[shinji69]

Not that I don't advocate fully traditional art education. On the contrary I am all for it. But... back in art school instructors encouraged us to explore in abstract art to understand representational art better. Of course, the instructors have top-notch caliber.

Even the notable painter like Tom Browning and Harley Brown commented that good understanding on abstract art help traditional art training. In fact, many famous abstract painters have had strong background in traditional painting, which is largely ignored by a lot of wannabe modernism artists, and without strong understanding in color theory and composition you can't create a 'convincing' abstract art.

But...these guys in artrenewal.org seem to completely ignore modernist art. Well, isn't it too biased?

As an artist who really care about the subject matter as the drawing&painting skills, I am not really comfortable with pre-raphaelite(sp?) paintings advocated by artrenewal.org... Well, I wanna see some ghettoe scenes and bullet-flying gang bang scenes depicted in Sargent way... ^_^; One of the few artist who have ever done that kind of subject matter is probably Gregory Manchess. (well, at least he did a portrait of Tupac...) And even George Sheppard's later works depict more urban themes.

Probably artrenewal.org might see Manchess' work as too modernist for them...

[jr]

hmmm, i'll have to disagree on that. it's good to know about all art, just for the sake of being more cultured.
artrenewal is into one type of art, just like if you want pizza, you go to a pizzeria if you want hambergers you go to mcdonalds.
i really don't think they're doing a disservice by not showing work that isn't geared to their site. imho.

[Jezebel]

Aaaaccck... don't dis art renewal!... god I love that site

I don't have anything against modern art and such, but it's not my favorite thing to look at. I guess for the most part I just can't shake the feeling that most modern artists are really people just throwing things around on a canvas with no feelings about anything except money. Now of course I know this isn't true in all cases, and there is a bit of abstract and non-objective art I enjoy looking at... I just prefer images that tell a story. I feel like I get to see a lot of that at art renewal, which is just fine by me.

It's all personal preference really... and you can't really complain about what someone else puts on their site. They can do whatever they want, right? ^_^

[Terance Caesar]

Did you read their articles, they are filled with namecalling and such.

[Muzman]

the guy's ranting and raving is a bit over the top (and seems either intentionally misrepresentitive or bizarrely uninformed at times), but there's a lot of good stuff there if you sift it out. Or just look at the pictures.

[Jezebel]

No, I never read the articles... maybe that's why I'm so eager to say how much I love the site. For all I know they are over there saying how much digital artists suck. *grin* But the pictures... weee... love the pictures. =)

[worthless_meat_sack]

That guy is a crank. The ignorance is as astounding as the paranoia.

[Jezebel]

Eeeegads...!

Nothing has been more restricting and debilitating than the theories of modernism, which eliminated these tools, along with the skills to employ them. We are providing a forum for artists, scholars, collectors and the public to appreciate great art, and to recognize that they're not alone in their suspicions about the emptiness of modern and postmodern art. These suspicions are fully justified by the overwhelming body of evidence and historical facts.


I never read that on the site before, that's pretty nutso indeed.

[Steven Stahlberg]

Hm... yeah... he may have a small point though, raving lunatic or not. I don't like him putting down Picasso, he was brave and visionary, and probably better than any of us at straight painting at 15... the toilet seat on the goat was new and revolutionary back in the 20's, but today... all uniqueness and originality is gone. It's 2001, and it's all been done before. Many, many times before.

Still that guy has a funny pre-occupation with a handful of painters. And Bougeurau seems to be his favorite? Sure, he's good, but not that good.

[Ahcri]

They seem to be promiting art education for the children, and yet they are obsessed with 19th century Academy paintings, whose standards are high. So if some kid didn't paint as good as Lord Frederick Leighton, they're probably going to kick him out of school and insult him repeatedly.

How can you advocate Art Academy and regular art education at the same time? These guys don't even know what they're talking about.

[balistic]

The site's a very good resource, one I have bookmarked . . . but yeah, the curator seems to have been born in the wrong century.

To borrow a brilliant little bit of sarcasm posted by Monty Cantsin over at Old Man Murray:

"Egads! I'm so shocked by the dreadful state of contemporary culture that my top hat flew right off my head! Maybe you can fish it out of the punch bowl with your parasol? Oh no! The cellist has caught your skirt on the end of his bow - PETTICOAT ALERT!"

