Searching for Bouguereau

[Richard Bingham]

Originally Posted by Peter Dransfield

. . . I pretty much gave up Art . . . .

The points of view of those who "do" as opposed to those who theorize will always be divergent

Originally Posted by Peter Dransfield

. . . I don't allow my private experiences to colour my view of Art History . . .

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?

Originally Posted by Peter Dransfield

. . . rewriting history as I believe Art Renewal are trying to do in particular by dishonest quote mining (the Degas/Monet quote for example) . . .

ARC has a rather transparent agenda, one which is enthusiastically promoted. Would you deny them the right to appropriate quotes out of context while arguing similarly yourself?

Originally Posted by Peter Dransfield

. . . his allegorical works are real fingers down the throat jobs as Degas and Monet made clear.

Unless you have had the benefit of conversing with them (at length) on thesubject, the cross-examination objects on the grounds that this is "speculation".

[Peter Dransfield]

David,

If I aspired to paint in a tight photographic realism I would consider B one of my most important teachers. There are others of course but I agree that B captured luminosity and hue better than almost anyone else. I don't agree on the 'emotion' side but that is a taste thing. While I am learning to paint 'tighter' at present it is still rather loose and I doubt that I would want this to change since I do not feel the imperative to create 'illusion' in the way that you do so very well. I will be held in check by Degas, Cezanne, Giacometti and Coldstream where I find the real emotional buzz.

[David Draime]

I find it very amusing that this whole thread started with a photo of the grave of a dead artist. Seriously, I'm really enjoying this highly illuminating exchange.

Marvin, I'm so glad you chimed in. I knew you couldn't resist!

Peter, if you are being "held in check" by Degas, then, I think you are on some pretty solid ground. That guy could draw.

[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.

[Peter Dransfield]

Originally Posted by David Draime

I find it very amusing that this whole thread started with a photo of the grave of a dead artist. Seriously, I'm really enjoying this highly illuminating exchange.

Marvin, I'm so glad you chimed in. I knew you couldn't resist!

Peter, if you are being "held in check" by Degas, then, I think you are on some pretty solid ground. That guy could draw.

Many good threads have humble beginnings and I too knew Marvin wouldn't be able to resist.

Degas could indeed draw whereas Cezanne struggled all his life but what a beautiful struggle it was and both of them produced great art.

[Richard Bingham]

Originally Posted by David Draime

I find it very amusing that this whole thread started with a photo of the grave of a dead artist . . .

Quite naturally, his obscurity in death has led to considering his stature among artists a century later. Thanks again for this springboard, and to everyone for their thoughts . . . yes, we go over the same ground now and again, but it's also quite natural that our passion for the subject (which ever side of the fence we're on) results in a new thought or three every time it's revisited.

Originally Posted by Marvin Mattleson

. . .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 . . .

Amen! Another reason why you 'n' me should be "best buddies", Marvin!

[Christy Talbott]

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

[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!

[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.