The Boston School is marginal outside of the US Marvin as I think you know. As a point of fact it was contemporary more less with groups who in my opinion were doing far more interesting work including the Vienna Secession. That does not mean that they do not merit interest since they were virtually the only inheritors of the French Academy style but most artists did not reject modernism in the way that they did.

In terms of my own country I find the work of the Euston Road school, Victor Pasmore, Coldstream and Rogers more stimulating. Different traditions and matters of Taste I know Marvin but what is a guy to do?

As far as allegory goes would anyone care to argue that B is more profound or pictorially interesting than Klimt? I would be very happy to compare selected works of B with the University murals or the Beethovan Freize.

Peter,

Here are the comments to which Chris is referring:

and

You most definitely haven't "only praised Marvin's work." It's not a question even of whether or not Marvin minds. These comments reflect a value judgement of his work relevant to your personal taste, which is not acceptable on this forum.

I am quite clearly commenting on a style exemplified by B and by Marvin himself ( a style I described as stunning since it is B's allegorical painting content I have targeted here and not the portraits) and saying that I do not feel an imperative to adopt that style. I have also said on this thread that Marvin's work as that of several others is a challenge to me pulling me in different directions. Tight is not a perjorative nor did I attempt to use it as such but merely one side of a continuum along which we are all situated according to our own aesthetics and so there is no ad hom being made. Furthermore I would not consider it appropriate to comment on a style in the Critiques section - only on the technical merit of the work within whatever style the artist was using. What on earth would people here say if I actually said BOO?

I don't understand why there is this desire to compare styles of art. It's very simply, subjective. The art speaks for itself, don't you think?

The point where things break down for me and become beneath pointlessness is when one observer says, "I like this," and the rebuttal is "No you don't" (or some passive-aggressive version of, "Then you're a brigand or a fool, or both.") That's not an art critic at work, it's a Psych 101 case study.

There isn't a single artist mentioned in this thread about whom I can't say that I admire some of his work and don't care much for other parts of it. The historical bookmark is instructive but doesn't add or detract from the aesthetic impression that a piece of artwork makes on me.

Except Renoir. Don't get it. Don't like any of it. (Please -- if anyone is thinking about responding, "Yes you do," don't.)

Amen to that! :)

I'll disappoint you though... I first saw Renoir in the museum as a young child, and he was probably my favorite at that time. Of course having had no art appreciation classes, I have to admit I also quite liked Holly Hobbie and singing Farmer in the Dell! :P

I used to have problems with Renoir as well being primarily a 'line' artist - in fact Renoir had problems with himself periodically hardening up edges and drawing but his best work is where drawing remains fluid and edges become lost. The translucent, succulent quality he gets painting (female) flesh is mesmerising. Not at the top of my personal pantheon but in the top league.

Yes art does speak for itself but then we discuss whether what it says appeals and/or says something shallow or deep. Culture is always reflecting on what it is saying from the theatre to music to the visual arts and it is the push and pull of comparison and discussion that moves us in one direction or another. Individuals come along who appear to have more to say than others or who encapsulate moods and aspirations in society. Of course commercialism distorts and even directs this process from time to time but quality usually although not always wins out. Society does not stay still and neither do we.