Why Bouguereau is Good (A Critique)
John Ng
subjects that they do not realise there is much more than just the
image. I will attempt to analyse his painting "The Newborn Lamb",
which is available at
http://www.artrenewal.org/xq/ASP/artist~7/page~11/qx/asp/database/museum_template.htm
Please download the a hi-resolution version because art can only be
appreciated if you can see as much of the small details as possible.
The subject is the shepherdess taking the lamb away from its mother.
Notice that there are three states of emotions: the ewe, personified
to a human, looks on with grave concern; the shepherdess, like a
nurse-maid, turns toward the mother as if saying comforting words,
while the lamb is dizzy with half-closed eyes.
As to the composition, you will notice that the shepherdess head and
blouse form a palpable equilateral triangle with the brilliant white
of the lamb’s coat, at the base. This is classical at its best,
a reminder of Madonna and Child; the Saviour and His Children. The
effect is simply profound when Bouguereau chose a slightly elevated
angle so that the shepherdess suggests an immortal looking down at
mortals.
The ewe is concern yet helpless. Bouguereau chose to frame the sheep
using an opposite downward longish triangle. He cleverly solves the
problem of presenting that triangle with the help of the clearing
behind. Chiaroscuro is taken to the max in which Bouguereau
de-emphasised everything else so that your eyes is brought to what he
wants you to see.
If you look closely, you will notice the texture of the three living
things: the smoothness of the shepherdess face; the softness of the
lambs coat; and the roughness of the ewe’s. The cotton blouse
is cotton.
Hands are an important part of the human figure and are one of the
most difficult. As with all his paintings, the classical pose of the
hands that shows the curves, bulges, and shadows to its best. Her
torso is slightly twisted and legs forward to bring out an interesting
and natural human form.
The realness of Bouguereau’s colours is astounding, something he
shared with Ingres. There are quite a few paintings before him, as
Millias and Holman Hunt, whose realism rivalled his. However, the
realism in colour (as well as depth) is the difference. Because of
Bouguereau’s high realism, 20C folks tend to denigrate his works
by comparing it to a photograph. There is perhaps very few
differences between Bouguereau’s paintings and a good photograph
if compare them via magazine prints. However, paintings in real life
( :-) ), has something about it that photographs cannot emulate.
The problem with 20C art audience is they are looking for shouting
compositions that stand out from the crowd, just like how they consume
Hollywood movies. They forgot that if you are buying paintings, you
don't this because it gets boring after two months. A good painting
is one that is quiet and subtle, simple in composition and intricate
in details.
This is only a sketchy critique and I could certainly say more. But
maybe I talk too much and perhaps no one out there would read this
anyway.
John
ART RENEWALIST
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
Everything you are saying is true. You are describing literary story
content - the painting is supposed to activate sentimentality - tell a story
and that is exactly what the moderns are against. They are against story
content paintings and especially paintings that ooze story sentimentality of
passive domesticated nurturing women out of their pores.
To your mind it's perfect; you like the literary story content, I can accept
that. To my mind it has too much literary story content and for that reason
I don't like it.
You are not going to convince the moderns that art should have literary
story content and they are not going to convince you that it should not.
that's the way it is.
keith
John Ng <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.02012...@posting.google.com...
silverpoint
beloved master is that they admire him for his weaknesses, which in his case
are ironically his purely MODERN qualities.
What are these qualities? First of all, his sense of "realism." Realism
was a school of thought that exploded into the West in a series of
revolutionary cultural and political changes in the 19th century. In
painting, it meant a new interest in painting things from the everyday world
as they appeared in reality. The invention of photography also created, for
the first time in history, an industrial standard of what "looks real" that
everyone could agree upon. An entire school of painting called Realism
emerged, and it was an enormous kick against the neo-classical and
romanticist art of previous generations. All of MODERN art, from the
realists on, through the impressionists, neo-impressionists and high
modernists had their vision completely grounded in this new way of thinking,
including, ironically, academics like Bougereau.
The Big B and many similar artists, technically proficient as they may have
been, thus grafted a completely new, anti-classical way of thinking onto a
bastardized version of the "classical" art they were exposed to in the
academies. The results were very weakened....
"John Ng" <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.02012...@posting.google.com...
> Many detractors of Bouguereau are taken in by the beauty of his
> subjects that they do not realise there is much more than just the
> image. I will attempt to analyse his painting "The Newborn Lamb",
> which is available at
.....which this page only proves:
>
http://www.artrenewal.org/xq/ASP/artist~7/page~11/qx/asp/database/museum_tem
plate.htm
>
With realism came a disintegration of the wholeness and definition of form
as well as rigorousness and power of composition as practiced in the
classical arts since Giotto. Arbitrarily depicting things as they could be
"framed" through the eyes was not much on the agenda of classical artists.
And depicting three dimensional form without any sense of the "relief" (as
described in the notes of da Vinci) was another entirely new aspect.
For example, let's set the Wayback Machine to centuries before and take a
peek at Poussin, actual founder of the French Academy in which eventually
David, Ingres, and even the Big B and Matisse would later be trained:
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/P/poussin/sabine.jpg.html
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/P/poussin/shepherds_of_arcadia.jpg.html
Note the completely unsentimental subject matter and lack of "realism."
Instead, Poussin had his head buried in the masterpieces of the Renaissance,
the drawing of Raphael, and the sculptures and reliefs of ancient Greece and
Rome, far removed from "realism". Note that Poussin treats form and
composition in a classical manner, not photographically, with form defined
in rigorous planes, not light bouncing around arbitrarily.
