Indeed!!

Fair point but I meant something more specific. Let

David,
I said something very similar in my member intro but going from this to rejecting the products of 20th C art is throwing the baby out with the bath water, don

From the 15th-19th centuries perhaps but for several thousands of years before and for the last 130 years no.

You know for me, I cannot pass a painting by Bouguereau without stopping dead in my tracks and devouring it with my eyes. I can look at his paintings for hours on end. :)

The Denver Art Museum has a Bouguereau, and it is the most popular painting in the gallery. Like me, people just stop and gape at it it is so beautiful.

And isn't that saying something? Isn't beauty an end in itself?

Why the heck does art have to be "relevant"?

No! Said with such certainty. Have you polled every living artist working today? I guess early 20th Century artists such as William McGregor Paxton, Edmund Tarbell, Joseph Rodefer DeCamp, Pietro Annigoni, and John Koch didn't really exist. You continue to make ridiculous broad sweeping assumptions, parroting the old party line. If you repeat it enough will it actually come true?

I do accept the fact that the moderns and post moderns existed with their own set of goals. I don't dismiss the fact that the works they created have some marginal merit, but to me, they are akin to assignments I had done in my color and design class and I don't take them too seriously. As far as finding great and fulfilling masterpieces, I think not.

Again, I state all my conclusions as mine alone and they are truths for just me. I wouldn't be so naive to think that by blasting my point of view, just for the sake of blasting it, it becomes the ultimate truth for everyone. And If my thinking goes against the common accepted contemporary 'truths' regarding what and what isn't great ART, so much the better. Ugly, muddy, grotesque, heavy handed, simplistic, shocking, confrontational, conceptual, repetitious and formulaic pap just don't float my boat.

I certainly cannot deny you the right to find a B beautiful. Personally I cannot imagine having a B hanging in my home whereas I don't have enough wall space for Cezanne, Giacometti or Klimt. - personal taste.

As for whether beauty is enough or even necessary for it be Art with a capital A - it is a complicated relationship. Definitions of beauty vary to a preposterous degree but also much great art self evidently does not pursue beauty. I think beauty can be a sufficient objective for art but for Art I am not so sure.

As for should Art be relevant - when has what we identify as great Art not been? Art has always been about transmitting messages and there is no point in transmitting an irrelevant message. The argument therefore turns on whether a particular message at a particular time and place is relevant or not. I would argue that compared to the messages being transmitted by Corot, Daumier, Courbet, Millet, Manet, Degas, Monet, Renoir, Toulouse-Lautrec and Cezanne the message of B was irrelevant. Time and place i.e. context and the living world rather than formula and convention.

Never heard of them Marvin and I have studied art history - I presume they are minor artists who might have a local influence but hardly world shakers.

We all have our gods and their influence is seen perhaps in our work and values artistically and that is the beauty of this place. I am challenged by you Marvin and by Thomasin and Ilaria just to mention three and how more stimulating or different can you get.

So I will encourage us to keep this as a "thoughtful" discussion rather than taking each other to task or making personal snips. :)

That said, Peter, I don't see much "message or content" in the work of Monet, rather I see a lot of beauty, and a lot of classically trained skill. His work shows an artist who knows what rules to break (complementary analogous color) in order to make water lillies appear to float off the canvas at 9 feet...but message? Not much that I can discern. Much of his work is a classic example of art for the sake of beauty. I see Bouguereau the same way - he just had more fantastical visions and was inspired by allegory and fable rather than what he saw in the real world. Now mind you, Bouguereau certainly used the real world to create his visions, as did Monet, just in different ways...but for similar ends - beauty.

Are there any elements in B that had not been done countless times before? Monet on the other hand had many new things to say about colour in the world and the beauty in the seemingly insignificant haystack or lilly pond. Don't you look at lilly ponds and haystacks in a different way after Monet? Can you really say the same after B?