[Peggy Baumgaertner]

As I wade into this subject.....

I have just returned from a semi-intensive Russian art trip. I visited the Hermitage, (my fifth trip), the Russian Museum, Tretyakov, and Pushkin, as well as the Institute of Art in St. Petersburg,

I think it is of no question that there was a tremendous leap to those of us who revere realism, in the 15th Century portraits over the (mostly) religious images that we saw previously.

I asked a cleric at Segeiv Posad (Russian Orthodox Vatican) about this, and he stated that the paintings (icons, etc.) we saw were as God saw man, not as man saw man. The small adult shaped babies, funny proportions, stilted perspectives, were not because the artists were untrained in how to perceive perception, value, or line, but because those were the parameters of their art form.

In actuality, much of the work painted has more in common with the image on the Shroud of Turin than with the human body.

One needs only to see the portraits painted on the mummy cases from 100 BC to see that artists were capable even at that early date to paint a portrait that shows a likeness, was structurally correct, very realistic, and even moving. (I have seen many of these mummy portraits in various museums so I am assuming that those reading this have as well.)

In the 15th and 16th Century, the robust shipping industry created a super rich upper class and a very comfortable middle class in Amsterdam, making it possible for portraits to be commissioned for private parties, not just for the church. There was an astonishing outpouring of tremendously accomplished artwork.

I would challenge any of those stating that the epitome of Western Art is found in the 19th Century to spend a few days at the galleries, large and minuscule, in Amsterdam. Without doubt, the work done by even the most plebeian artist stands the test of time...And what they were able to do with such rudimentary colors and tools boggles the mind.

Why no reference to Van Dyck? My particular favorite Flemish artist. I know I am treading on some very deeply held beliefs here, but what I find missing in the Bouguereau and the Paxton portraits is soulfulness. A connection with the subject. An empathy. I know Van Dyck's subjects, I know Rembrandt, I could go on and on....this is why I study the Russians, I know Kramskoi and Repin's subjects. I know their pain, and loss, and joy. I know nothing of Paxton's subjects or Bouguereau except that they are masterfully painted. Not enough for me.

BTW, I've read that the most beloved and revered and famous (at the time) teacher/artist of the Bostonian period, late 19th Century, was Joseph DeCamp.