[Returner]

I wonder if the 19th century painters would have felt motivated enough to paint all these extremely detailed masterpieces they did if suddenly a modern computer with a digital camera belongning to it would have appeared out of nowhere in front of them in their atelje when they lived
Wouldn�t they have started to search for more modern ways of expression in the art then?
I know nothing whatsoever about arthistory, but didn�t the modernism spring up when the camera did it�s encroachment in the beginning of the 20ths century, or how is the history?
Anyway I do think artrenewal is a magnificent site, and I think we have to accept their resentment against the modern art...without it artrenewal might not have come into existent at all u know take the good with the bad someone said.
And btw....another great site if you want to look at both 1900th century art and modern fantasy and sience fiction art of today is www.arthistory.cc (its hosted by a swedish guy also ,yeah! )
But you probably knew about that site anyway already. Shit that was hard to write in english, phuu "wipes the sweat out of my forehead"

[ October 28, 2001: Message edited by: Returner ]

[Jason Manley]

here are some examples of how bouguereau is "not that good"
http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/b/Bouguereau_William/large/Evening_Mood.jpg
http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/b/Bouguereau_William/large/Pieta_1876.jpg

http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/b/Bouguereau_William/large/Naissance_de_Venus.jpg
http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/b/Bouguereau_William/large/Alma_Parens.jpg


Bouguereau created over 600 works of art that are very consistent in quality. He was one of the most prolific traditional painter in history. Dont believe me?? take a look and see how many paintings michealangelo or raphael or leonardo or vermeer or....yes..not even close.

His work ethic was beyond huge...Edgar Degas mentioned in his letters that bouguereau would work more than anyone...that even he (degas) could not keep up with him. He worked every day from dawn til dusk...painting and drawing from life to create his images. How many of you work that hard??? how many have made one image that is even on par with him? are there any artists alive that paint traditionally that even come close to him in regards to his ability to paint the figure?

In my mind he is the best traditional painter of the figure and flesh in all of art history.

there hasnt been a person since that could do what he could do with the figure.

jason

[Jezebel]

Bouguereau is one of my biggest inspirations (not that you could tell at all by my work, hehe)... I think his work is absolutely amazing and that's the number one reason I I'm a fan of artrenewal... I go there and browse through the Bouguereau paintings a couple of times a week. Really. I can't imagine somebody saying he's not that good... Have you ever seen the toes he paints?? *faints* Yes. Toes.

[Jezebel]

And until you've seen one of his paintings in person.. you are really missing out. I'd give anything to see a full exhibit.

This image Jason posted:
http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/b/Bouguereau_William/large/Pieta_1876.jpg

is on display at the DMA, it's always one of the first paintings of go to every time I'm there. I just stand there in awe... that picture doesn't even BEGIN to do it justice. Not even close.

[Muzman]

and yet his pictures still read cold and lifeless to me (not all of them, mind. Evening mood is cool, for example). Granted they're on computer screens. But largely they don't impress outside of the technical, if you know what I mean. Therein lies the game (and whatsis name would probably come after me with a bat for saying so).

[Jason Manley]

To understand the mindset at ARC you have to understand what happend to traditional art during the twentieth century. It was ridiculed...stepped on...beaten down...and disrespected. many of the subtle teachings have been lost because it no longer became important to learn from a master...art became something everyone could do. art was released to the people. this is and was a good thing I feel. Unfortunately it meant that 500 years of painting development was nearly forgotten as successive generations neglected to learn it. people who wanted to learn and who longed to learn had to scrape up what was left and endure years of struggle...learning to be a great artist in the traditional field became nearly impossible.

another point to be mentioned is that many of the curators and collectors will benefit financially from a continued resurgance of classical and traditional art...take a look at the cost of a bouguereau or waterhouse in 1975...it was something like 15 grand or less....now those paintings can be had for millions and millions. both the collectors and we as artists stand to benefit from a site like that.

These are the people that have helped to keep these ideas and these techniques around..slanted and fanatical or not. I appreciate that site tremendously. I dont think there is a better painting site on the web? is there??

read that article on bouguereau...where else on the web can you find that?

there are paintings on that site that I have never seen in my whole life. I smiled for weeks when I found it and the images grace my desktop daily.

there is not a single person on these boards who can even come close to the majority of artists on that site in terms of craftsmanship and accuracy. keep that in mind. strive to be the best you can. they did..so can we.

