Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Peter Dransfield
Wasn't it? When I lived in Paris I did get to see quite a lot of their work and those adjectives certainly seem to fit so in what way do his supporters here feel differently? As I said in my earlier post - admiring their technique is one thing but calling it great art is something entirely different and I would like to see supporters argue the case. In what way wasn't their art pandering to conservative bourgeois bad taste?
|
Peter, I think you raise some important points and valid criticisms that certainly should not be dismissed out of hand. Many of Bouguereau's paintings - to our twenty-first century eyes - may strike us as overly sentimental or romantic, but I think what keeps them from becoming "insipid" or "superficial" is first of all, his consummate skill and craftmanship. In the hands of an even
slightly lesser artist, I think your argument would be unassailable. But in Bouguereau's case, it is more than just "technique," as masterful as his was. It is the vision of the artist and his ability to articulate atmosphere and convey, in the most subtle ways, mood and personality. In this way his work transcends the Salon conventions of his day - the "conservative bourgeois" trappings that, before the Impressionists came along, was the matrix that all serious artists were obliged to work within (or against).
And isn't that what great art is all about? Not that the artist rejects their time and place necessarily, but he/she transcends it, and by so doing creates a work that resonates with people across cultures and centuries - a work that somehow reminds us, in a profound way, what it means to be human - regardless of the specific cultural or painting conventions (those are a given), or even the subject matter, that characterize the work. And of course, the work of most artists - of whatever century - will never rise to that level. They will never be called "Masters."
For the most part, WB painted idealized visions that are either religious or allegorical. And of course being a painter of his time - and as Richard points out, "it's a mistake to superimpose currently prevailing tastes, mores and sensibilities upon artworks made in different times and places" - in order to appreciate Bouguereau (or any painter of allegorical or religious imagery before him) we must entertain a certain "suspension of disbelief." Otherwise, we couldn't relate to it. The symbolism is not of our time.
And if you say that because Bouguereau was gladly and sucessfully working within the Salon system, he was "pandering to conservative bourgeois...taste" - then I suppose we could say the same about the art of Michaelangelo, Raphael, Rubens, Velasquez, Rembrandt (who in his earlier years was an acclaimed and much sought-after portrait painter), and on and on. They were all working (pandering) for the rich and powerful, trying to create pictures that, using the pictoral conventions of the day, would satisfy their powerful clients and, hopefully, themselves. Richard is right, I think, on that point.
I would disagree with Richard when he says "we're still far too close to WB's time to be objective." I think we've moved on far enough from the great Salon/ Impressionist debates of the late 19th century to be able to assess the work of that period with a healthy degree of objectivity - although we're still talking about art, which will, to some degree, remain subjective.
And on that note
, to buttress my arguments I humbly offer the following: WB's portrait of Gabrielle Cot - in my way of looking at things, one of the finest portraits ever painted - by
anyone. Anyone who can paint
THIS ...I think is worthy of some serious attention.
Conservative?...certainly. Idealized?...yes. Sentimental?...maybe. Insipid, formulaic, superficial...? Well, you be the judge.