Searching for Bouguereau
 

Last year (April

David:
An interesting and rare contribution.
http://www.superstock.co.uk/stock-ph...phy/Bouguereau

For comparision:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Abbey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panth%C3%A9on_%28Paris%29

W. Bouguereau
 

David, I can appreciate your enthusiasm for I too, some five years ago, had my moments. I even went to La Rochelle where he had his family home. I also had my moments of pleasure at the Musee D

David:

An interesting pilgrimage, and one worth doing I think! Did you ever find any of his paintings? I heard from someone that they supposedly have them in a side annex of the Louvre...

David:
Admire your enthusiasm.
I'm wondering that someone may research on this, the relation of condition of one's death with life: is a peaceful life usually ends with the same kind death? Sargent is a sample.

http://magliery.com/Graphics/MoreFra...inci-tomb.html

Thanks for sharing your story, David.

His paintings seem to crop up in places you would not expect:

http://www.appletonmuseum.org/european.shtml

This is also interesting and perhaps extra copies of the catalog are available: http://www.appletonmuseum.org/exhibi...au010607.shtml

I guess with Bouguereau the position to take is never mind the content admire the technique but is that really enough? I find it difficult to understand people's interest in hiim. What are people seeing that I am not?

Innocence
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Linnocence.jpg

Juliette Binoche, daughter of an actress and a sculptor, was only 23 when she first attracted the attention of international film critics with The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1988). Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times film critic with an international following of his books on film and TV reviews, wrote that she was "almost ethereal in her beauty and innocence". That innocence was gone by the time Binoche completed Louis Malle's Damage (1992) (aka "Fatale").
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3354694144/tt0096332

Westminster Abbey - now that's where you want to be buried - good company!! Interesting to read all the various bio's there. Thanks for the links.

Mischa, thanks for sharing - the photos are great! Did you see any sites related to Bouguereau, his home? Any paintings? Did you see his "The Flagellation of Our Lord Jesus Christ" in the Cathedral of La Rochelle?

You know when I went to the Musee D'Orsay, I went to see Bouguereau's "The Birth of Venus" (the one in your photo) and the room was roped off - closed! They said they were repainting the walls. I went back a week later - still closed!! They said the work was finished but there were still paint smells in the room. :? I told them that as an artist, I inhale much worse every day, and could they please let me in for a few minutes. I wasn't charming enough, so I didn't get to see it.

Thanks for sharing that experience, David!

It's well to remember that as recently as 30-40 years ago, Allen Funt (originator of TVs "Candid Camera") was buying Bouguereaus, Fochs and the works of other top tier painters of the Gilded Age at unbelievably low prices . . . mostly for the purpose of ridiculing them as "kitsch", and to thumb his nose at "knowledgeable art collectors" who wouldn't have touched them with a barge pole.

While his magnificent "Nymphs and Satyr" sold for $10,000 in 1873 - (the equivalent of $400,000 in gold today) then graced the barroom of Hoffman House in NYC, (watering hole of presidents, senators, the super-wealthy - "the" place to be) the Clarks bought it for $5k in the 1940's (far less than a quarter of its original value, adjusted for inflation).

At the end of his life, Bouguereau was already well on the way to becoming obscure; reviled and ridiculed by the modernists, post-modernists and all who followed as a prime example of "bad taste" and "what was wrong with academic art", when he was mentioned at all.

When I was in art school, (early '70s) of the art history courses I took, the only reference to Bouguereau and the mainstream of 19th Century art of which he was the fore-front, was a single footnote in one of the sizeable required textbooks ( "Mainstreams of Modern Art" - the name says it all) which excoriated Bouguereau et al for their insipid, sentimental, formulaic and superficial work without so much as an accompanying illustration - perhaps the authors felt their hard-sell wouldn't play as well in the face of an actual example.

Appreciation for Bouguereau and 19th century academic art in general is a relatively new and tentative facet of art history and appreciation since 1900, as it flies in the face of the established "party line" to which most university art programs adhere . . . at least in this country. Apparently he's not doing all that well in France, either.