I agree with the statements about living in the wrong century though...hehehe...that little petticoat quote was so true.

had bouguereau had a wacom and a copy of painter on a machine like ours he would do very well...simply because of his education, work ethic and talent.

tis not the medium..tis the artist and soul behind it.


jason

[Jason Manley]

muzman...

bouguereaus dead figures have more life in them than any attempt of ours to make something look alive in that medium. take a closer look


I think bouguereau would like manchess stuff...back in that day manchess stuff would be called a "color study". it is also simply the middle stage of making a fully rendered painting.

that is what upset the impressionists...they made color studies finished pieces of art...they made it possible to not finish a piece of art and have that as a valid image. ...thankfully.

jason

PS jezebel...TOES..yes toes!! you said that perfectly. i see those hands and want to give up doing art entirely. oh man...sob sob sob.

seeing a large bouguereau in person will bring tears to my eyes. I truly know that I will never be able to do that...tis like hearing Beethoven.

[ October 28, 2001: Message edited by: Jason Manley ]

[Jezebel]

Muzman - Seriously, unless you've seen his paintings in person you shouldn't judge the "life" of his painting by a crappy ol' compressed jpeg. I've only seen one piece of his, but it literally glowed... it just seemed to loom off of the wall. When you walk about the corner and see it you can't take your eyes off of it because the colors are so vivid. It's almost like he's painting with brilliant spools of silk thread. Now if you HAVE seen them in person, I retract my statement. *grin*

[ October 28, 2001: Message edited by: Jezebel ]

[c]

yea when it comes to artrenewel a good rule of thumb is: look at the pretty pictures, but skip the text.

whats funny is the fact that the site wouldn't have such a great collection of high quality pictures if its creators weren't the fanatical boobieheads that they are!

[Muzman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Manley:
bouguereaus dead figures have more life in them than any attempt of ours to make something look alive in that medium. take a closer look

---

like I said, they don't impress beyond the technical.
It could be the subject matter. The religious paintings just look like religious paintings only more detailed. Not much room for innovation in that tradition though. And fittingly they bore me beyond belief, no pun intended (on the screen, mind).
But this kind of thing can't be beat.
http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/b/Bouguereau_William/large/Le_gouter.jpg

[Steven Stahlberg]

Oh crap, I've stumbled into a couple people's personal favorite here... Sorry I mentioned it. To clarify - I forgot to insert "IMHO" in my previous statement. (Although it seems you guys did the same in your replies... )
I agree mr B is very good at flesh and anatomy and people etc. I haven't seen his paintings in real life, I'll take your word that he's even better than I suspect. That the painting glows and commands my attention, and so on. And that many of his works are very very great. And that he was the most prolific artist of all time.

Still, I can't help that I find some of his compositions boring and too balanced, too stiffly centered. I find some of his subject matter bland and a bit vapid. (Note SOME) I doubt if these particular aspects of these particular paintings will appeal to me more in real life. But these are just my personal feelings, and what do I know anyway.
I just wanted to clarify.

[Jezebel]

What were you thinking Steven? You're not allowed to have a personal opinion here!

*grin*

[worthless_meat_sack]

I would much rather have a Sargent or maybe a Diebenkorn or maybe even a Rothko on my wall. As a contemporary, I like Waterhouse much better.

I have seen many Bougeraus in the flesh. The Vermeers I have seen knock me on my ass every time. But, he only did about 40 known works. Seeing a Bougerau is like, forgive me, eating a stick of butter dipped in syrup and rolled in powdered sugar.

Sometimes I think the weakness in his work is also my own, but I would love to have his strengths. If only I could be as cloying as that!

Jason, I honestly believe that you could do as well as B, given the focus and motivation that you have. The caveat is that through your whole life, you cannot be distracted by anything else. Bougerau LOVED doing what he did and it shows.

There is nothing like contemplating a Bougerau to really beat home the fact that technical skill is not the only dimension of art. This is why I am sorta afraid of mechanical analysis, Steven. I really think that it has to spring from a part of the mind that does not use words.

Art renewal is engaging in the same stupidity as the effete snobs of modernism. It is political and cultural, in that in art, you are defined by that which you hate. Paranoia of the opposite wing defines your every waking moment.

