|
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.
|