Hilstory will eventually be "fair", I think. Even Rembrandt was reviled in his own time, and obscure to forgotten for long years afterward. Vermeer's small opus was lost entirely to view for over a century. Fads come and go and tastes change with the times. What is truly worthy in the art of the centuries eventually comes to the fore, to be appreciated as having intrinsic merit.

Wasn't it? When I lived in Paris I did get to see quite a lot of their work and those adjectives certainly seem to fit so in what way do his supporters here feel differently? As I said in my earlier post - admiring their technique is one thing but calling it great art is something entirely different and I would like to see supporters argue the case. In what way wasn't their art pandering to conservative bourgeois bad taste?

Do you want my personal opinion? (I'm not a "worshipper" of Bouguereau). I feel much of that criticism is fair and deserved. While Bouguereau was a consummate technician, not even a quarter of his works (of the ones I've seen - as repros and "in the flesh") measure up to "Nymphs and Satyr" which I feel is a helluva fine painting for anyone, for any time or place.

We're still far too close to WB's time to be objective. That you indicate a " . . . pandering to bourgeoise, conservative bad taste . . ." indicates our placement historically, politically and economically is as yet too near and too polarized for us to be truly objective.

In what time or place has a major art form (i.e., the most "successful", ergo "visible" art) NOT "pandered" to the tastes of those who make it ubiquitous, either through patronage, or in the marketplace, or in the popular imagination by being attractively enjoyable and well, . . . popular? If you can systematically and objectively define "bad taste", you are well on the way to answering the question: "What is art?

Disconnection with the themes and aesthetics of Bouguereau's time has more to do with cataclysmic changes wrought by World War I (which still resonate throughout today's culture) than native dislikes of certain subject matter or subjective handlings of imagery.

There's no question that in the rush to be "honest", "bohemian", "real", "vital", "iconoclast", "original" "shocking" etc., etc., after 1900 the direction of the art deemed "important" by critics and cogniscenti was to surmount if not eliminate the academies. The baby was thrown out with the bath-water in the de-emphasis on craft, technique and knowledge of materials which resulted. It was successful to such a degree that these considerations for the making of art have come perilously close to extinction.

A backlash realization that many things of value have been lost during the past century quite naturally includes renewed interest in the works of Bouguereau and his peers. While it's a mistake to superimpose currently prevailing tastes, mores and sensibilities upon artworks made in different times and places, it's quite true that the art which endures, art that is truly worthy, transcends such transient considerations.

Even though the art of this man is technically sound, this man portrays much more than what the casual eye may see. First one must understand the time in which he lived. Next, one must understand the moment and conditions for many of the paintings painted. Each painting, besides the study and tech, unveils much of the symbolisms of that time within religious circles as well as political. Notice that he did not paint many political figures. One can wonder why that is?

Peter, I think you raise some important points and valid criticisms that certainly should not be dismissed out of hand. Many of Bouguereau's paintings - to our twenty-first century eyes - may strike us as overly sentimental or romantic, but I think what keeps them from becoming "insipid" or "superficial" is first of all, his consummate skill and craftmanship. In the hands of an even slightly lesser artist, I think your argument would be unassailable. But in Bouguereau's case, it is more than just "technique," as masterful as his was. It is the vision of the artist and his ability to articulate atmosphere and convey, in the most subtle ways, mood and personality. In this way his work transcends the Salon conventions of his day - the "conservative bourgeois" trappings that, before the Impressionists came along, was the matrix that all serious artists were obliged to work within (or against).

And isn't that what great art is all about? Not that the artist rejects their time and place necessarily, but he/she transcends it, and by so doing creates a work that resonates with people across cultures and centuries - a work that somehow reminds us, in a profound way, what it means to be human - regardless of the specific cultural or painting conventions (those are a given), or even the subject matter, that characterize the work. And of course, the work of most artists - of whatever century - will never rise to that level. They will never be called "Masters."

