When did painting mature?
 

I was thinking of starting a poll, but I don't know how. I was wondering when is everyones' opinion to this question;"when did the craft of painting lose the clunk?"

There's a date in my mind, when I see lots of paintings start to be created with good perspective, color, design, form (drawing. I exempt the greats that happened along every so often to confuse the matter. I'm talking about the time when many artists were doing fine work strong with depth and realism that breathed of life. I'm not going to lead the witness, I'm just curious how everyone else feels about this.

(It's also interesting to note how many centuries fine painting lagged behind truly awesome sculpture.)

Between Giotto and Vermeer the art of painting reached it's highest level of quality, I think. After that there has never been a master as complete as someone like van Eyck, Velazquez or Rembrandt. The average quality of painters was highest in 17th century dutch painting.

Peter

Only to clarify
 

Not to take issue at all, but when do you think painting first became markedly better than ever before on a general level. The time you mentioned saw several greats Peter but maybe some time prior to that perspective, drawing, color and design broke forth from the art dark ages. When did this happen?-say in Europe anyway?

In the Renaissance, maybe when the text written by Alberti ('On Painting') became known? It was an inspiration for Renaissance artists, and explained how the rules of perspective worked.

Another time, I think was in Ancient Greece. When modelling in light and shadow was invented, or the invention of the use of the highlight in painting. And it all goes back to Egypt ultimately. What the Greeks did was started in Egypt.

To me a very interesting development are computer generated images like Toy Story, Shreck, Finding Nemo. The increasingly powerful possibilities of computers in this make a logical comparison with the greater possibilities of oil-paint compared to tempera.

It has to do, I think, with technical inventions giving new possibilities and inspiration. The invention of the use of shadows, the invention of the highlight in ancient history. The invention of working in oil, or perspective in the Renaissance.

This, combined with an economic possibility for painters to sell their work for good money to churches or individuals. If painting nowadays was as profitable as web design for example, we would see a totally different art world, I guess.

I would choose the works of Leonardo in the Renaissance (especially his 'Last Supper') as the giant leap painting had to take from Giotto/Masaccio/Verocchio (or early Renaissance) to a mature high-Renaissance-style which made the work of Raphael or the high-Renaissance in general possible.

Tim,
Are you talking mid fourteen hundreds here, right around Van Eyck's time when things were moving more out of 2d with the use of oil paint?

Carl, I just wonder when YOU think the work (by several atists) became really much better. I have some personal views that I'll keep to myself for a while.

Well Tim, I

There's only one pinnacle
 

Painting achieved its full maturity in 1865 when Bouguereau's painting style began its final ascent. No one had ever before or since acheived the level of technical sophistication and sensitive portrayal of the human form.

Of course Bouguereau had the distinct advantage of having seen and learned from the works of the oil painting masters that preceeded him. Obviously they never had the opportunity to learn from him.

Some would say the turning point in Western art was when DaVinci discovered how the use of "sfumato" (or smoke, as in smoky soft edges) gave the Mona Lisa an appearance of realism beyond what any of the cut-out figures of pre-Renaissance painting ever achieved.

You're preaching to the choir, Marvin! :exclamati

Michelle, you

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.

Boy, the gas went out of this discussion pretty fast, to my mind.

IF you define your parameters for measuring tightly enough, you can make a case for anyone. Bouguereau was great, sure. But the highest in possible achievement? Come on, guys. Reading this is like hearing someone assert that because someone was the first to perfect the depiction of dark-haired, sultry, specifically French, peasant girls with a water jar, a blue skirt, a red bandana, standing in a wheat field, that they were the first in history to "get painting down." It is, in my opinion, patent nonsense. Again, any argument can be made for anyone by the bias built into the measuring device.