[Jason Manley]

some of this...yes some of this is simply IMHO as steven says...just because I say that though doesnt mean that I am right or that I am not free to take criticism for my remarks...feel free.

muzman...that painting is far superior to many figure works in terms of craftsmanship. Find me some contemporary paintings of a similar vein and show me any that are even close to as competent as that.

IMHO the only reason that a person wouldnt see the greatness in works like that is that they do not pursue that kind of craftsmanship in their own work yet..or that they do not do figure work. Try drawing from life...sit your little sister (if you have one) down for some drawing and painting sessions. Bouguereau could do a painting like that in less than a week. give yourself one week to do it. see what you can do? I want to see the "full color" results of what your attempt is. I really genuinely do. I have seen what many of the contemporary figure artists attempts at that have been and not one can match him.

if you dont want to do that then simply do an exact master copy from one of his paintings. just once....try it. I dare you.

I tried for six years to paint like that with traditional medias. I painted and drew from life and from the model every single day. Not once did I even come close to him. I know where he stands in terms of his drawing and painting ability on a technical level because I tried to do it and failed in comparison. I see his works and feel nothing but awe and respect. Not a single artist I know can do what he did...not a single artist I ever met could either. His paintings have soul. It may be sweet at times..but it is there. there are people behind those eyes of oil.

the comments about his compositions are valid. I agree with them somewhat. But they are part of a particular school of art...a school of thought in regards to craftsmanship, composition and design that was the peak of that periods understanding. There have been many advancements in these things since he lived and many new areas explored in my eyes. that does not change or lower the greatness of thos works to me. it would be a bit like ripping on a 1963 corvette for not having a dvd player inside. that car is amazing! hehe

Do not forget that his paintings are also commercial art. Like Sargents portraits, Bouguereau did paintings for the rich. He did A LOT of them. At the time of his death he was the richest and most successful artist to have ever lived. I think his estate at the time of his death around 1905 was worth 10 million or more. I wonder how much that is in todays money?

the subject matter is appropriate to the time. his sentimental (some say too much) pieces and his religious pieces are no different in attempt than those of raphael or leonardo...his attempt at his art was simply a furthering of that same school of thought. I cannot rip him for that. He believed art should be about simple and spiritual things. Simple beauty was and is a worthy pursuit. (IMHO hehe)

I remember when I didnt understand how good Mozart was...I remember thinking as a little heavy metal kid that classical music was all the same...that it was for old people or that it was boring. A few attempts at playing an instrument and some quiet time listening changed those feelings entirely.

great discussion everyone....you all get me thinking about art and I appreciate that.

jason

[ October 29, 2001: Message edited by: Jason Manley ]

[pierre]

"I lose 10 franc everytime I pee" (William Adolphe Bouguereau)

Well, he almost did, that is how hard he worked. I saw the works of Bouguereau first time as a small kid, my mom broght me some reproduction posters of his paintings, I have had the utmost respect for him ever since as I do with many other great artists.

At my delight there has been a renewal of the recognition of his mastership and his paintings are once again boosting prices upp high in the auction houses.

We all have our preferences, not least in art, and I guess we most often view paintings too subjectively. We can love or dislike Bouguereau but trying to look objectively on a painting of this artist and deny him is undisputable mastership of his medium and motif, would be very wrong.

Sure, there is a tendency to view his work as a mechanical process, draw a woman, define the lighting, make an underpainting, , and go render. Sure, it can be a quick process after a while or so, but a quick mechanical process don't necessarily produce good art, something which Bouguereau did indeed.

Bouguereau was a product of his time, which held certain schools and teachers and not least, a market of that time. Just the way an abstract artist is a product of all the factors that surrounds hi's/her's perpective.

To be unable to sometimes step out of your own perspective when viewing art can be very fatal, since it requires many viewing aspects.

For me, there are other artists that stand higher than Bouguereau, but nevertheless, he stands high and always will.

Pierre

[ October 29, 2001: Message edited by: pierre ]

[MythandLore]

Hmm...
I rather like artrenewal.org it's got a great bunch of images in the museum section, I have yet to read what anyone their has written though so I don't know about that stuff.
I like Sargent, Waterhouse, Bougeraus, and Vermeer, I like them all the same, their great, but there are lots of great artists like Klimt, Holbien, Rockwell, Alma-Tadema, Mucha, Rembrandt, Reynolds, Bev Doolittle, Winslow Homer and many many others.
They are all giants of art, and all are equal in my mind.