For the most part, WB painted idealized visions that are either religious or allegorical. And of course being a painter of his time - and as Richard points out, "it's a mistake to superimpose currently prevailing tastes, mores and sensibilities upon artworks made in different times and places" - in order to appreciate Bouguereau (or any painter of allegorical or religious imagery before him) we must entertain a certain "suspension of disbelief." Otherwise, we couldn't relate to it. The symbolism is not of our time.

And if you say that because Bouguereau was gladly and sucessfully working within the Salon system, he was "pandering to conservative bourgeois...taste" - then I suppose we could say the same about the art of Michaelangelo, Raphael, Rubens, Velasquez, Rembrandt (who in his earlier years was an acclaimed and much sought-after portrait painter), and on and on. They were all working (pandering) for the rich and powerful, trying to create pictures that, using the pictoral conventions of the day, would satisfy their powerful clients and, hopefully, themselves. Richard is right, I think, on that point.

I would disagree with Richard when he says "we're still far too close to WB's time to be objective." I think we've moved on far enough from the great Salon/ Impressionist debates of the late 19th century to be able to assess the work of that period with a healthy degree of objectivity - although we're still talking about art, which will, to some degree, remain subjective.

And on that note :) , to buttress my arguments I humbly offer the following: WB's portrait of Gabrielle Cot - in my way of looking at things, one of the finest portraits ever painted - by anyone. Anyone who can paint THIS ...I think is worthy of some serious attention.

Conservative?...certainly. Idealized?...yes. Sentimental?...maybe. Insipid, formulaic, superficial...? Well, you be the judge.

The second half of the 19th century in France not only produced Bouguereau and the other academic painters it also produced Millet, Daumier, Courbet as well as Degas, Monet, Cezanne etc and I do not judge Bouguereau in isolation from what those others were doing and incidentally what they thought of his work.

Degas probably coined the term 'Bouguereaute' by which he meant art based on 'slick and artificial surfaces' and so it was his contempories that treated his beautifully rendered but insipid sentimentality with contempt, not only modern critics.

Courbet famously said he "didn't paint angels because he never saw one" and he touched on the heart of the matter. Realism is not about technique - it is about the truth and honesty in rendering the world around us. Bourguereau idealised whereas Courbet, Degas and Manet gave us truth. You give me a portrait of a pretty woman and I give you a woman squatting over her tin bath; you give me Satyrs and angels and I give you a boating party and peasants breaking stones.

Great technique does not stop art from being insipid neither is it sufficient to produce great art. Michelangelo had many a dispute with his patrons over his art as later did Klimt but I rather suspect this was not the case with Bouguereau. He was producing Kitsch art for a French bourgeousie keen on aping the 'ancien regime' - Courbet, Degas and Monet saw it and saw with clarity the sterility of this.

One of the more amusing quotes I have read was on the rather ridiculous 'Art renewal' site in which they quote Degas and Monet as saying that in the year 2000 Bouguereau would be remembered as the greatest of 19th C French artists and some here agree failing to realise that the quote was clearly meant to be.... ironic and a ****ing but realistic appraisal of the vulgarity of future public taste.

Art must be judged not in isolation but in relationship to its time and place and considering what else was being offered by French artists at the same time and place Bouguereau is very thin if elegent consumme to their meaty and hearty fair.

Art is not about technique. Great art does not require great technique nor does Kitsch art require its absence. Technique helps tell whatever story we want to tell but it can never replace it.

Curious D..A..M..N was replaced with astorisks, what is this? Some kind of bizarre American prudishness?

I imagine that religious conservatives did see meaning in his work and perhaps Bouguereau was sincere in providing them with ways to shut out the modern world. France had already had Voltaire, Darwin was known to the world and barricades punctuated the century.

There is nothing to say that Art must always be on the side of change yet so often throughout the centuries it has been the case - at least great Art has.

David:
Two former "communist", two conditions:
http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl...MINx2WySzZmo7Q

Richard,

Thanks for your reply. Both you and David put forward reasonable points but are they accurate with regards to B and to the 20th century?

