[Tom Edgerton]

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