Even Leonardo stood on the shoulders of Giotto, Fra Angelico, Piero della Francesca, Mategna, Masaccio and Botticelli. Not to mention concurrent developments in Northern Europe. Why not Titian and the Van Eycks in the introduction of oils? And do David and Ingres have nothing to say to Bouguereau? Are Bouguereau's choices in
composing and rendering the landscape any LESS stylized and more "scientifically right" than portions of say, Raphael's deeper spaces? Or Titian's?

And how to factor in the disparity between the "perfect" vs. the not-as-accomplished images, and the ongoing stylistic evolution, in a given individual's total lifetime output?

Nothing springs from nothing, not even Bouguereau. Tim and Marvin make some of the above points, but I have to disagree with the premise. It's like looking at the entire march of Western art out of the Byzantine and saying "Pick one." Or "Pick a time." Or "Pick a group."

My response is, "HOW?" Or more importantly, "WHY?"

With utmost respect for my artistic compadres,
Tom

Well, for me this is not only about WB-it's about the time. The greatest marble mansion was "built upon" knowledge gained from making the first lean-to. I was recently looking at a couple of Da Vinci's and they were really weak.I know this sounds like heresy to some. But look at the works w/o the influence of your youth.

I'd restate that some great stuff was being made in 1630 by some real exceptional artists. I also agree that what is now, is, because of what came before. I don't mean slick surfaces, when I say mature painting.

Tim,

Which Da Vinci's exactly? Can you post the pictures with your comments? It's hard to understand how you came to such a conclusion.

When you say, 'when did painting mature' then do you believe that it is still in the mature state?

I personally think 'The Syndics' by Rembrandt is as mature as the art of painting can possibly get. Bouguereau does not even come close... in my humble opinion.

http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/asp/showim...Z/SK-C-6.Z.jpg

Peter

After giving it some thought I wanted to edit this post and add that I think I agree with Tom. Van Eyck wasn't a less mature painter than Rembrandt. I personally just don't understand the very high regard some people have for Bouguereau. Maybe an idea for another thread?

It may be that the word "mature" itself is so slippery.

I think that Tim's criteria from the prior post--correct perspective, consistent light, etc.--is a good place to start, but one can find examples even in Bouguereau and his contemporaries where these attributes fail. Many of WB's paintings look like studio figures applied to, not integrated with, landscapes. And John has a point too, a lot of the output of that era is undercut by its own sentiment -- the "treacle" factor -- though we disagree about Waterhouse (same literary content as others, noted absence of treacle.) Should this become part of the mix also? Not to deny the technical superiority of even these. If these painters didn't get to perfection, admittedly, they got pretty darn close.

But to say that this is the first time in painting history that this happened is, I think, a stretch.

Once again, could this painting thing not be a journey rather than a destination?

I guess asking when painting matured is like asking when a person matured. It's a gradual process and hard to affix a date to.

Gee,
I'm stuck way back on Peter's question... what do Marvin and I get for a prize?

A new Easel like Michael's... a set of Badger hair brushes... a large tube of Cremnitz White... a small bottle of Windsor Newton Turpentine... an expired Metropolitan Art Museum button... scrapings from the palette you used last week... or a kick in the pants from the rest of the group for guessing as we did? :D

Carl

Booby prize!
 

Carl- Or as Arlo Guthrie once said, we get to pay $50.00 and pick up the garbage.

Carl, when you got to I was waiting for the vintage or at least the proof and provenance (I was thinking Kentucky), but your ultimate choice of turpentine reminded me of a studio mate, a retired professor of philosophy from Georgetown (and me, very anciently a philosophy major), who once told me, "I love the smell of turpentine so much, I wish I could drink it!"

He and I weren't always broadcasting on the same personality wavelength, and I understood at the time that I'd have exposed a dual motivation by saying "Why don't you, then?", and so I didn't. I've not always been as circumspect on the Forum, but there you go.

I realize that this isn't quite on topic, but I've been flummoxed in my effort to figure out what would be.