Certainly WW1 did represent a fracture, for example 1918 saw the deaths of several of the Vienna giants including Klimt but I don't agree that the view of the aesthetics of B are seen through that prism since Degas and Monet not to mention Courbet before them had already rejected the superficiality as they saw it of the academic painters.

The 20th century was a vibrant century that gave us Matisse, Picasso, Ernst, Rivera, Giacometti, Hopper, Hockney, Moore, Freud and Coldstream just to mention a random few. I agree that the latter decades of the century were tough if you were interested in rigourous figurative training but the century was rich, expressive and diverse.

I'm so tired of the same ridiculous arguments that keep circulating regarding the worth, or lack there of, of Bouguereau's contribution to painting. With all due respect, to hold up artists like Matisse, Picasso, Ernst, Rivera, Giacometti, Hopper, Hockney, Moore, Freud and Coldstream as bastions of quality in art seems highly illogical when, in fact, to my eye, using their works as an example makes the exact opposite point. These artists produced superficial contrived paintings that, to me, have little or no connection nor show any evidence of human spirit or beauty. They do not inspire me as an artist or, more importantly, as a human being. This is a group, perhaps with the exception of Hopper, that are, to my eye, nothing more than a group of formulaic, heavy handed, self promoting charlatans.

Monet and Degas called Bouguereau the greatest painter of the 19th century. Van Gogh bemoaned the fact that he would never draw like Bouguereau.

Bouguereau, temporarily putting his extraordinary technical grasp of painting aside, was able to craft paintings that are both aesthetically beautiful and spiritually satisfying, as the portrait of Gabrielle Cot, posted by my friend David, clearly evidences. Anyone who would choose to lump him in with the vast majority of insipid sentimental 19th Century artists is simply not looking. Over the last 20 years I have seen several hundred original Bouguereau paintings, the majority at auction previews here in New York City, and to my eye, his work is supremely superior to all the wannabes.

His is a genius that is the culmination of 500 years of western painting tradition. Many 19th Century artists took pot-shots at him simply because his work was so superior, their only response was to turn the rules upside down in order to denigrate his greatness.

His work supersedes the intellectual poppycock that pervades the modern art ethic. His paintings appeal to everyone with an open heart and open eyes. I was at a Bouguereau show in NYC at the Borgi Gallery about 15 years ago discussing his paintings with a friend, when a very well dressed woman came over to us and said, "I consider myself to be quite knowledgeable when it comes to Art History. How is it possible that I have never hear of, nor seen the works of such a magnificent painter? Can you please explain this to me?"

And even if his work were totally insipid (which to me is a ridiculous claim) his technical genius is peerless. It's not just the rendering and paint handling, which are of course superb, it's his decision making alone that elevates him from all pretenders. Each color, each edge, each value, each composition is brilliant in it's own right. All elements coming together in perfect harmony! The better I get at painting and the more deeply I understand the process, the more I can appreciate the full magnitude of his contribution to painting. He is my greatest teacher. I discover new things all the time, even looking at the same paintings, such as "Breton Brother and Sister" at the Met which I visit with great regularity.

As a portrait artist I'm often asked, "Don't you get tired of just painting the same thing over and over?" My answer is that the subject matter is, to me, just an excuse to paint. It's all about the act of painting. The whole idea of making an intellectual statement is, again to me, stupid and beyond the point. The more timely and cutting the statement, the faster it becomes trite and corny. Painting offers the opportunity to say something so much deeper and more profound than some silly statement or concept. All the massive allegorical academic paintings of yesteryear now look highly over-mannered and hopelessly stagy. I believe the vast majority of 20th century "masterworks" will to suffer a similar fate, while Bouguereau's work is timeless.

Strive to become a better painter and then see if your opinions are still valid. Study and learn to analyze Bouguereau intently, and you'll be amazed at how much your own paintings will improve.

