Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Richard Bingham
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 with. Perhaps you overlooked that Matisse was a student of Bouguereau ?
|
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.