/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.1467058]

What is 4chan's fascination with Bouguereau?

Again and again I see his images used as examples of "really skillful" work. Particularly paired with comments about how shit art today is.

Firstly, he was working from life. He's not amazing at pulling images out of his arse. He was just painting what he saw. He pimped the pretty daughters of peasants out as sex objects to rich bastards who wanted porn they could hang in their room without their wife getting mad.
You can see throughout his paintings how he has a couple of models he paints a lot and then discards when they get too old.
And then dancing naked ladies. Sure I get how that's appealing, but it's lame formulaic shit.

Why not idolize someone who was actually good? Like Velazquez? His portraits showed empathy and kindness as well as being fucking amazing technically. Look up his portraits of court dwarfs - they are stunning. But is that part of the problem? Do people not want to realize that when they paint a human image that could be a person who had a life and experience of their own? Looking at a lot of digital paintings it does seem to be the case.

How do you deal with that ic? And why the fuck is Bouguereau so great?

[Anonymous No.1467065]

boogeroo is /ic/ 101 trolling material

Gerome did better shit

[Anonymous No.1467077]

I like him so much because his pictures feel more real than life itself to me.

Who cares if it's models. Of course it is models. Back in the day there weren't infinite photos to learn from.

[Anonymous No.1467099]

He's been politicized by the ARC, a conservative art organization owned/run by a New Jersey businessman. He was the main cause of a resurgence in interest in Bouguereau, and Bouguereau has thus become an idol of those who favor traditional academic art.

Bouguereau had a great amount of skill, and there's little argument about that. It's the sentimentalism, triviality, safeness, or lasciviousness of his art that is generally criticized by detractors.

[Anonymous No.1467120]

>>1467058
This might be one of the most retarded posts I've ever read, congrats. Even if you are trolling, you must still be a very stupid person.

[Anonymous No.1467139]

I saw this painting irl at the legion of honor in san francisco.. one of my fav paintings there

[Anonymous No.1467178]

Because he is a good example of a 'type', like Pollock or Kinkade. Pollock is the from-the-soul abstract guy who is idolized by the academic crowd, Kinkade is the kitsch guy that plebs like, Bouguereau is the guy with tons of technical skill but very little heartfelt expression.

/ic/'s attitude tends to be that representational art rendered realistically is the cat's meow, with a high emphasis on technical skill and a low emphasis on conceptual and expressionistic elements. So Bouguereau represents the type of art that /ic/ users tend to prefer.

I don't like all the preteen-girls-picking-flowers paintings, but Bouguereau occasionally painted something with a little edge to it. Pic related.

[Anonymous No.1467188]

His paintings remind me of my animu waifu.

Tru story, you mad?

[Anonymous No.1467190]

>>1467178
Never understood why he made Mary a man when he usually made females idealized cheesecake. Must be a reference to Michelangelo's masculine women.

Here's one of his darker paintings.

[Anonymous No.1467189]

>>1467178

Wow, that black hood effect is very startling,

[Anonymous No.1467191]

>>1467188
Pity isn't anger.

[Anonymous No.1467216]

>>1467190
That's probably my favorite image by him. This from the guy that paints children lounging in meadows!

[Anonymous No.1467228]

>>1467077
It's the fact that models are people and he's ignoring that they are people and treating them like cattle. People in photographs are people too, I know, but it's a completely different experience working from life as opposed to photography.

>>1467120
Oh I'm being sincere.

>>1467099

Well that's exactly my point. He has skill. But having skill does not mean his works should be divorced from their subject matter. There are many other artists with skill who were far better in every aspect. People don't seem to grasp how formulaic these images are.

>>467190
I'll admit that is a fantastic painting.

[Anonymous No.1467231]

>>1467065
I think Bouguereau had a lot of technical skill and knew how to draw a viewer's eye as well as create an easily identifiable (and marketable) tone for his paintings.

That said, I personally find, for most of his work, both his tonal arrangement and subject matter ungodly boring.

However, this actually doesn't mean I think his art is bad, simply that I'm not one to appreciate it, like I don't really appreciate crochet or metal music, both of which are on equal footing with painting as valid forms of creativity. Someday I hope that all of you realize that simply because you don't like something (can't or will not appreciate its qualities) doesn't actually mean it's bad.

[Anonymous No.1467269]

>He pimped the pretty daughters of peasants out as sex objects to rich bastards who wanted porn they could hang in their room without their wife getting mad.

>It's the fact that models are people and he's ignoring that they are people and treating them like cattle.