Well I just flatly disagree on your rejection of the value of the artists I listed and personally have the opposite emotional reaction when in front of their work but that is fine. I still think there is a confusion and conflation of technique and content. I do not think anyone including Degas and Monet thought B's technique deficient and they may well have admired it but they also did not think it sufficent to produce great art. The quote by Degas and Monet concerning b is a misquote since they also coined the term 'Bouguereaute' which described work they considered slick but superficial and so their opinion of B was derogatory rather than admirative. They did not think B was the greatest artist of the century but did think that a future vulger public might think so.

B said very little if anything about the century in which he lived. With the exception of some of his portraits we get idealisation rather than reality and sentiment rather than truth.

By all means learn from him technically and I agree it was stupendous, but his content has lessons for nobody and that is a shame. I consider B a great talent that was satisfied furnishing the walls of the rich rather than saying anything profound and so in terms of the history of art one of art's great underachievers. Great art is never technique alone and that is all B had.

One man's ceiling is another man's floor!
 

We'll just have to agree to disagree. However, I think you are making broad sweeping statements and confusing them with fact.

Are you the official spokesperson for Degas and Monet? Perhaps the term 'Bouguereaute' referred to the vast number of painters who were desperately trying to emulate Bouguereau's success by copying the superficial aspects of his work. Do you have an exact quote where they refer to him pejoratively, or is this an assumption on your part? Did they also specifically indict a "future vulgar public" or is this too your own assertion?

Personally, I use the term "impressionist" with a negative connotation, except when referring to people like Frank Caliendo, Frank Gorshin and Robin Williams. It's always a good thing to make people laugh.

"Truth" and "reality" very sketchy words, at best. I personally think that Bouguereau was quite truthful while, on the other hand, someone like Picasso was, in my opinion, strictly out there to dupe the public and as you stated, furnish the walls of the rich. I think that Bouguereau's early allegorical works were technically strong but vapid and empty. I think when he found his muse things changed drastically and even the technical aspect improved greatly.

As far as no one being able to take lessons from Bouguereau's content, I beg to differ, and offer myself as proof of at least one living vulgar soul who does just that.
.

Unquestionably, Peter, and I agree wholeheartedly. Here's the thing - it's not an "either-or" proposition. One need not "cleave" to Bouguereau, (and Cot! How did I forget Cot!! ?!?) to the exclusion of the Impressionists or the whole of 20th century "modern art" any more than one is obligated to eliminate any sympathetic appreciation of 19th century academics in order to enjoy or at least appreciate a Rothko abstract.

It's interesting to note that most of the giants to whom you referred owe a tremendous obligation of debt to the technical foundations the academy provided them. Perhaps you overlooked that Matisse was a student of Bouguereau ?

Well said, Marvin. Very well said!

I certainly agree that the 19th century was more than the Impressionists and I have mentioned a few of them active in the second half of the century, Millet, Courbet, Daumier with Manet also as a bridging artist. The point was that all of those artists connected with their century and sought not merely to ape the past but to say something real about their present.

Whether one appreciates B or not is I agree a matter to some extent of taste but the attempt to make of him a giant of the 19thC must be grounded not only on his technique but also on his content and I see nobody among his supporters here taking this on.

Hm. I thought Marvin did so quite succinctly. This is rapidly becoming a "Ford vs. Chevy" argument.

Strangely enough I have a good deal of sympathy with Marvin's remarks. I pretty much gave up Art because I did not feel I had particularly profound new things to say and this was wrong of me. Tendencious art is always problematic, including in my opinion religious art and art should always seek to go beyond the message into sensations and experiences of subject and materials.

Now I don't sit here thinking about what my contribution to art should be and I am allowing myself to be happy just trying to get better at describing my subject. But and it is a But...I don't allow my private experiences to colour my view of Art History or try to justify what I do now by rewriting history as I believe Art Renewal are trying to do in particular by dishonest quote mining (the Degas/Monet quote for example). Bouguereau might well deserve to be reconsidered for some of his portraits (not all) but his allegorical works are real fingers down the throat jobs as Degas and Monet made clear.