Marvin, Yep, I think you must have hit on it!
All because Tim threatened to bring in the 8x10 color, glossy photos, with the circles and arrows on the back of each one to make his point, and then ran away when he spied the seeing eye Dog.

warning, long post to follow

Tom, I'll put on my asbestos suit here and stick my neck out.

Bill Whitaker once mentioned that everyone has their individual "check points" (often different in some way from another Artist's "check points") when determining if they were on target painting a likeness. I would say that extends to evaluating others Artwork (past and present) as well. We all have our "check points to determine if a work is technically, and or, artistically outstanding. To the degree those differ (rightly or wrongly), we end up differing in opinion.

It seems pretty straightforward when walking the Museums that many Artists indeed worked hard at building on each others advances and methods (learning the check points of several other artists, and combining them into their own work and with their own check points). Of course the "highest possible" are words any Artist ought to be wary of uttering within hearing range of his/her own soul. If you don't feel more is possible, that will likely be true (unless you have a particularly contrary soul).

It sure can be interesting to walk through a Museum chronologically, but watch out at the Met when you pass from the 19th Century into the Modern Art wing. Though I must admit I haven't gone through those doors in a few years. Not to say there aren't things to learn there, there are. However the theme of progression in realistic Art knowledge is strangely represented there (if you could say it was at all. It wasn't when I did go through. Visually, when you walked in it looked like a "Left turn Clyde" (reference from an old Clint Eastwood Movie).


I'd say the sharing of information whether it be on forums like this one, other forums, workshops, classrooms, etc. is important today, if you have any love of realistic style work in you at all. I'd say to much has gotten, and is getting, more splintered, (Illustrators, our keepers of the torch in modern times, are increasingly going to computer and dropping the ball) to many worked in this day and age at rediscovering the wheel alone or in tiny groups, or were bullied when young, by those who "knew", into dropping realism entirely.

Abstraction has its place and importance. As does being able to turn out a big number of pictures for your Gallery to sell. It just seems useful to remember that left unattended things atrophy and degrade.

Slower to complete, quality, Realist work is worthwhile enough to attend to, so this age can build something more on the past, and fewer of us will mumble about the 16th, 17th, 18th, or 19th century and do something worth mumbling about in the 21'st Century.

It's not a good thing that a present day Realistic Artist, needs to play Sherlock Holmes in order to find reliable information on the refinements of his/her profession.


Steven, :D :D :D I much prefer other liquids when it comes to drinking. I didn't think Tim would spring for that though.
Carl

I too am not sure what "mature" means within the history of oil painting. My comments may not help with that definition or aid in the judgement of whom (if possible) might best represent that term. Instead I will complicate things somewhat by suggesting that it is not possible to separate design, rendering and technical elements from effectiveness. Or, to put it another way, how well did the artist communicate or somehow touch, move or stimulate the very people who viewed his work both in his day and the years that followed. There is no denying the ability of a Bouguereau and many of us are awed by his skill. But unfortunately he fails to arouse a response at almost any level in the art world. Apart from suggestions that the public has been "dumbed down" in ability to appreciate painting or the organized art world finds it somehow to their advantage to ignore him, he is for the most part a non-entity. As popular as he might have been at one time his work does not make that critical connection. At the very moment that the highest level of painting skill is evidenced, nothing happens. I have no basis in fact but would guess that any prints of his work that are sold would fall far short of the works of other artist. "Flawed" works by many other artist are far better able to evoke understanding and an emotional attachment.

It might be disturbing to say this but a lot of "Contemporary" art sells because it "connects". As has been suggested by a prominent realist painter the reason realism doesn't get the notice we think it deserves is because not much is done at a high enough level to earn attention. I think that will happen when someone builds upon all that has evolved (realism and contemporary) and takes it to a new level.

In the mean time, it seems to me, that it might be far easier today to get the training to be an artist of any persuasion then it would have been for any aspiring artist in the past. If nothing else this forum gold mine for information and direction for anyone bent on Portraiture/Realism.

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