(Ironically, it was Cezanne who wanted to "make the art of Impressionism an
art of the museum" and steer it away from arbitrary, photographic depictions
of reality that left the mind, imagination and inventive powers of the
artist completely aside. One of his favorite artists was Poussin, and
bringing a sense of compositional inventiveness to realist subject matter
was Cezanne's breakthrough, along with his followers Matisse and Picasso,
tying art back into the classical, archaic and primitive roots from which it
originated and gaining power as a result. Academics of the time like Big B
couldn't even relate their compositions to the 4 sides of the canvas.)
> The subject is the shepherdess taking the lamb away from its mother.
> Notice that there are three states of emotions: the ewe, personified
> to a human, looks on with grave concern; the shepherdess, like a
> nurse-maid, turns toward the mother as if saying comforting words,
> while the lamb is dizzy with half-closed eyes.
(...sob, I can't believe Bambi's mother got killed, I will never stop
crying...)
> As to the composition, you will notice that the shepherdess head and
> blouse form a palpable equilateral triangle with the brilliant white
> of the lamb’s coat, at the base. This is classical at its best,
> a reminder of Madonna and Child; the Saviour and His Children. The
> effect is simply profound when Bouguereau chose a slightly elevated
> angle so that the shepherdess suggests an immortal looking down at
> mortals.
>
> The ewe is concern yet helpless. Bouguereau chose to frame the sheep
> using an opposite downward longish triangle. He cleverly solves the
> problem of presenting that triangle with the help of the clearing
> behind. Chiaroscuro is taken to the max in which Bouguereau
> de-emphasised everything else so that your eyes is brought to what he
> wants you to see.
>
As to composition, lets go back a little further in time, to something that
is truly "classical at its best":
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/R/raphael/galatea.jpg.html
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/R/raphael/school_athens.jpg.html
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/R/raphael/sistine_madonna.jpg.html
Raphael, of course, was the youngest of the Renaissance masters who tied
together the breakthroughs of previous generations from Perugino through da
Vinci and Michelangelo. He thus invented the very model for the definitive
type of classical draughtsmanship that was passed on through successive
generations of artists and art academies until the rise of the realists in
the 19th century. Artists through a few of the Renaissance generations were
obsessed with the strange and shocking works from classical antiquity that
were constantly being dug up and discovered to everyone's wonderment, and
created a new type of classical art that forged their own post-Dante,
budding scientific and western Christian worldview onto the solidity and
complexity of form they were discovering in the ancient world.
Not a single polaroid to copy. And notice how the figures in works by
Raphael and his peers look more like inventions based on classical art
rather than slavish depictions of obviously posed models.
> If you look closely, you will notice the texture of the three living
> things: the smoothness of the shepherdess face; the softness of the
> lambs coat; and the roughness of the ewe’s. The cotton blouse
> is cotton.
>
> Hands are an important part of the human figure and are one of the
> most difficult. As with all his paintings, the classical pose of the
> hands that shows the curves, bulges, and shadows to its best. Her
> torso is slightly twisted and legs forward to bring out an interesting
> and natural human form.
>
> The realness of Bouguereau’s colours is astounding, something he
> shared with Ingres. There are quite a few paintings before him, as
> Millias and Holman Hunt, whose realism rivalled his. However, the
> realism in colour (as well as depth) is the difference. Because of
> Bouguereau’s high realism, 20C folks tend to denigrate his works
> by comparing it to a photograph. There is perhaps very few
> differences between Bouguereau’s paintings and a good photograph
> if compare them via magazine prints. However, paintings in real life
> ( :-) ), has something about it that photographs cannot emulate.
>
> The problem with 20C art audience is they are looking for shouting
> compositions that stand out from the crowd, just like how they consume
> Hollywood movies. They forgot that if you are buying paintings, you
> don't this because it gets boring after two months. A good painting
> is one that is quiet and subtle, simple in composition and intricate
> in details.
All famous artists have generally stood out from the crowd, and have even at
times been controversial. Go back and read about the controversy that
swirled around the Sistine Chapel from the inception of Michelangelo's
involvement through the Pope's sole insistence through the opinions bandied
about it in the Counter Reformation long after the project's completion.
This was a bit more serious than "Bougereau great, Cezanne sucks."
> This is only a sketchy critique and I could certainly say more. But
> maybe I talk too much and perhaps no one out there would read this
> anyway.
>
Sketchy, yes. The Big B's admired quality of "realism" was a new and wholly
modern idea that would have been anathema to classical artists of previous
centuries. Yet because he includes such a newfangled idea as an integral
part of his weak, sentimentalized compositions far removed from classical
rigorousness, he is considered "better" than even Ingres, Poussin, or
Raphael. Not.
And, lastly, some real Classical art, unfiltered through any successive
history, and lightyears removed from the late 19th century:
http://192.41.13.240/artchive/g/greek/winged_victory_louvre.jpg
RBrac53660
Craig Luce
Whatever the case or outcome, I love to hear the interpretation and
speculations of art appreciators or art historians who are looking at
repros (ESPECIALLY on the WEB, fer chrissakes) of the delicacies of an
original they may or may not have seen in the original.
Yes, the narrative nature and composition may be evident in repros.
We should remember that the original is all the contemporaries of ["Big
Boug" and other 'religious pornographers' (not my term)] had to
go-by.... repros deny the layering subleties of these originals, and
thank God they are SOME of the reasons that collectors STILL buy
ORIGNIALS. (My neighbor gave me a big book of Van Gogh yesterday,
saying "He wasn't all that good"!). REPROS are ALWAYS poor surrogates.
BTW, thanks for pointing out this great site, I haven't looked for
repros. [Wonder if Waterhouse is there?] Too bad its arranged neither
chronologically nor by subject.
As to "Boug's" 'Realism', I doubt ANY French farmgirls looked like they
had NEVER seen the sun. Cupids, Gods, angels are forgiven: they are
generally above it. Convince me that "Before the Bath" is anything
other than prurient speculation--- beautiful, not realism.