And what is wrong with a portrait of a pretty woman? Pretty women do exist. OK, maybe Satyrs don't exist....maybe! ;) Angels...well, certainly not the feathery-winged variety. But this is just subject matter - I don't think you can really say what is or is not valid subject matter. I think, argument-wise, that's a dead-end. But your larger point is a great one - it's an argument that my brother (a painter himself) and I have all the time. Beauty vs Truth. What is more important in a painting? Does a painting have to be beautiful to be "great"? Can or should truth and honesty in depicting the world around us be subserviant to some particular - or general - notion of Beauty, idealized or not? And what exactly does "honesty" and "truth" mean when we painters are all about the business of creating - an illusion?

Of, course we never do come up with an answer, but I think it's a great way to frame the argument. I think your arguments are well taken, thoughtful, well-articulated...And in many ways I agree with you. Like Richard, I don't think Bouguereau was the greatest painter of all time (one of them certainly), and I think he does push the envelope on the sentimental, idealized or romantic aspects of some of his pictures. But in spite of all these things that would normally turn me off, I keep coming back to his work. I think it is because, first of all, I see a way of depicting the human form that is extraordinarily convincing (truth and honesty) and masterful in its execution. Subject matter aside, there have not been many painters in history than can render the human form with as much understanding, consummate skill, sensitivity and emotional power as Bouguereau. And I haven't seen anyone in our time come close.

If a work of art aspires to be great and the technique is "less than"... it's like watching Pavarotti singing on stage at the Metropolitan Opera with his fly open.

Peter, I'm so glad you've joined this Forum. I really do appreciate your cogent, thoughtful contributions.

I thought it was you the offical spokesman Marvin since you very confidently asserted that those two impressionists believed B was the greatest painter of the 19th C. Everything we know about the bios of Degas, Monet and Impressionism and their relationship with the academy supports my claim that the quote was meant to be ironic and nothing as far as I am aware supports Art Renewal's interpretation. Dishonest quote mining.

I am sure that they did not only have B in mind but other certainly less endowed academic painters but if in their own minds B was excluded from this 'lesser' group they would not have coined the term Bouguereaute using his name, would they?

We will certainly have to disagree on B and on the Impressionists its seems and that is fine and natural but I don't see many Satyrs or Angels in your work Marvin or are these on a different website? I see very well-painted portraits that are rather too tightly rendered for my taste and I see nothing shameful in borrowing from B for these - we all cherry pick.

The points of view of those who "do" as opposed to those who theorize will always be divergent

That is not apparent from your comments in this forum . . . but I don't mean that combatively. How indeed can anyone's private experiences be summarily divorced from the formation of their view of "facts" gathered in the attainment of knowledge?

ARC has a rather transparent agenda, one which is enthusiastically promoted. Would you deny them the right to appropriate quotes out of context while arguing similarly yourself?

Unless you have had the benefit of conversing with them (at length) on thesubject, the cross-examination objects on the grounds that this is "speculation".

David,

If I aspired to paint in a tight photographic realism I would consider B one of my most important teachers. There are others of course but I agree that B captured luminosity and hue better than almost anyone else. I don't agree on the 'emotion' side but that is a taste thing. While I am learning to paint 'tighter' at present it is still rather loose and I doubt that I would want this to change since I do not feel the imperative to create 'illusion' in the way that you do so very well. I will be held in check by Degas, Cezanne, Giacometti and Coldstream where I find the real emotional buzz.

I find it very amusing that this whole thread started with a photo of the grave of a dead artist. :exclamati Seriously, I'm really enjoying this highly illuminating exchange.

Marvin, I'm so glad you chimed in. I knew you couldn't resist!

Peter, if you are being "held in check" by Degas, then, I think you are on some pretty solid ground. That guy could draw.

David, I thought this thread was about your odessy to find Bougereau's final resting place. You had shared this with me at a PSoA conference. I wandered here quite naively. I had no idea it had escalated into a Bougie bashing.