Do you have any hardcore evidence (academic research, biographical information, etc.) to back up these claims or are you talking out of your ass?

I've also read about Modernists in particular reading a lot of overt sexuality into his work. Keep in mind, just as the ARC has politicized him as the champion of Academic/Classicist art, so did Modernists politicize him as their scapegoat/cultural shorthand for their disapproval of so-called "soulless Academic art."

From what I've seen of his art, the so-called sexuality in his works is either the sad product of the typically oversexed modern mind, or bullshit Modernist anti-Classicist propaganda.

[Anonymous No.1467273]

a majority of his work is just really pretty, especially the facial expressions for me

[Anonymous No.1467309]

honestly if you can't appreciate the beauty of his work I just feel sorry for you

[Anonymous No.1467336]

>>1467269
The image I attached in the original post is called "The Broken Pitcher". Here's a quote (which is slightly less angry than I am) about it from an exhibition catalog for a 1992 exhibition "Rembrandt to Renoir: European masterpieces from the fine arts museum of San Francisco" by the National Gallery of Australia.
>In place of the earthier, more honest essays on harsh peasant life by Courbet and Millet emerged an idealized vision of rural tranquility and beauty. In the case of The Broken Pitcher, however, the sexual innuendos are particularly blantant. Bougeureau followed a well-established tradition... ... in the use of the cracked vessel as a symbol for a loss of virginity. None too subtly, the spout of the well at the upper left provides a counterbalancing male symbol. The girl's plaintive expression leaves little doubt about the true meaning, calculated to appeal to the prurient interests of a male-dominated upper-middle-class French art market.
So it's not just me. And the modernists were a whole other kettle of fish - many (for example Gauguin whose work is really great to look at) were doing the same thing. But I'm not talking about them. Picasso was possibly the worst and is probably equal to Bougereau in terms of how awkwardly he sits with me.
Our society is not more sexual - it is simply less repressed.

>>1467309
It's not that I don't see or 'get' the beauty. It just doesn't sit right how exploitative it is. There is a power imbalance between the sitter, the painter and the viewer and it's dangerous to say it's good just because it's nice.

[Anonymous No.1467349]

>>1467336
>There is a power imbalance between the sitter, the painter and the viewer and it's dangerous to say it's good just because it's nice.
you just gave me cancer

[Anonymous No.1467354]

I don't know how I feel about him. He was extremely skilled at rendering textures, particularly the translucency of skin, and in my opinion that was his greatest strength. However his drawing and composition was generally only passable, and was much surpassed by his contemporaries such as Cabanel and Gerome. On the other hand he did a lot to further art education and academic study.

OP sounds like an SRS cast-off though. His paintings were vapid but they weren't malicious. His paintings were genre pictures, not portraits, and they were not intended to portray people's life and experiences. His work derived more from Boucher and Fragonard than Rembrandt and Velazquez. It was never intended to do the same thing and a basic knowledge of art history would make it clear that art has had many different functions throughout different time periods. It cannot always be summarized as "painting humans as humans".

Also, >>1467336 is not a "factual" analysis, its highly theoretical and psychoanalytic, and subtly casts its argument in a condescending tone which suggests that representations of sexuality are necessarily exploitative or oppressive.

[Anonymous No.1467357]

>>1467354

Keep on telling me shit I already know. Exploiting people is malicious - regardless of whether it's a genre painting or piss in a jar. It's because it's an institution that it's accepted.
Those symbols are well documented and often repeated by many artists. Representations of sexuality are not inherently exploitative or oppressive, but this one is. The whole peasant genre is exploiting the poor to fulfill the sexually repressed upper middle class who couldn't use girls of their own class because they were meant to be virginal and shit.

So what would count as a factual analysis to you? The text I referred to discussed well known symbols in academic art, was from a reputable institution and was fairly neutral in tone. What kind of biography is going to tell you that these images were sexualized? Evidence is largely anecdotal but that doesn't mean that it's not evidence.

[Anonymous No.1467363]

>>1467357
Different poster here. Stop frothing. It's like next you're going to tell us that Sargent's The Daughters of Darley Boit is depicting a harem for the patriarchy.

Bouguereau's paintings sometimes showed a mild aspect of sexuality in farm girls (not real peasants, mind you, as the sitters were almost exclusively his daughters). Guess what - sexuality is an inherent attribute in humans. His real failings are his banality, sentimentality, and stiflingly perfume-y imagery.

