When did painting mature?

[Tom Edgerton]

Boy, the gas went out of this discussion pretty fast, to my mind.

IF you define your parameters for measuring tightly enough, you can make a case for anyone. Bouguereau was great, sure. But the highest in possible achievement? Come on, guys. Reading this is like hearing someone assert that because someone was the first to perfect the depiction of dark-haired, sultry, specifically French, peasant girls with a water jar, a blue skirt, a red bandana, standing in a wheat field, that they were the first in history to "get painting down." It is, in my opinion, patent nonsense. Again, any argument can be made for anyone by the bias built into the measuring device.

Even Leonardo stood on the shoulders of Giotto, Fra Angelico, Piero della Francesca, Mategna, Masaccio and Botticelli. Not to mention concurrent developments in Northern Europe. Why not Titian and the Van Eycks in the introduction of oils? And do David and Ingres have nothing to say to Bouguereau? Are Bouguereau's choices in
composing and rendering the landscape any LESS stylized and more "scientifically right" than portions of say, Raphael's deeper spaces? Or Titian's?

And how to factor in the disparity between the "perfect" vs. the not-as-accomplished images, and the ongoing stylistic evolution, in a given individual's total lifetime output?

Nothing springs from nothing, not even Bouguereau. Tim and Marvin make some of the above points, but I have to disagree with the premise. It's like looking at the entire march of Western art out of the Byzantine and saying "Pick one." Or "Pick a time." Or "Pick a group."

My response is, "HOW?" Or more importantly, "WHY?"

With utmost respect for my artistic compadres,
Tom

[Timothy C. Tyler]

Well, for me this is not only about WB-it's about the time. The greatest marble mansion was "built upon" knowledge gained from making the first lean-to. I was recently looking at a couple of Da Vinci's and they were really weak.I know this sounds like heresy to some. But look at the works w/o the influence of your youth.

I'd restate that some great stuff was being made in 1630 by some real exceptional artists. I also agree that what is now, is, because of what came before. I don't mean slick surfaces, when I say mature painting.

[Peter Jochems]

Tim,

Which Da Vinci's exactly? Can you post the pictures with your comments? It's hard to understand how you came to such a conclusion.

When you say, 'when did painting mature' then do you believe that it is still in the mature state?

I personally think 'The Syndics' by Rembrandt is as mature as the art of painting can possibly get. Bouguereau does not even come close... in my humble opinion.

http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/asp/showim...Z/SK-C-6.Z.jpg

Peter

After giving it some thought I wanted to edit this post and add that I think I agree with Tom. Van Eyck wasn't a less mature painter than Rembrandt. I personally just don't understand the very high regard some people have for Bouguereau. Maybe an idea for another thread?

[Tom Edgerton]

It may be that the word "mature" itself is so slippery.

I think that Tim's criteria from the prior post--correct perspective, consistent light, etc.--is a good place to start, but one can find examples even in Bouguereau and his contemporaries where these attributes fail. Many of WB's paintings look like studio figures applied to, not integrated with, landscapes. And John has a point too, a lot of the output of that era is undercut by its own sentiment -- the "treacle" factor -- though we disagree about Waterhouse (same literary content as others, noted absence of treacle.) Should this become part of the mix also? Not to deny the technical superiority of even these. If these painters didn't get to perfection, admittedly, they got pretty darn close.

But to say that this is the first time in painting history that this happened is, I think, a stretch.

Once again, could this painting thing not be a journey rather than a destination?

[Michele Rushworth]

I guess asking when painting matured is like asking when a person matured. It's a gradual process and hard to affix a date to.

[Carl Toboika]

Gee,
I'm stuck way back on Peter's question... what do Marvin and I get for a prize?

A new Easel like Michael's... a set of Badger hair brushes... a large tube of Cremnitz White... a small bottle of Windsor Newton Turpentine... an expired Metropolitan Art Museum button... scrapings from the palette you used last week... or a kick in the pants from the rest of the group for guessing as we did?

Carl

[Marvin Mattelson]

Carl- Or as Arlo Guthrie once said, we get to pay $50.00 and pick up the garbage.

[Steven Sweeney]

Carl, when you got to

a small bottle of . . .

I was waiting for the vintage or at least the proof and provenance (I was thinking Kentucky), but your ultimate choice of turpentine reminded me of a studio mate, a retired professor of philosophy from Georgetown (and me, very anciently a philosophy major), who once told me, "I love the smell of turpentine so much, I wish I could drink it!"