Always happy to chime in and defend the great master. I've had all that modern art propaganda shoved down my throat since I was in art school and it just never rang true for me. I was actually told by my last painting teacher since I was not willing to paint in the style of Cezanne and my worked looked better than everyone else's in the class I was ruining the class. My choice: leave the class and never come back, I get an 'A' or continue to do what I was doing, I fail. I didn't pick up a paint brush for the nexxt ten years.

It is nice to engage in a lively debate without the personal attacks.

Richard, thanks for bringing balance into the equation. To set the record straight, I don't consider Bouguereau the greatest artist of all time. In my pantheon he's a close number two behind William McGregor Paxton. For those keeping score, Ivan Kramskoy rings in at #3.

Peter, if you can paint in a refined manor you have the choice to paint any way. Degas is a great example of this. If you can't, your are controlled by your limitations and the best you can do is rationalize it. While we are at it, the other thing that really bugs me (besides Bouguereau bashing) is the inappropriate grouping of all refined works into the category of photo realism (mind-numbing is the typical adjective). The object of photorealism is to blow up photos into paintings. Certainly not my goal. Creating an illusionistic reality is something entirely different.

I actually agree that an artist should have as many technical choices as possible and a choice is only real if you can exercise it. I don't feel the need to push 'tight' to your extreme Marvin although who knows but the future will bring but even if my aesthetic does not move me towards your level of tightness (a term I prefer to that of the value loaded 'refinement') I would still be left with many technical choices. I accept your distinction between illusionistic reality and photographic reality but neither are the inevitable objective of an artist.

Many good threads have humble beginnings and I too knew Marvin wouldn't be able to resist.

Degas could indeed draw whereas Cezanne struggled all his life but what a beautiful struggle it was and both of them produced great art.

Quite naturally, his obscurity in death has led to considering his stature among artists a century later. Thanks again for this springboard, and to everyone for their thoughts . . . yes, we go over the same ground now and again, but it's also quite natural that our passion for the subject (which ever side of the fence we're on) results in a new thought or three every time it's revisited.

Amen! Another reason why you 'n' me should be "best buddies", Marvin!

It's so interesting to know who people's favorite painters are, better than a rorschach. :)

In who's universe? Verisimilitude has been the ultimate goal for many great artists for centuries. I personally reject the term 'tight' because it is a pejorative term that in no way describes what I seek achieve. You are also seeing my life size paintings reduced to the size of postage stamps at 72 dpi and judging the quality of my paint application? In reality, my paintings are more lifelike and much softer that they appear online. But I digress.

My point is that far too many 'artists' have lost their way due to the modern art aesthetic propaganda machine. Rampant commercialism has all but usurped the quality of humanity from painting. Cezanne was as heavy handed as they come. He could endulge his whims because he was wealthy and didn't need to make a living. Apart from Renoir, he's the most over rated of the 19th Century moderns.

It's very easy to mislabel something deeply humanistic and spiritual as sentimental. Creating broad sweeping labels is the way that the modern movement dismisses all work of merit which doesn't adhere to the justification of 'establishing a dialogue about one's work.'

Richard, I thought we were great buddies!

It was, but I don't mind that this thread has morphed. Way more interesting this way.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Modernism (and "postmodernism" is simply an extension, a continuation of Modernism) has run its course. It's dead. I mean, when you have a dead shark in a tank of formaldehyde being celebrated as an important artistic statement...it's over. The "shock of the new," (to use the term Robert Hughes coined), becomes empty, boring and old. When I went to art school it was a competition to see who could be the most daring, unusual, shocking, etc. What we're left with is the glorification of unbridled self-indulgence. And so now we see this great resurgence and great hunger for a return to representational, figurative art, accompanied by this phenomenal rise in the number of classically oriented ateliers and workshops. It's a great time to be alive.
Thank you, Marvin! Raphael was not a photo-realist, though David Hockney may still have his doubts.