[Anonymous No.1467362]

>>1467336
>There is a power imbalance between the sitter, the painter and the viewer

So pretentious, I feel like I'm back in art school.

Even if that was a thing outside your mind, what does it matter? Power imbalances can be very pleasing.
What's your problem with sex anyway? You some sort of Christian/Muslim?

[Anonymous No.1467364]

shit compared to rembrandt. rembrandt had actual depth and not just shitty masturbation for the pedophiliac eurolander bourgeoisie and the uncle toms of the working class. his only good ones are his religious works because they have at least some degree of message and feeling.

pic related: blows this out of the water and into deep space

[Anonymous No.1467366]

>>1467364
Yet I don't really like that painting. Where the hell are most of them looking at? What's with the pathetic monochromatic palette.
Seriously what's so great about it? Cloth, skin texture? Meh. Some deep message on there because I don't see any.

[Anonymous No.1467370]

>>1467366

fucking lol. get out kid. you aren't worthy of even discussing godking rembrandts work.

>pic related

did a presentation of this piece, infront of the original in art school. unbelievable piece.

[Anonymous No.1467374]

>>1467370
>you don't get it

I don't give a shit dude. You can write a fucking book on how good it is. If I don't like it I don't like it. I'm not some pretentious artsy teenager that get influenced by words and peer pressure.

If the painting itself doesn't speak to me there is no amount of words or some big name that will change that.

[Anonymous No.1467376]

>>1467370
>offers no rebuttal
>kid
baa baa

[Anonymous No.1467380]

>>1467366
Different person here, but it's a fascinating, unique image, it's not a banal, sentimental depiction, but one with more complexity - more tannins. It's not an obvious sort of composition.

Who are they looking at? They're looking at each other. As the viewer, you are one of the medical students. They are in a circle. Look to the lower right and you will see the shoulder and collar of a fellow student standing next to you and looking in the same direction.

As for it being monochromatic, I don't think that word means what you think it means. Regardless, the palette is a dark one, and the type of light (non-electric) and the garb and surroundings of the room would not produce a high amount of color saturation and difference. Further, oil paint yellows with age, as does the varnish, making oil paintings appear more brownish as they age, especially those that haven't recently undergone an expensive and time-consuming cleansing which involves removal of the varnish.

Have a great day.

[Anonymous No.1467381]

>>1467065
Gerome and Barque destroyed the academic method turning it into the crap we have now

[Anonymous No.1467382]

>>1467381
The academy were the architects of their own destruction by nature of their extreme dogmatic rigidity. Good fucking riddance.

[Anonymous No.1467383]

>>1467190
That flying demon guy always cracks me up

[Anonymous No.1467388]

>>1467383
Yeah, he's funny. He used to get used as a reaction image a lot around here. What's weird is he looks like he's just hanging from a hook. In fact, despite the drama of the two principal figures, the entire thing feels completely static, which is an unfortunate thing (imo) that happens in a lot of Bouguereau paintings, and a lot of academic work. It's especially highlighted when you look at the contrast between rivals Ingres and Delacroix.

[Anonymous No.1467390]

>>1467366
>pathetic monochromatic palette.

You do realize pigments fade pretty dramatically after a few centuries, right?

[Anonymous No.1467402]

So what have we learnt from this thread so far?

#1: OP is a woman, that's most definitely a fact, only women can be this irrational and stupid
#2: OP is most likely attending a shitty 3rd rate art school
#3: OP is a loud and obnoxious feminist
#4: OP sucks at art and feels annoyed / threatened by technical skill, especially when displayed by male artists
#5: OP is most likely ugly and fat because she hates the notion of portraying the beautiful, young and innocent

[Anonymous No.1467403]

>>1467390
So, right to left I suppose it's:

•Pre-cleaning Prado
•Post-cleaning Prado
•Main Mona Lisa at Louvre

[Anonymous No.1467405]

So, left to right I suppose it's:

• Pre-cleaning Prado
• Post-cleaning Prado
• Main Mona Lisa at Louvre

[Anonymous No.1467414]

>>1467390
Ok but I'm judging only what I'm seeing. Not what the image could have been ages ago because I don't know how it used to be.

[Anonymous No.1467417]

>>1467402
I didn't realize fedoras infected this board too.

[Anonymous No.1467421]

>>1467417
No, but janitors who delete perfectly fine posts because they happen to not like them do infect this board.

