I too am not sure what "mature" means within the history of oil painting. My comments may not help with that definition or aid in the judgement of whom (if possible) might best represent that term. Instead I will complicate things somewhat by suggesting that it is not possible to separate design, rendering and technical elements from effectiveness. Or, to put it another way, how well did the artist communicate or somehow touch, move or stimulate the very people who viewed his work both in his day and the years that followed. There is no denying the ability of a Bouguereau and many of us are awed by his skill. But unfortunately he fails to arouse a response at almost any level in the art world. Apart from suggestions that the public has been "dumbed down" in ability to appreciate painting or the organized art world finds it somehow to their advantage to ignore him, he is for the most part a non-entity. As popular as he might have been at one time his work does not make that critical connection. At the very moment that the highest level of painting skill is evidenced, nothing happens. I have no basis in fact but would guess that any prints of his work that are sold would fall far short of the works of other artist. "Flawed" works by many other artist are far better able to evoke understanding and an emotional attachment.
It might be disturbing to say this but a lot of "Contemporary" art sells because it "connects". As has been suggested by a prominent realist painter the reason realism doesn't get the notice we think it deserves is because not much is done at a high enough level to earn attention. I think that will happen when someone builds upon all that has evolved (realism and contemporary) and takes it to a new level.
In the mean time, it seems to me, that it might be far easier today to get the training to be an artist of any persuasion then it would have been for any aspiring artist in the past. If nothing else this forum gold mine for information and direction for anyone bent on Portraiture/Realism.
|