilted perspectives, were not because the artists were untrained in how to perceive perception, value, or line, but because those were the parameters of their art form.

In actuality, much of the work painted has more in common with the image on the Shroud of Turin than with the human body.

One needs only to see the portraits painted on the mummy cases from 100 BC to see that artists were capable even at that early date to paint a portrait that shows a likeness, was structurally correct, very realistic, and even moving. (I have seen many of these mummy portraits in various museums so I am assuming that those reading this have as well.)

In the 15th and 16th Century, the robust shipping industry created a super rich upper class and a very comfortable middle class in Amsterdam, making it possible for portraits to be commissioned for private parties, not just for the church. There was an astonishing outpouring of tremendously accomplished artwork.

I would challenge any of those stating that the epitome of Western Art is found in the 19th Century to spend a few days at the galleries, large and minuscule, in Amsterdam. Without doubt, the work done by even the most plebeian artist stands the test of time...And what they were able to do with such rudimentary colors and tools boggles the mind.

Why no reference to Van Dyck? My particular favorite Flemish artist. I know I am treading on some very deeply held beliefs here, but what I find missing in the Bouguereau and the Paxton portraits is soulfulness. A connection with the subject. An empathy. I know Van Dyck's subjects, I know Rembrandt, I could go on and on....this is why I study the Russians, I know Kramskoi and Repin's subjects. I know their pain, and loss, and joy. I know nothing of Paxton's subjects or Bouguereau except that they are masterfully painted. Not enough for me.

BTW, I've read that the most beloved and revered and famous (at the time) teacher/artist of the Bostonian period, late 19th Century, was Joseph DeCamp.

Well said!

On the Goodart forum there is currently a discussion going on about the fact that clients don't want deep characterizations or genuine emotion depicted in the portraits they will hang over their sofa. Is this lack of emotion, this surface prettiness that we see so much of in current realism, a function of what clients are asking for, do you think?

Kramskoi's and Rembrandt's breathtaking and riveting portraits would haunt me if they were hanging in my house. I would feel as if a disturbing presence was watching me.

Interesting question.

I would say, no. I would say that the clients are not giving any thought to the ... intensity, let's say....of the work, and asking for something "pretty". I think they hire an artist, and the artist gives them pretty.

I have never had a client ask me for something less strong, or emotional in my portraits. They hire me because they like my work, and my work is strong and emotional.

In referring to the Kramskoi portraits, there are some (woodsman series, mermaids, "Irreconcilable Grief") which would be difficult to hang over ones mantle, but they were painted for museums, not for a private home. Kramskoi's commissioned portrait work was much less invasive, but nonetheless engaging.

As time goes on, and I have less of it, I am much more interested in painting for a future generation than to match the living room wall.

A little aside comes to mind. When I worked for the agencies, the client was buying a painting. When I commission work for myself, the client is buying an artist. I have much more room to create a work of art to my specifications in the latter scenario.

I think it's interesting what artists and others say of an artist's work. They said of Sargent," oh he's all flash and brushwork" And WB.-"he's all finish" yet both of these guys drew really well, composed really well and even made a few statements. But the glaring excellence and beauty of their work overwhelms the other qualities. Sargent would not have gotten to paint 600 portraits had one not been able to recognize the sitters.

When artists have produced crude surfaces- like Cezanne, then people rave about his compositions.

just a thought...Tim

I think painting will mature in 2022. Let's all get back to work and wait to see if we're part of it. If not, keep painting, and don't worry about anyone's assessment of maturity. Entire websites are active now, assessing assessing assessing.

Let's be painting, drawing, painting.

Exactly what I've been thinking, Steven. I love to read about art and write about art but recently I've realized that what I need to be doing FAR more of is making art.

Back to the easel....

I had to think about why some people consider 'Revolver' by The Beatles a better album than 'Sgt. Pepper'. In Revolver there is a promise, there are new sounds, developments, it is headed towards something.

When an artist works from the idea that his art has 'matured', which direction does it go? He thinks it has matured, it has grown-up. Rembrandt's work has an early phase, a later phase. There is movement, a change in style, a before and after. I want to see an artist fail every now and then! Maybe 'maturity' in art is the acceptance of ones own ability to fail and try new things. Perfection is boring.

Tim - Go to Antwerp when you have the chance - Paleis Museum voor Schone Kunsten, When I saw the great Van Dyck-exhibition I accidentally walked into the galleries at the first floor. Rubens paintings , meters and meters... I think they were about 5 or more meters high (I do not exxagerate) It's like a breath of fresh air- so dynamic.

Peter, those two artists were very good, very early in their lives. Thanks for the museum tip.