[Anonymous No.1467423]

>>1467414
>Ok but I'm judging only what I'm seeing

But that's stupid to not take into account the history of a painting thats like 500 years old

PS: monochrome works can be sick

[Anonymous No.1467425]

>>1467423
>But that's stupid to not take into account the history of a painting thats like 500 years old

That's not the point. The point was that I saw a monochromatic painting and others said is because of age. It might have been more vibrant but for all we know it might have had shitty colors even back then. I cannot judge something I haven't seen.

[Anonymous No.1467426]

>>1467414
Regardless of darkening and yellowing, it's remains brilliant, while you remain dull.

Someday the painting may be restored. You, on the other hand...

[Anonymous No.1467427]

>>1467425
Even with the faded pigments it's still a masterful work of art on many levels. Also, it's not really fair to judge physical paintings on the internet. You sound like a frustrated digital painter who wants to be edgy by hating on da Vinci

[Anonymous No.1467428]

>>1467425
>The point was that I saw a monochromatic painting

No, you're just a fucking retard because you think that's what you saw. You've got no visual intelligence. You've got no observational abilities. Just get the fuck into quarantine before your brain worms get loose and infect somebody else.

[Anonymous No.1467431]

>>1467427
>Even with the faded pigments it's still a masterful work of art on many levels
opinions. I personally am not awed by it.

>>1467428
>visual intelligence
>observational abilities

So do I have to train myself at some school in order for me to appreciate it? I can easily find other paintings that impress me.

[Anonymous No.1467436]

>>1467435
>no

know*

[Anonymous No.1467435]

>>1467431
>opinions. I personally am not awed by it.

Not surprised, you seem to no very little about painting. Be careful you don't slip and cut yourself on that edge, sir.

[Anonymous No.1467440]

>>1467435
So tell me, if I don't share your taste in art does that mean I am incapable of enjoying art? Is your opinion some sacred fact?

Plus why should I have to know a lot about painting in order for me to appreciate it? I do know a lot but an anonymous post cannot convince you so lets forget about it.
Even so why can't a painting speak for itself, why should it need protecting or some whatever knowledge?

[Anonymous No.1467438]

>>1467431
>So do I have to train myself at some school in order for me to appreciate it? I can easily find other paintings that impress me.

Apparently you do, retard. Apparently you do.

>Unable to recognize colors
>Durrrrr, it's monochromatic
>No knowledge of painting history or physics
>Unable to analyze the most basic aspects of the visual information provided by the painter, including things pointed out to your retarded ass, such as:

>Who are they looking at? They're looking at each other. As the viewer, you are one of the medical students. They are in a circle. Look to the lower right and you will see the shoulder and collar of a fellow student standing next to you and looking in the same direction.

You're a clown.

[Anonymous No.1467442]

>>1467435
I've been speaking to you in the context of your comments on the Mona Lisa. This painting is an exception, it stands out, it's not just any old painting. If you truly appreciated painting and understood what it takes to make a work of that caliber, you would at least appreciate it for the skill it took to make it, even if you don't find it aesthetically pleasing.

[Anonymous No.1467443]

>>1467442
is meant to reply to >>1467440

[Anonymous No.1467448]

>>1467442
I'm not saying is utter crap. Of course there is skill involved in its making. All I'm saying is that I'm not amazed by it but apparently to you that isn't ok, I should be amazed and if I'm not I'm a fool.

I hate this concept that you should have this supposed knowledge to appreciate art.

You need to have knowledge in painting to make good art. You don't necessarily need knowledge in painting to appreciate good art.

An average person will appreciate a good mix of colors, a beautiful harmony even though he doesn't know why it is like it is in the same way an average person can appreciate good music even though he can't tell you even the notes of pentagram.

[Anonymous No.1467452]

>>1467440
Not the same anon, but it looks like you have Dunning-Kruger's lol. You're vomiting semantics which were irrelevant to the point he was making.

>>1467448
I can like a shitty car because it's painted blue and looks shiny, it's still a shitty car and I'd still have a poor understanding of what I'm looking at. Fucking pleb.

[Anonymous No.1467451]

>>1467431
You're strangely dismissive. You seem to think that a painting should spoon feed you everything instantly, and not offer any challenges or additional levels beyond the immediate surface. You must think all art should be passive popcorn for you to mindlessly shovel into your mouth.

You also seem dismissive of learning. Do you not understand that learning can help you to hear things in music that you didn't know were there? Have you never gained a deeper understanding of something, and thus a vastly expanded appreciation? Do you think that kids should just eat mac 'n' cheese and chicken nuggets their entire lives because steak or shrimp or vegetables don't immediately appeal to them?

