Searching for Bouguereau

[David Draime]

Originally Posted by Marvin Mattelson

David, I thought this thread was about your odessy to find Bougereau's final resting place.

It was, but I don't mind that this thread has morphed. Way more interesting this way.

Originally Posted by Marvin Mattelson

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'm going to go out on a limb and say that Modernism (and "postmodernism" is simply an extension, a continuation of Modernism) has run its course. It's dead. I mean, when you have a dead shark in a tank of formaldehyde being celebrated as an important artistic statement...it's over. The "shock of the new," (to use the term Robert Hughes coined), becomes empty, boring and old. When I went to art school it was a competition to see who could be the most daring, unusual, shocking, etc. What we're left with is the glorification of unbridled self-indulgence. And so now we see this great resurgence and great hunger for a return to representational, figurative art, accompanied by this phenomenal rise in the number of classically oriented ateliers and workshops. It's a great time to be alive.

Originally Posted by Marvin Mattelson

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.

Thank you, Marvin! Raphael was not a photo-realist, though David Hockney may still have his doubts.

[Peter Dransfield]

That is not apparent from your comments in this forum . . . but I don't mean that combatively. How indeed can anyone's private experiences be summarily divorced from the formation of their view of "facts" gathered in the attainment of knowledge?

Fair point but I meant something more specific. Let

[Peter Dransfield]

David,

The "shock of the new," (to use the term Robert Hughes coined), becomes empty, boring and old. When I went to art school it was a competition to see who could be the most daring, unusual, shocking, etc. What we're left with is the glorification of unbridled self-indulgence.

I said something very similar in my member intro but going from this to rejecting the products of 20th C art is throwing the baby out with the bath water, don

[Peter Dransfield]

In who's universe? Verisimilitude has been the ultimate goal for many great artists for centuries.

From the 15th-19th centuries perhaps but for several thousands of years before and for the last 130 years no.

[Michael Georges]

You know for me, I cannot pass a painting by Bouguereau without stopping dead in my tracks and devouring it with my eyes. I can look at his paintings for hours on end.

The Denver Art Museum has a Bouguereau, and it is the most popular painting in the gallery. Like me, people just stop and gape at it it is so beautiful.

And isn't that saying something? Isn't beauty an end in itself?

Why the heck does art have to be "relevant"?

[Peter Dransfield]

I certainly cannot deny you the right to find a B beautiful. Personally I cannot imagine having a B hanging in my home whereas I don't have enough wall space for Cezanne, Giacometti or Klimt. - personal taste.

As for whether beauty is enough or even necessary for it be Art with a capital A - it is a complicated relationship. Definitions of beauty vary to a preposterous degree but also much great art self evidently does not pursue beauty. I think beauty can be a sufficient objective for art but for Art I am not so sure.

As for should Art be relevant - when has what we identify as great Art not been? Art has always been about transmitting messages and there is no point in transmitting an irrelevant message. The argument therefore turns on whether a particular message at a particular time and place is relevant or not. I would argue that compared to the messages being transmitted by Corot, Daumier, Courbet, Millet, Manet, Degas, Monet, Renoir, Toulouse-Lautrec and Cezanne the message of B was irrelevant. Time and place i.e. context and the living world rather than formula and convention.

[Peter Dransfield]

No! Said with such certainty. Have you polled every living artist working today? I guess early 20th Century artists such as William McGregor Paxton, Edmund Tarbell, Joseph Rodefer DeCamp, Pietro Annigoni, and John Koch didn't really exist. You continue to make ridiculous broad sweeping assumptions, parroting the old party line. If you repeat it enough will it actually come true?

Never heard of them Marvin and I have studied art history - I presume they are minor artists who might have a local influence but hardly world shakers.

We all have our gods and their influence is seen perhaps in our work and values artistically and that is the beauty of this place. I am challenged by you Marvin and by Thomasin and Ilaria just to mention three and how more stimulating or different can you get.

[Michael Georges]

So I will encourage us to keep this as a "thoughtful" discussion rather than taking each other to task or making personal snips.

That said, Peter, I don't see much "message or content" in the work of Monet, rather I see a lot of beauty, and a lot of classically trained skill. His work shows an artist who knows what rules to break (complementary analogous color) in order to make water lillies appear to float off the canvas at 9 feet...but message? Not much that I can discern. Much of his work is a classic example of art for the sake of beauty. I see Bouguereau the same way - he just had more fantastical visions and was inspired by allegory and fable rather than what he saw in the real world. Now mind you, Bouguereau certainly used the real world to create his visions, as did Monet, just in different ways...but for similar ends - beauty.

[Peter Dransfield]

Are there any elements in B that had not been done countless times before? Monet on the other hand had many new things to say about colour in the world and the beauty in the seemingly insignificant haystack or lilly pond. Don't you look at lilly ponds and haystacks in a different way after Monet? Can you really say the same after B?

[Marvin Mattelson]

Originally Posted by Peter Dransfield

Never heard of them Marvin and I have studied art history - I presume they are minor artists who might have a local influence but hardly world shakers.

You presume? Quite the compelling argument! Peter do you actually believe that having never heard of something is reasonable cause for assuming it's insignificance? How could any artist, unknown to you, be any good, let alone great? I have no response.

I think this discussion has gotten to the point of pointlessness. Christy, you can now go back to work.