Don't get me wrong... Bougereau was a wonderful technician and
painter.... but do these and other repros show us why Titian was
accused of using human blood to paint his skin? No. The originals are
alive, don't be fooled into arguing anything over repros. Even a
"genius up to the elbows" like Dali.
Want to SEE the painting? Forget the (better than most) download ---
go see the originals and get in the museum.
"Art lives, art historians RE-live."
(Duck!!!--- incoming flames!)
C>
John Ng wrote:
>
> Many detractors of Bouguereau are taken in by the beauty of his
> subjects that they do not realise there is much more than just the
> image. I will attempt to analyse his painting "The Newborn Lamb",
> which is available at
>
> http://www.artrenewal.org/xq/ASP/artist~7/page~11/qx/asp/database/museum_template.htm
>
> Please download the a hi-resolution version because art can only be
> appreciated if you can see as much of the small details as possible.b
Frida Wails
Crai...@Medical-Illustration.com says...
>Want to SEE the painting? Forget the (better than most) download ---
>go see the originals and get in the museum.
I don't know how typical this is for art museums.
Some reading this may be skeptical when I say that
San Antonio, TX has a very fine art museum, second
to none for a city of that size. But one will be
hard-pressed to find the Bougereau original - quite
a large canvas actually - that the museum owns.
If it's still where it once was, it's hidden back
by one of the stairwells somewhere, out of the
main flow of traffic through the galleries. As if
they are ashamed to even have to show it. Of course
it's full of the naked bodies that conservative
folk would blush to have their kids looking at,
so that may have as much to do with it as anything.
John Ng
> The Big B and many similar artists, technically proficient as they may have
> been, thus grafted a completely new, anti-classical way of thinking onto a
> bastardized version of the "classical" art they were exposed to in the
> academies. The results were very weakened....
Your claim. Anti-classical! I can't even say anything about this
rubbish because it is claiming that black is white.
> Academics of the time like Big B
> couldn't even relate their compositions to the 4 sides of the canvas.)
Because only a crazy man could. That is why Cezanne paint rubbish as
he does.
> Not a single polaroid to copy. And notice how the figures in works by
> Raphael and his peers look more like inventions based on classical art
> rather than slavish depictions of obviously posed models.
The classical is based on the ideals of man which implies "pose". The
worst kind of painting is a painting that turns out like a snapshot.
Yes, Raphael doesn't have photography to related to, and Bouguereau is
influenced by and embraced the new technique. Bouguereau stood on the
leading edge of technology and offered a better image not a mere copy
of a photo. In the same fashion, Cezanne shrinks aways from the
leading edge to give a painting that resembles so closely to a
prehistoric painting.
> All famous artists have generally stood out from the crowd, and have even at
> times been controversial.
And therefore Bouguereau stood up from the crowd as well, and surely
is great.
John
silverpoint
some real classical art.
"John Ng" <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.02012...@posting.google.com...
> "silverpoint" <etenthstr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<a2qo6t$rk2
>
>
John Ng
> Realism was profoundly anti-classical. If you don't believe me, go look at
> some real classical art.
It seems to make senses but don't if you really think of it.
Realism, as in snapshot everyday life is almost always unclassical.
How many times have you seen dining guess sit in group of threes as in
Leonardo's Last Supper. That brings me to the point that classical is
POSED. Bouguereau's realism is POSED in classical fashion. That
posed effect makes his art great because it is better than real and
not simple copy of a snapshot.
John
Todd Strickland
> Realism was profoundly anti-classical. If you don't believe me, go look
at
> some real classical art.
First, I want to say excellent analysis of realism/classicism in your
original post. I was meaning to comment on it earlier but I got sidetracked
and ended up wasting an entire weekend answering that damn Nazi, instead.
I'm always surprised that people in a fine arts ng still confuse classicism
with "realism." They are basically in opposition to one another.
Michelangelo didn't paint from live models; for one thing, it's hard to get
a model to stand in place for years at a time! But more importantly,
Michelangelo wanted idealized forms, better to express eternal truths. His
Adam may be naturalistic, in that it does look like a real person
(relatively speaking). But it completely lacks the specificity of realism,
the unique characteristics which would identify this Adam as an actual
living and breathing individual. This is by choice, and it is key to
understanding classicism. Contrast this with Carravagio, who made a point
of painting from live models (and was criticized for it in his day).
Carravagio was a realist at heart, even though he had great admiration for
Michelangelo, and occasionally borrowed from him. I think John is confusing
these terms; realism, naturalism, and classicism.
But as we're discussing Bouguereau, how do you feel about him as a realist?
I'm in complete agreement with you that as a classicist, his realism is a
weakness. But thinking of him as basically a realist treating mythological
subjects (unorthodox, to say the least), do you feel that he has added
something to the realist tradition?
I'm torn on this myself. Afterall, he clearly saw himself in the tradition
of Raphael and Ingres. Looking at "Nymphs and Satyr" (1873):
http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/b/Bouguereau_William/large/Nymphes_
et_satyre.jpg
It is an interesting mixture of modernism and realism grafted onto a
mythological subject (and presented as "classical," albeit a decadent
classicism). The composition is not classical, but it's still interesting
and fluid. The lines are dynamic, and the counterbalance of the bodies is
impressive. The painting is obviously (in my mind, at least) too good to
dismiss, but how to place it? Where will history ultimately place
Bouguereau?
Todd Strickland
silverpoint
It's possible that in our own time "realism" has been telescoped back onto
traditional art so that it's all lumped together in one big soup of
representational art, with the schools of "abstract" and "conceptual" arts
further fracturing the distinction and confusing these ideas.