Look at these paintings by Joshua Reynolds. http://www.artrenewal.org/museum/r/Reynolds_Joshua/page1.html
This first one is on artrenewal.org and a bad photo or bad scan of a photo. http://www.huntington.org/ArtDiv/SiddonsPict.html
The second is from the huntington museum by my house, and is from a good photo.
I've seen his original and it's truely amazing.
People may make false asumptions about how "good" someone is because they see a bad picture.
Not becuase the original is bad, but the printed copy of it is bad.
If you only go by what you see on a website or in books you'll miss alot.

Alphonse Maria Mucha is one of my most favorite artists,
Here is single painting from the slav epic. http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/m/Mucha_Alphonse/large/The_Apotheosis_of_the_Slavs_1926.jpg
You may go, "ok, that's okay, but not great" but not only is it a bad scan but you will never get the impact of the orginal painting on a computer screen.
This one will give you an idea of it's origanal size. http://www.primenet.com/~byoder/amepic.jpg
Very amazing indeed when you consider it's just egg tempra.
I think the Slav Epic is equal to the Sistine Chapel Ceiling or any other major group of paintings that has ever been done.
If you ever get a chance to to see Mucha's original work it's awesome.

It's not a good idea to judge all of an artists work by a few pictures on the internet or in a book.
Besides, if you become too closed minded about what is "good" and "bad", your the one that suffers.
Keeping an open mind to new things will let your ideas stay fresh and your understanding increase.
Next time someone tells you something is good, keep an open mind if you look at the picture and think it's not, ask them "what makes this good to you?"
It will help you improve as an artist and grow as a person.

quote

Quote:

I tried for six years to paint like that with traditional medias. I painted and drew from life and from the model every single day. Not once did I even come close to him.

It'll take alot longer then six years to paint like any trully great artist.

quote

Quote:

To be unable to sometimes step out of your own perspective when viewing art can be very fatal, since it requires many viewing aspects.

You are very insightful.

[Frosted Flame]

Wow.. among other things, I really admire your passion, Jason.

I find it quite inspiring. Great discussion. I'd throw in my own opinion, but I'm afraid for my life...

[Frosted Flame]

Hmm.. I must say something though.

I've read alot about Bouguereau over the past few years and studied a fair number of his works, and something that always amazes me (along with his treatment of the human figure) is his treatment of CLOTH. I've never seen anything like it, really.

I'll shut up now.

[Muzman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Manley:

muzman...that painting is far superior to many figure works in terms of craftsmanship. Find me some contemporary paintings of a similar vein and show me any that are even close to as competent as that.

IMHO the only reason that a person wouldnt see the greatness in works like that is that they do not pursue that kind of craftsmanship in their own work yet..or that they do not do figure work. Try drawing from life...sit your little sister (if you have one) down for some drawing and painting sessions. Bouguereau could do a painting like that in less than a week. give yourself one week to do it. see what you can do? I want to see the "full color" results of what your attempt is. I really genuinely do. I have seen what many of the contemporary figure artists attempts at that have been and not one can match him.

if you dont want to do that then simply do an exact master copy from one of his paintings. just once....try it. I dare you.

---

I tried to come up with some sensible, educated sounding commentary. But I think this is better:
Dude, relax, seriously. And seperate a few concepts while you're at it.
I said I liked that one, remember? And whether or not I suck or can't do it or you can't do it or no one else can do it has remarkably little bearing on whether or not I like his pictures (the majority on display at artrenewal anyway).
Seeing (and hearing) efforts and achievements, by people long dead as well as very much alive, that I have neither the time nor the inclination to match myself is far from the exception in day to day living. It's pretty much constant as a matter of fact, and should be for anyone who is wide awake on a regular basis. I can cross the bridge near my house and ponder the structural engineering we have refined since the stone age, the physical science as well as design art that's nearly as old, all of which found itself in the bloke who designed after many many years of general study as well as the specifics of the area; the alluvial sands, the tides, the chemistry, the weather, drainage, the thousands of hours and people it took to realise it as well as build it etc.
Bloody ugly bridge though. And I don't need to rebuild it to appreciate what went into it, or to know what I think of its aesthetic appeal.
I anticipate your rejoinder and respond thus:
Do I want to do what Bouguereau has done (or at least some hack computer version of which)? Yup. Can I learn anything from him? Ooh yeah.