He and I weren't always broadcasting on the same personality wavelength, and I understood at the time that I'd have exposed a dual motivation by saying "Why don't you, then?", and so I didn't. I've not always been as circumspect on the Forum, but there you go.

I realize that this isn't quite on topic, but I've been flummoxed in my effort to figure out what would be.

[Carl Toboika]

Marvin, Yep, I think you must have hit on it!
All because Tim threatened to bring in the 8x10 color, glossy photos, with the circles and arrows on the back of each one to make his point, and then ran away when he spied the seeing eye Dog.

warning, long post to follow

Tom, I'll put on my asbestos suit here and stick my neck out.

Bill Whitaker once mentioned that everyone has their individual "check points" (often different in some way from another Artist's "check points") when determining if they were on target painting a likeness. I would say that extends to evaluating others Artwork (past and present) as well. We all have our "check points to determine if a work is technically, and or, artistically outstanding. To the degree those differ (rightly or wrongly), we end up differing in opinion.

It seems pretty straightforward when walking the Museums that many Artists indeed worked hard at building on each others advances and methods (learning the check points of several other artists, and combining them into their own work and with their own check points). Of course the "highest possible" are words any Artist ought to be wary of uttering within hearing range of his/her own soul. If you don't feel more is possible, that will likely be true (unless you have a particularly contrary soul).

It sure can be interesting to walk through a Museum chronologically, but watch out at the Met when you pass from the 19th Century into the Modern Art wing. Though I must admit I haven't gone through those doors in a few years. Not to say there aren't things to learn there, there are. However the theme of progression in realistic Art knowledge is strangely represented there (if you could say it was at all. It wasn't when I did go through. Visually, when you walked in it looked like a "Left turn Clyde" (reference from an old Clint Eastwood Movie).


I'd say the sharing of information whether it be on forums like this one, other forums, workshops, classrooms, etc. is important today, if you have any love of realistic style work in you at all. I'd say to much has gotten, and is getting, more splintered, (Illustrators, our keepers of the torch in modern times, are increasingly going to computer and dropping the ball) to many worked in this day and age at rediscovering the wheel alone or in tiny groups, or were bullied when young, by those who "knew", into dropping realism entirely.

Abstraction has its place and importance. As does being able to turn out a big number of pictures for your Gallery to sell. It just seems useful to remember that left unattended things atrophy and degrade.

Slower to complete, quality, Realist work is worthwhile enough to attend to, so this age can build something more on the past, and fewer of us will mumble about the 16th, 17th, 18th, or 19th century and do something worth mumbling about in the 21'st Century.

It's not a good thing that a present day Realistic Artist, needs to play Sherlock Holmes in order to find reliable information on the refinements of his/her profession.


Steven, I much prefer other liquids when it comes to drinking. I didn't think Tim would spring for that though.
Carl

[Jim Riley]

I too am not sure what "mature" means within the history of oil painting. My comments may not help with that definition or aid in the judgement of whom (if possible) might best represent that term. Instead I will complicate things somewhat by suggesting that it is not possible to separate design, rendering and technical elements from effectiveness. Or, to put it another way, how well did the artist communicate or somehow touch, move or stimulate the very people who viewed his work both in his day and the years that followed. There is no denying the ability of a Bouguereau and many of us are awed by his skill. But unfortunately he fails to arouse a response at almost any level in the art world. Apart from suggestions that the public has been "dumbed down" in ability to appreciate painting or the organized art world finds it somehow to their advantage to ignore him, he is for the most part a non-entity. As popular as he might have been at one time his work does not make that critical connection. At the very moment that the highest level of painting skill is evidenced, nothing happens. I have no basis in fact but would guess that any prints of his work that are sold would fall far short of the works of other artist. "Flawed" works by many other artist are far better able to evoke understanding and an emotional attachment.

It might be disturbing to say this but a lot of "Contemporary" art sells because it "connects". As has been suggested by a prominent realist painter the reason realism doesn't get the notice we think it deserves is because not much is done at a high enough level to earn attention. I think that will happen when someone builds upon all that has evolved (realism and contemporary) and takes it to a new level.

In the mean time, it seems to me, that it might be far easier today to get the training to be an artist of any persuasion then it would have been for any aspiring artist in the past. If nothing else this forum gold mine for information and direction for anyone bent on Portraiture/Realism.