Representational art since the sacking of Picasso's reputation decades ago
has been denigrated and made out to be just some mere mechanical process
devoid of ideas and lacking real "creativity." But lets do a little
rummaging in the Garbage Can of Art History....
"Todd Strickland" <ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:a39e9...@enews1.newsguy.com...
In the Renaissance, the Italians used the term "disegno" to mean design,
drawing and draughtsmanship all at once, meaning both what we would call
drawing and composition simultaneously. Disegno meant that not only was a
figure or an object represented, but the "Idea" of the object from the
artist's mind represented as well, and fitted into a dynamic and structured
pictorial composition. In Michelangelo's time this was essentially a
Platonic, or neo-Platonic, idea, but fitted well with making an art balanced
between reference to "Natura," Nature, and the creative powers of the
artist. Nature, of course, was not just what could be seen in the natural
world through human eyeballs, but the principles of design and construction
in ancient Greek art that was being rediscovered at the time, the
underpinnings that made nature "tick" and allowed things to be created. The
artist thus worked in a mode that was analogous to the work of the Creator.
Merely replicating appearances of reality was not even considered worthy of
"high" art. (This is all covered in Giorgio Vasari's "Lives of the
Artists.")
The artist not only thus composed to a large degree according to the Idea in
his head and the principles of Nature, but was expected to give his forms a
sense of their own life and a solid sense of 3D relief. Relief was likewise
not only based on the principles of form found in ancient Classical art, but
had a whole system of convention as how to create it, which is fully
explained in da Vinci's notes on painting and elsewhere. Capping all of
this off was the Renaissance invention of perspective, which was ultimately
another projection of the religious and intellectual concepts of the time,
whereby the viewer (Man) was on the side of the picture plane opposite the
ultimate vanishing point converging in infinity (God,) and the artist in the
middle having creative powers analogous to those of his creator.
Michelangelo drew and studied live models quite a lot, but the results were
a Michelangelo creation, not a picture of some shivvering studio assistant
in his skivvies. What's very funny is that the models even for countless
paintings of madonnas and the like were just as often male studio
assistants, studied just to get things placed right, and otherwise entirely
invented by the artists.
This was all entirely made up on paper, canvas and plaster walls, and had
little to do with our concepts of "realism." That an entire system of
representation so pervasive that we take it for granted could have arisen
from the philosophical and religious outlook of an era must seem weird 150
years after the invention of the camera. The Renaissance was far from the
only era when such a convergence took place; the artists of ancient Egypt
for thousands of years knew fully well how to represent things
"naturalistically," but their work was governed by a strict religious canon
with an elaborate system of proportions and conventions of representation
felt to be, again, more suited to "serious" art.
These ideas are difficult to grasp for contemporary artists and teachers
brainwashed to think that painting is a "dead" artform, a mere craft, and
suitable for nothing but petty representation of visible reality, devoid of
any ideas, unlike "Conceptual" art.
> But as we're discussing Bouguereau, how do you feel about him as a
realist?
> I'm in complete agreement with you that as a classicist, his realism is a
> weakness. But thinking of him as basically a realist treating
mythological
> subjects (unorthodox, to say the least), do you feel that he has added
> something to the realist tradition?
>
> I'm torn on this myself. Afterall, he clearly saw himself in the
tradition
> of Raphael and Ingres. Looking at "Nymphs and Satyr" (1873):
>
>
http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/b/Bouguereau_William/large/Nymphes_
> et_satyre.jpg
Yes, Bougereau's realism is not just a weakness per se, but he also handles
it badly, and does not treat form according to the traditional principles of
"relief," but more photographically. Putting elements of visible reality,
instead of the conventions of classical form, into painting was a big
breakthrough of sorts in the 19th century. Before the Impressionists,
almost no one painted their shadows blue/cool/purple-- all artists had
always known that's the way things actually look, da Vinci clearly says so
in his notes, but painting according to visible reality in this way would
kill all sense of 3D relief (the origin of Modernism's flatness.)
Combining realistic appearances with mythological or religious subject
matter, I agree, is an uneasy mix. We can accept the idealized forms of
Michelangelo with no problem, as the artist made it all up out of his own
head according to a feeling or conception. A representation of gods, heros
and myths that looks quite like the guy behind the counter or your cousin
Fred doesn't quite make it, eh? A realistic Venus is likewise not a goddess
or earth mother, but more like a pin up, nothing terribly cosmic at all.
The drive towards realism was likely so pervasive that almost no one was
untouched. Ingres certainly understood not only the methods and manners of
classical painting, but the distinctions between reality, art, and "Nature,"
and clearly stated that Nature was what was found in the ancient
masterpieces (Greek) in the Louvre. He admonished students to paint
"according to nature, not to the model," a fine distinction. His portraits,
however, do show clear realist tendencies, quite vivaciously:
http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/i/Ingres_Jean_Auguste_Dominique/lar
ge/Louis_Francois_Bertin.jpg
>
> It is an interesting mixture of modernism and realism grafted onto a
> mythological subject (and presented as "classical," albeit a decadent
> classicism). The composition is not classical, but it's still interesting
> and fluid. The lines are dynamic, and the counterbalance of the bodies is
> impressive. The painting is obviously (in my mind, at least) too good to
> dismiss, but how to place it? Where will history ultimately place
> Bouguereau?
>
> Todd Strickland
After Ingres and Delacroix, most artists of the 19th century were
essentially Realists of one stripe or another, whether they were Courbet,
Manet, Monet or even Cezanne, who all painted with an eye trained on reality
though backed up but huge, traditional educations. While Bougereau is not
the total horror that early Modernists made him out to be (and face it,
they're only paintings,) his contributions to this era are still kind of
negligible.
