Searching for Bouguereau

[Marvin Mattelson]

David, I thought this thread was about your odessy to find Bougereau's final resting place. You had shared this with me at a PSoA conference. I wandered here quite naively. I had no idea it had escalated into a Bougie bashing.

Always happy to chime in and defend the great master. I've had all that modern art propaganda shoved down my throat since I was in art school and it just never rang true for me. I was actually told by my last painting teacher since I was not willing to paint in the style of Cezanne and my worked looked better than everyone else's in the class I was ruining the class. My choice: leave the class and never come back, I get an 'A' or continue to do what I was doing, I fail. I didn't pick up a paint brush for the nexxt ten years.

It is nice to engage in a lively debate without the personal attacks.

Richard, thanks for bringing balance into the equation. To set the record straight, I don't consider Bouguereau the greatest artist of all time. In my pantheon he's a close number two behind William McGregor Paxton. For those keeping score, Ivan Kramskoy rings in at #3.

Peter, if you can paint in a refined manor you have the choice to paint any way. Degas is a great example of this. If you can't, your are controlled by your limitations and the best you can do is rationalize it. While we are at it, the other thing that really bugs me (besides Bouguereau bashing) is the inappropriate grouping of all refined works into the category of photo realism (mind-numbing is the typical adjective). The object of photorealism is to blow up photos into paintings. Certainly not my goal. Creating an illusionistic reality is something entirely different.

[Peter Dransfield]

Peter, if you can paint in a refined manor you have the choice to paint any way. Degas is a great example of this. If you can't, your are controlled by your limitations and the best you can do is rationalize it. While we are at it, the other thing that really bugs me (besides Bouguereau bashing) is the inappropriate grouping of all refined works into the category of photo realism (mind-numbing is the typical adjective). The object of photorealism is to blow up photos into paintings. Certainly not my goal. Creating an illusionistic reality is something entirely different.

I actually agree that an artist should have as many technical choices as possible and a choice is only real if you can exercise it. I don't feel the need to push 'tight' to your extreme Marvin although who knows but the future will bring but even if my aesthetic does not move me towards your level of tightness (a term I prefer to that of the value loaded 'refinement') I would still be left with many technical choices. I accept your distinction between illusionistic reality and photographic reality but neither are the inevitable objective of an artist.

[Marvin Mattelson]

Originally Posted by Peter Dransfield

I accept your distinction between illusionistic reality and photographic reality but neither are the inevitable objective of an artist.

In who's universe? Verisimilitude has been the ultimate goal for many great artists for centuries. I personally reject the term 'tight' because it is a pejorative term that in no way describes what I seek achieve. You are also seeing my life size paintings reduced to the size of postage stamps at 72 dpi and judging the quality of my paint application? In reality, my paintings are more lifelike and much softer that they appear online. But I digress.

My point is that far too many 'artists' have lost their way due to the modern art aesthetic propaganda machine. Rampant commercialism has all but usurped the quality of humanity from painting. Cezanne was as heavy handed as they come. He could endulge his whims because he was wealthy and didn't need to make a living. Apart from Renoir, he's the most over rated of the 19th Century moderns.

It's very easy to mislabel something deeply humanistic and spiritual as sentimental. Creating broad sweeping labels is the way that the modern movement dismisses all work of merit which doesn't adhere to the justification of 'establishing a dialogue about one's work.'

Richard, I thought we were great buddies!

[Alexandra Tyng]

Peter,

Here are the comments to which Chris is referring:

Originally Posted by Peter Dransfield

I don't feel the need to push 'tight' to your extreme Marvin although who knows but the future will bring but even if my aesthetic does not move me towards your level of tightness (a term I prefer to that of the value loaded 'refinement'). . . .

and

Originally Posted by Peter Dransfield

I see very well-painted portraits that are rather too tightly rendered for my taste. . . .

You most definitely haven't "only praised Marvin's work." It's not a question even of whether or not Marvin minds. These comments reflect a value judgement of his work relevant to your personal taste, which is not acceptable on this forum.

[Peter Dransfield]

I am quite clearly commenting on a style exemplified by B and by Marvin himself ( a style I described as stunning since it is B's allegorical painting content I have targeted here and not the portraits) and saying that I do not feel an imperative to adopt that style. I have also said on this thread that Marvin's work as that of several others is a challenge to me pulling me in different directions. Tight is not a perjorative nor did I attempt to use it as such but merely one side of a continuum along which we are all situated according to our own aesthetics and so there is no ad hom being made. Furthermore I would not consider it appropriate to comment on a style in the Critiques section - only on the technical merit of the work within whatever style the artist was using. What on earth would people here say if I actually said BOO?

[Christy Talbott]

I don't understand why there is this desire to compare styles of art. It's very simply, subjective. The art speaks for itself, don't you think?

[Steven Sweeney]

Originally Posted by Christy Talbott

I don't understand why there is this desire to compare styles of art. It's very simply, subjective. The art speaks for itself, don't you think?

The point where things break down for me and become beneath pointlessness is when one observer says, "I like this," and the rebuttal is "No you don't" (or some passive-aggressive version of, "Then you're a brigand or a fool, or both.") That's not an art critic at work, it's a Psych 101 case study.

There isn't a single artist mentioned in this thread about whom I can't say that I admire some of his work and don't care much for other parts of it. The historical bookmark is instructive but doesn't add or detract from the aesthetic impression that a piece of artwork makes on me.

Except Renoir. Don't get it. Don't like any of it. (Please -- if anyone is thinking about responding, "Yes you do," don't.)

[Christy Talbott]

Originally Posted by Steven Sweeney

There isn't a single artist mentioned in this thread about whom I can't say that I admire some of his work and don't care much for other parts of it. The historical bookmark is instructive but doesn't add or detract from the aesthetic impression that a piece of artwork makes on me.

Except Renoir. Don't get it. Don't like any of it. (Please -- if anyone is thinking about responding, "Yes you do," don't.)

Amen to that!

I'll disappoint you though... I first saw Renoir in the museum as a young child, and he was probably my favorite at that time. Of course having had no art appreciation classes, I have to admit I also quite liked Holly Hobbie and singing Farmer in the Dell! :P

[Peter Dransfield]

Originally Posted by Christy Talbott

I don't understand why there is this desire to compare styles of art. It's very simply, subjective. The art speaks for itself, don't you think?

Yes art does speak for itself but then we discuss whether what it says appeals and/or says something shallow or deep. Culture is always reflecting on what it is saying from the theatre to music to the visual arts and it is the push and pull of comparison and discussion that moves us in one direction or another. Individuals come along who appear to have more to say than others or who encapsulate moods and aspirations in society. Of course commercialism distorts and even directs this process from time to time but quality usually although not always wins out. Society does not stay still and neither do we.

[Christy Talbott]

It's so interesting to know who people's favorite painters are, better than a rorschach.