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.