Where history will ultimately place Bougereau and his ilk is difficult to
say. In the longer run, it's not your opinion, my humble opinion, nor
anyone else's opinion that will determine their place in history-- it's up
to the JEWS, remember?? :-)
John Ng
At last, an interesting post, not because you agree at least partially
with me but you because I understand what you are saying, as opposed
to SilverPoint who seemed to bring in a lot of illustrations, making
statements sound like facts, but is not making anything coherent
except for some claims.
> The painting is obviously (in my mind, at least) too good to
> dismiss, but how to place it? Where will history ultimately place
> Bouguereau?
The "Newborn Lamb" is just one example of a good Bouguereau
composition, the "Nymphs" is another, but one of his best (in terms of
composition) is probably his painting "Soul Brought to Heaven". I
feel that Bouguereau is not well understood by the world of art where
LOUD images and compositions seemed to be the only thing that matters.
Bouguereau is, I think, the complete opposite of the loudmouth
painters where, instead of pouring colourful words down the throats of
lazy critics, he allowed his painting to speak for themselves. That
was his mistake.
I felt, from reading some posts here, that one of the ways that
Bouguereau can be verified is through "critique" of his works
(especially if it could be done within ARC) so that the arty world can
understand that Bouguereau's art is not "hollow". Having said this, I
noticed that the newer general art books are beginning to have short
positive statements of his works as one I read in the bookshop (I
forgot the title) where it mentions that Bouguereau's art, once
thought to be mediocre, is being studied seriously. I think I am
quite positive that in less than 30 year's time, Bouguereau will
become popular again and be considered one of the Great Masters.
> But as we're discussing Bouguereau, how do you feel about him as a realist?
> I'm in complete agreement with you that as a classicist, his realism is a
> weakness. But thinking of him as basically a realist treating mythological
> subjects (unorthodox, to say the least), do you feel that he has added
> something to the realist tradition
I think good paintings these days are unclassifiable mainly because of
our knowledge of all the methods or ingredients that go into producing
good works. I think "Good" painting is the only matter, not any
specific category. Bouguereau's paintings are mixed with all the
elements that you mentioned almost in three equal portions.
> I'm torn on this myself. Afterall, he clearly saw himself in the tradition
> of Raphael and Ingres. Looking at "Nymphs and Satyr" (1873):
Yes, he drew on Raphael, he drew on Ingres, and he drew on Greuze, to
form an unique style that does culminates the work of his three
predecessors. It is impossibly difficult for his contemporaries and
later painters (21C included) to out-do him, and perhaps is one of the
reason for Cezanne and other Modern Art painters to re-start again.
It is like the end-game of chess, you need to clear the board... so it
is back to the stone ages folks.
bob_d
Do you think he had sex with any of them?
silverpoint
it were fact.)
"bob_d" <bob_dav...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6ecf1cf6.02013...@posting.google.com...
John Ng
> Representational art since the sacking of Picasso's reputation decades ago
> has been denigrated and made out to be just some mere mechanical process
> devoid of ideas and lacking real "creativity."
BS. If you paint with only with technique and without creation, you
get an uninteresting snapshot. In the same way, if you paint with
just LOUD creativity, then you get an incoherent lump. You don't seem
to be able to see that Bouguereau has both. Do you mean that an angel
appeared before Bouguereau one evening and he painted it the way she
knelt? Or do you think it is the creation of Bouguereau? How come
there are no fat people in Bouguereau's paintings, only ideally pretty
ones? How come there are no ugly folds? Reproducing nature?
> Merely replicating appearances of reality was not even considered worthy of
> "high" art.
Exactly! But Bouguereau is the opposite of this category. If he is a
"Reproducer" than I don't see why all the artists of the past 600
years, or rather 3000 years, are not reproducers and copy-cats.
> Michelangelo drew and studied live models quite a lot, but the results were
> a Michelangelo creation, not a picture of some shivvering studio assistant
> in his skivvies.
Or are you saying that a good painting is one where the figure must be
purposefully distorted? So the notion of an artist is that he must be
as mad as a hatter, a sufferer of Syphilis? Maybe the demented Goya
is your ideal artist?
In fact one of the greatest problems with Michelangelo's paintings is
that his figures are over-exaggerated... like bean bags. Look at
Leonardo, I think he must be a no-good reproducer.
A good artist is one who is creative AND accurate. You seem to
suggest that ONLY creativity is art. Like I said, a snapshot
reproduction is poor art but a well moulded and technically well-done
one is bliss... what all serious artists would want to do. Simply
being “creative” is a concept that is still in the notion
of the Art world but is, I believe, rapidly disintegrating.
> Before the Impressionists,
> almost no one painted their shadows blue/cool/purple-- all artists had
> always known that's the way things actually look, da Vinci clearly says so
> in his notes, but painting according to visible reality in this way would
> kill all sense of 3D relief (the origin of Modernism's flatness.)
Complete BS. You have a serious case of an inability to look at the
subtle. This shadow-colouring happens frequently in good painting...
and is right there in Bouguereau’s art. The reason you
don’t see it is because it is so naturally done. The coloured
shadow principle doesn’t have to be made so LOUD. Maybe your
eyes see as how Van Gogg does?
> A realistic Venus is likewise not a goddess
> or earth mother, but more like a pin up, nothing terribly cosmic at all.
The trouble is that you are still stuck with an old idea. Maybe you
are suggesting that Jesus must look like a long-haired white hippie?
Maybe you are saying that if a painting has Jesus as a short-haired
dark skin (a lot more realistic) that it failed as a painting?
> and clearly stated that Nature was what was found in the ancient
> masterpieces (Greek) in the Louvre. He admonished students to paint
> "according to nature, not to the model," a fine distinction.
