During the 19th century, the Academic Art movement was extremely popular, incorporating themes of classic figures and themes, symbolism but above all, a realistic execution. The French Academy, of course, took this to extreme lengths in that they pretty much decided that this style was the only worthwhile form of artistic expression and tried to suppress all other — which later led, perhaps justifiably, to their excoriation by the Impressionists and a subsequent loss of popularity.
Which I think is a shame, because along the way we lost the works of some incredibly-talented artists, such as William-Adolphe Bouguereau (pronounced “booger-oh”, for non-Francophiles).
I have a great fondness for Bouguereau’s work, as it happens, because while some of his paintings are kinda ordinary, there are several instances of startling and unsettling undertones. Let’s start with the regular stuff:
All very innocent, really. But one of the underlying reasons for this classicism was that it was a way of getting around the censors: as long as the theme was classical, you see, an artist could depict pretty much anything of a more, shall we say, revealing nature.
Not to say implicitly sexual:
And just so we’re clear on the topic, here’s Bouguereau’s depiction of Dante and Virgil in the Inferno:
Now that’s realism. Those effete Impressionists pale by comparison.
My appreciation of all things are is founded on the idea of effort. I’m not interested in learning how to appreciate the various things out there as I believe beauty and interest should be self evident – no explanation necessary.
Thus, paintings as you have shown interest me because I recognize the concentrated effort by the artist to make them as they are. I can stand there looking at the paintings, bathing my mind in the details and enjoying (appreciating) them. It takes a while to do that, more than a minute or two.
Paintings like, say, a Pollack for example, hold very little interest to me for I have seen his paintings and I have seen him make them and they have very little effort and content. Essentially, that sort of thing bores me, and then angers me that they are elevated by people that know better.
Indeed, art is in the eye of the beholder as long as I am the beholder.
Charles Russell, the Montana cowboy artist, said once, in his cowboy vernacular, “An artist is the only thing you can say you is, that nobody can say you ain’t.” Modern Art certainly supports this opinion.
The only thing Modern Art seems to have been able to do is create inoffensive public art for government buildings, like the fifteen-foot tall wrestlers out in front of the Los Angeles federal District Court. To keep them from blowing over, they have scores of holes in them.
The only thing I can say in favor of Pollock’s paint throwing canvases is that his actual art training enabled him to make his technicolor yawns have the appearance of depth, something his imitators, without artistic talent or training, haven’t been able to do.
Exquisite renderings, almost look like soft focus photography of the 1950’s taken through diaphanous silk screens.
Don’t know where one can see these, do not recall any of his work from my one all day visit to the Louvre. Maybe they simply do not display them to not offend their new overlords. Pah!
I recently went to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston for their exhibit of Winslow Homer’s watercolors. It was a very good exhibit.
I tend to prefer realist painters. Some of the impressionist artists were appealing. The more modern stuff like Dali, Picasso and such hold no interest for me. The post WW2 era where people splattered paint on a canvas and called it art is utterly absurd to me.
Kim said “Those effete Impressionists pale by comparison.”
This kind of work also exposes the modern so-called artists who splatter, smear and pour paint on canvas and other media, apparently while blindfolded, as the frauds they are. IMO, most of their work isn’t art, at most just decoration, on a good day.
That’s some lovely, incredible work there, Kim. Thank you for posting them.
The technical quality is astonishing. But have you ever looked at any “photorealist” works? (From about 1970 onwards.) These artists created paintings so realistic that they look like photographs.