[Tom Edgerton]

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?