True, but what Ingres is saying is NOT "distort the form" but rather
"enhance the form", which Bouguereau clearly did.
> his contributions to this era are still kind of
> negligible.
When I grew up in the sixties, I was always wondering why my mum would
pose a certain way. Now I know, she was posing exactly the same way
as Bouguereau had in his paintings. My mum was a poor Chinese
uneducated woman born in 1919. That was how far Bouguereau’s
work has travelled!!!
John
silverpoint
really was a neo-Platonist....)
"John Ng" <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.02013...@posting.google.com...
> "silverpoint" <etenthstr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<a39mbp$mk6
>
> > Representational art since the sacking of Picasso's reputation decades
ago
> > has been denigrated and made out to be just some mere mechanical process
> > devoid of ideas and lacking real "creativity."
>
> BS. If you paint with only with technique and without creation, you
> get an uninteresting snapshot. In the same way, if you paint with
> just LOUD creativity, then you get an incoherent lump. You don't seem
> to be able to see that Bouguereau has both. Do you mean that an angel
> appeared before Bouguereau one evening and he painted it the way she
> knelt? Or do you think it is the creation of Bouguereau? How come
> there are no fat people in Bouguereau's paintings, only ideally pretty
> ones? How come there are no ugly folds? Reproducing nature?
>
Bougereau painted the angel like a cornball from hell. A French girl posed
for the angel, and he stuck photorealistic wings on her.
>
> > Merely replicating appearances of reality was not even considered worthy
of
> > "high" art.
>
> Exactly! But Bouguereau is the opposite of this category. If he is a
> "Reproducer" than I don't see why all the artists of the past 600
> years, or rather 3000 years, are not reproducers and copy-cats.
>
Art is not a copy of nature but a balance between... nevermind.
>
> > Michelangelo drew and studied live models quite a lot, but the results
were
> > a Michelangelo creation, not a picture of some shivvering studio
assistant
> > in his skivvies.
>
> Or are you saying that a good painting is one where the figure must be
> purposefully distorted? So the notion of an artist is that he must be
> as mad as a hatter, a sufferer of Syphilis? Maybe the demented Goya
> is your ideal artist?
>
Michelangelo was not crazy. His work is "distorted" (brilliantly) to
portray his ideas forcefully. He was a wee bit of a more serious artist
than Bougereau, honest. Temperment and all the other cliches are as
irrelevant to art as they are to other professions. Just look at Rubens, a
very healthy, successful individual who worked on the side as an ambassador,
etc, and never caught the clap. Cliches of the 19th century "starving
artist" so-called "garret."
> In fact one of the greatest problems with Michelangelo's paintings is
> that his figures are over-exaggerated... like bean bags. Look at
> Leonardo, I think he must be a no-good reproducer.
>
Michelangelo's figures are not "over" exagerrated. The figures in a work of
art can be anything the artist deigns or creates. Art is not nature, it is
an invention just like any other human art/profession/avocation, and
paintings do not grow on trees any more than books do. You should read Sir
Kenneth Clark's classic "The Nude" for a very decent, easy to read essay in
the figure and its function and symbolic power for the past few thousand
years. You might discover a work here and there that is, and I'm kidding
you, even a tad bit more serious than the exalted Bougereau.
> A good artist is one who is creative AND accurate. You seem to
> suggest that ONLY creativity is art. Like I said, a snapshot
> reproduction is poor art but a well moulded and technically well-done
> one is bliss... what all serious artists would want to do. Simply
> being “creative” is a concept that is still in the notion
> of the Art world but is, I believe, rapidly disintegrating.
>
No such thing as "accuracy."
"There is neither correct nor incorrect drawing; there is only beautiful or
ugly drawing. That is all!" -- J.A.D. Ingres
>
> > Before the Impressionists,
> > almost no one painted their shadows blue/cool/purple-- all artists had
> > always known that's the way things actually look, da Vinci clearly says
so
> > in his notes, but painting according to visible reality in this way
would
> > kill all sense of 3D relief (the origin of Modernism's flatness.)
>
> Complete BS. You have a serious case of an inability to look at the
> subtle. This shadow-colouring happens frequently in good painting...
> and is right there in Bouguereau’s art. The reason you
> don’t see it is because it is so naturally done. The coloured
> shadow principle doesn’t have to be made so LOUD. Maybe your
> eyes see as how Van Gogg does?
>
The old masters painted their shadows generally warm (coolish highlight,
warm light, cool turning plane, warm shadow). This made for 3D modeling.
Painting shadows as they appeared was not a question. Understanding form as
they did, they could apply any "light source" to the composition purely from
their imagination. Look at Rembrandt. Study the notes of Leonardo of what
I'm talking about, and you'll get an idea of what a revolution introducing
natural color as it appears to the eye was in painting.
>
> > A realistic Venus is likewise not a goddess
> > or earth mother, but more like a pin up, nothing terribly cosmic at all.
>
> The trouble is that you are still stuck with an old idea. Maybe you
> are suggesting that Jesus must look like a long-haired white hippie?
> Maybe you are saying that if a painting has Jesus as a short-haired
> dark skin (a lot more realistic) that it failed as a painting?
>
What does Venus have to do with Jesus? Jesus. Old paintings of Jesus are
not a realistic depiction of anyone, but of an often suffering
messiah/godhead figure central to that religion.
>
> > and clearly stated that Nature was what was found in the ancient
> > masterpieces (Greek) in the Louvre. He admonished students to paint
> > "according to nature, not to the model," a fine distinction.
>
> True, but what Ingres is saying is NOT "distort the form" but rather
> "enhance the form", which Bouguereau clearly did.
>
Bougereau "prettified" the form. He was a slave to the model, unlike
Ingres, who knew the difference between art and nature. This has nothing to
do with "distortion."
>
> > his contributions to this era are still kind of
> > negligible.
>
> When I grew up in the sixties, I was always wondering why my mum would
> pose a certain way. Now I know, she was posing exactly the same way
> as Bouguereau had in his paintings. My mum was a poor Chinese
> uneducated woman born in 1919. That was how far Bouguereau’s
> work has travelled!!!
>
I'm sure your mother is a very wonderful person.
>
>
> John
bob_d
Todd Strickland
> "Todd Strickland"
>
> At last, an interesting post, not because you agree at least partially
> with me but you because I understand what you are saying, as opposed
> to SilverPoint who seemed to bring in a lot of illustrations, making
> statements sound like facts, but is not making anything coherent
> except for some claims.
Thank you for the kind words, but please keep in mind that I'm in agreement
with silverpoint.
> I felt, from reading some posts here, that one of the ways that
> Bouguereau can be verified is through "critique" of his works
> (especially if it could be done within ARC) so that the arty world can
> understand that Bouguereau's art is not "hollow".
That's admirable, and I think that's the best way to make a case for the
painters you like.
> > I'm torn on this myself. Afterall, he clearly saw himself in the
tradition
> > of Raphael and Ingres. Looking at "Nymphs and Satyr" (1873):
>
> Yes, he drew on Raphael, he drew on Ingres, and he drew on Greuze, to
> form an unique style that does culminates the work of his three
> predecessors. It is impossibly difficult for his contemporaries and
> later painters (21C included) to out-do him, and perhaps is one of the
> reason for Cezanne and other Modern Art painters to re-start again.
> It is like the end-game of chess, you need to clear the board... so it
> is back to the stone ages folks.
I'm in a good mood today, so I'm going to ignore that swipe at Cezanne. But
please understand, when I say that Bouguereau saw himself in the tradition
of Raphael and Ingres I don't mean that I agree. Silverpoint's contention
(and I agree with him) is that the level of realism in Bouguereau puts him
outside the tradition of classicism. He wanted to be a Neo-classicist, but
he really isn't. I called his style of Neo-classicism "decadent;" the
high-minded, Neo-Platonic, "ideal" art of Raphael has become nothing more
than a Salon style in Bouguereau. If B's claim to fame is that he is a
classicist, then he is destined to be forgotten.
Now, I don't think he will be forgotten, and I agree with you that over the
years he will be more and more accepted as a serious artist (rather than the
simplistic view that he just represents what the Modern artists had to react
against; they DID have to react against him, but that is not the whole story
of Bouguereau. I believe he is a major-league artist in his own right).
But if he's not the classicist he believed himself to be, then what is he?
That's what I wanted to look into in my post.
Silverpoint alludes to the idea that after the invention of photography,
basically everyone became a "realist" of sorts. I suppose it was impossible
to paint like Raphael after the camera arrived. To Bouguereau's credit, he
didn't try to. He was a man of his times, and his art reflects the
influence of the technology of his day. To attempt to paint in a
naturalistic classical style in the late 19th century would really have been
retrograde, and Bouguereau didn't do that. However, he thought he was
continuing the work of Ingres when in fact he was nailing Ingres' coffin; my
point is that he wasn't in the coffin when it was buried.
Todd Strickland
Daniel Hiltbrunner
There is no such thing as a "Realism school". All kind of painters with very
diverging artistic ideas, concepts and intentions are commonly referred to
as "realistic painters", think of Courbet, Bonvin, Rosa Bonheur, Daumier
etc. They weren't members of a "unifying" school.
"silverpoint" <etenthstr...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:a2qo6t$rk2$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
John Ng
> But if he's not the classicist he believed himself to be, then what is he?
> That's what I wanted to look into in my post.
Bouguereau's work cannot be classified into Realism or Classicism
because it is smack in the middle.
> Silverpoint alludes to the idea that after the invention of photography,
> basically everyone became a "realist" of sorts. I suppose it was impossible
> to paint like Raphael after the camera arrived.
First of all, if everyone could become a "realist" (or I suppose,
paint like Bouguereau), then tell me why in the last 100 years we have
none? You would think Bouguereau's work is a push over, but it is
really quite impossible to achieve. At any rate, I still maintain
that Bouguereau never painted like a photo because his art is only
influenced. Anyway, however to achieve a painting, whether by photo
or not, is really unimportant, just as Vermeer traced real-life
images, that was unimportant. It is the end that counts.
Also, Bouguereau is at least half a century ahead of his times because
if you say he copied his images from photo, what about his realistic
colours? The photo technology at that time couldn't have given such
fine colours. Is it not an art by itself to duplicate the colours of
nature (that is light) in pigments? It is difficult. Look at
Millias' "Ophelia", it is realistic in image but the realism is not as
the eye sees because his colours are exaggerated.
> However, he thought he was
> continuing the work of Ingres when in fact he was nailing Ingres' coffin; my
> point is that he wasn't in the coffin when it was buried.
I don't know whether he thought it, but why is he nailing Ingres'
coffin?
John
mdeli
<dhiltb...@spectraweb.ch> wrote:
>Just one small comment:
>
>There is no such thing as a "Realism school". All kind of painters with very
>diverging artistic ideas, concepts and intentions are commonly referred to
>as "realistic painters", think of Courbet, Bonvin, Rosa Bonheur, Daumier
>etc. They weren't members of a "unifying" school.
>
& all Dutch genre painters, Bruegel, Canaletto, etc.etc.
The Modern Art fundamentalist suffers from ismitus. Everything has to
become some ism. Of course there is no answer, but that's the point
you can go on infinitum which is what they thrive on. When it comes to
addressing the quality of what's on the wall they falter.
To the Ism-ites, those who spend their lives detecting isms, I offer
my view of 20th century isms. These are all subsets of the major
popular 20th century ism, BULLSHITISM
Modern Academic Art comprises those Artworks which are fashionably
praised as masterpieces but range between third rate and ridiculous on
a technical level. It comprises about 95% of the stuff that presently
hangs in the modern sections of museums. I mention some top examples,
a few masters and the ism they inhabit.
no skill realism:
-its greatest exponent is of course Matisse. Also, Picasso's
portraits, Bonnard, Cezanne, Marin, Rivers, Hockney, Katz, and
Expressionist schmierers.
Abstractified hack realism:
starting with cubism, Morandi, de Kooning, Picasso, Matisse, Leger
Cartoonism-Critically glorified second rate cartoons:
Guernica and Picasso's attempts at drawing are the best examples..
Stripism-Striped textile design and horse blankets not showing enough
skill to match a patch quilt:
Mondrian, Newman, Rothko
Kindergartenism:
Kandinski, Albers, Twombley, Diebenkorn, Still
Childishism . Creative senility posing as childishness with
philosophical Importance:
Matisse, Guston, Twombley, Johns
Champanzeeism. Talented chimpanzee competition
Most Abstract expressionism, Kline, Pollock, de Kooning.
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page UPDATED November, 01!
New address- http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli
mdeli
>Also, Bouguereau is at least half a century ahead of his times because
>if you say he copied his images from photo, what about his realistic
>colours? The photo technology at that time couldn't have given such
>fine colours.
I know of no evidence that B. used photos. Anyone have any?
Picasso, Degas, Manet etc. used photos. Anything wrong with that?
mdeli
> To attempt to paint in a
>naturalistic classical style in the late 19th century would really have been
>retrograde, and Bouguereau didn't do that. However, he thought he was
>continuing the work of Ingres when in fact he was nailing Ingres' coffin; my
>point is that he wasn't in the coffin when it was buried.
>
>Todd Strickland
I know of no quotes by B. that even mention Ingres. Where did you get
this information?
RBrac53660
Todd Strickland
"mdeli" <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3c59e79e...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> "Todd Strickland" wrote:
>
> > To attempt to paint in a
> >naturalistic classical style in the late 19th century would really have
been
> >retrograde, and Bouguereau didn't do that. However, he thought he was
> >continuing the work of Ingres when in fact he was nailing Ingres' coffin;
my
> >point is that he wasn't in the coffin when it was buried.
> >
> >Todd Strickland
>
> I know of no quotes by B. that even mention Ingres. Where did you get
> this information?
Actually, I simply had in mind that Ingres was the champion of
Neo-classicism in the 19th century and that Bouguereau obviously is painting
in some form of Neo-classical vein; I assume he thought he was following in
Ingres' footsteps.
But here is one brief quote in which Bouguereau mentions Ingres:
"We have a few masters in the nineteenth century... not to
mention those still alive -- Ingres and Delacroix; water
and fire, don't you think?"
This quote is illuminating; it expresses the Salon idea that a painter
should follow Ingres (Neo-classicism) or Delacroix (Romanticism).
Bouguereau's conviction in the Salon was unswaying. It was more important
to be a follower of the Salon than to be a follower of either Ingres or
Delacroix. Being a follower of the Salon was essentially a question of
adhering to Salon "taste" rather than any specific philosophical points
(actually, this notion of taste reflects a certain philosophy itself, but
that's a discussion for another day). The fact that Bouguereau was more of
a Salon follower than an Ingres follower helps explain how he could paint
"Neo-classical" works which are so "unclassical."
Todd Strickland
Craig Luce
Todd Strickland wrote:
>
> .....
> But here is one brief quote in which Bouguereau mentions Ingres:
>
> "We have a few masters in the nineteenth century... not to
> mention those still alive -- Ingres and Delacroix; water
> and fire, don't you think?"
>
> This quote is illuminating; it expresses the Salon idea that a painter
> should follow Ingres (Neo-classicism) or Delacroix (Romanticism).
> Bouguereau's conviction in the Salon was unswaying. It was more important
> to be a follower of the Salon than to be a follower of either Ingres or
> Delacroix. Being a follower of the Salon was essentially a question of
> adhering to Salon "taste" rather than any specific philosophical points
> (actually, this notion of taste reflects a certain philosophy itself, but
> that's a discussion for another day). The fact that Bouguereau was more of
> a Salon follower than an Ingres follower helps explain how he could paint
> "Neo-classical" works which are so "unclassical."
And proves his conviction to making a living!
C>
Todd Strickland
> > continuing the work of Ingres when in fact he was nailing Ingres'
coffin; my
> > point is that he wasn't in the coffin when it was buried.
>
> I don't know whether he thought it, but why is he nailing Ingres'
> coffin?
>
Because his style helped to hasten the demise of naturalistic classicism
(the classicism of Ingres, which can rightfully trace its ancestery back to
Raphael). Like I said before, B's paintings have their fine points, but
classical they are not.
Todd Strickland
mdeli
>Bouguereau's conviction in the Salon was unswaying. It was more important
>to be a follower of the Salon than to be a follower of either Ingres or
>Delacroix. Being a follower of the Salon was essentially a question of
>adhering to Salon "taste" rather than any specific philosophical points
>(actually, this notion of taste reflects a certain philosophy itself, but
>that's a discussion for another day).
Bouguereau followed his own taste. Once established he rarely took
commissions and painted what pleased him. He never sold his largest
and most important painting La Jeunesse de Bacchus because he never
got an offer he would accept.
>The fact that Bouguereau was more of
>a Salon follower than an Ingres follower helps explain how he could paint
>"Neo-classical" works which are so "unclassical."
>
Bouguereau's finest works are unique in every aspect not just
technique.