[Anonymous No.1467454]

>>1467448
God forbid anyone actually understanding the art theyre looking at. I'm sure Leonardo was hoping people would think "Oh sweet, pretty colors!" when he made it. I'm sure he's looking down for heaven, utterly devastated that some plebe on 4chan couldn't get over the fact that pigments fade over time.

[Anonymous No.1467455]

>>1467451
>You seem to think that a painting should spoon feed you everything instantly
What I'm saying is that a painting should speak by itself. When I listen to music I don't have someone near me telling me why this is a good music and why I should appreciate it. Is the music alone that I will judge and depending on taste I may end up not liking what the majority things is good.

>>1467452
>I can like a shitty car
Are you kidding me with that analogy? A person doesn't need to know how to compose music to appreciate music. Simple as that.

[Anonymous No.1467457]

>>1467448
>An average person will appreciate a good mix of colors, a beautiful harmony even though he doesn't know why it is like it is

Not that I've seen. You have rare people who have some intuitive appreciation, some who gain an interest through exposure and education, then the vast majority who either don't care at all, think art is "gay", or embrace the most lowbrow trash which is worse than the equivalent of baby food. It's absolutely the same situation with music, although more people like music, as it requires even less effort, but one look at what's popular vs. what's good gives away the lie in your statement. In fact, become enthusiastic for any good art or music and you may spend time hiding your enjoyment from many people, lest they think it's strange that you like weird arty shit or music that's far removed from contemporary top 40 pop.

[Anonymous No.1467459]

>>1467448
The average person doesn't give a fuck about fine art, your comparisons are laughable at best

[Anonymous No.1467458]

>>1467457
>Not that I've seen
An average person can tell when anatomy is wrong even though he has 0 understanding of anatomy himself.

[Anonymous No.1467460]

>>1467459
>The average person doesn't give a fuck about fine art
Why is that?

[Anonymous No.1467464]

>>1467455
>What I'm saying is that a painting should speak by itself.

What everyone else is saying is that there's a user-end problem, and you're not able to comprehend what you're looking at. Worse, you're making excuse for your laziness, and actually going so far as to blame artwork for your failings.

If you are passive about art, then why are you hear? Stop trying to rationalize your fear of active looking.

[Anonymous No.1467463]

>>1467460
because like you, they don't understand it, and judge it at face value

Why would you want to look at some boring old painting of a woman from 1500 when you can listen to Lady Gaga and surf Facebook all day

[Anonymous No.1467466]

>>1467458
>An average person can tell when anatomy is wrong even though he has 0 understanding of anatomy himself.

No, they can't. One of the points of artists critiquing realist work is to help each other see anatomical errors.

[Anonymous No.1467467]

>>1467464
>hear

I mean "here".

[Anonymous No.1467468]

>>1467464
>If you are passive about art, then why are you hear?
But I'm not passive about art. I very much enjoy it. It just so happens to be slightly different from what you call great art.

>>1467466
Don't be ridiculous, of course they can. Show this pic to everyone and they will always say there is something wrong with it even though they can't fix it if you give them the pencil.

[Anonymous No.1467470]

>>1467464
>why are you hear
because he enjoys and appreciates art? god forbid it's in a way different than your own.

please spare /ic/ the sophistry

[Anonymous No.1467472]

>>1467470
>because he enjoys and appreciates art? god forbid it's in a way different than your own.

I didn't ask you, did I? It's a sincere question. I'm wondering, truly, why this individual is here. What are this person's interests as they relate to art? What does the person hope to gain here?

[Anonymous No.1467474]

>>1467472
no, it was obviously a rhetorical question you posed. it was not sincere in the least. just stop please, you're impressing no one. you're a low tier troll.

[Anonymous No.1467477]

>>1467474
>no, it was obviously a rhetorical question you posed. it was not sincere in the least.

No, it wasn't, you mad cunt. I want to know.

[Anonymous No.1467487]

>>1467362
No problem with sex actually. Sex is amazing. Francis Bacon is one of my favorite artists of all time - lots of sex there. I just don't like exploitation - no matter how pretentious that may seem to you.
And I have no religion either. Not that it really matters.

>>1467363
If you think that painting by Sargent is even remotely comparable you've missed the fucking point.
Also if you'd give some evidence that these girls were his daughter's I'd be really grateful. It would definitely change my views on him considerably. I've found one image which wikipedia says was his daughter and it's interesting because it's far, far less sexual than the broken pitcher (appearing more like madonna and child). So I'm genuinely interested.

[Anonymous No.1467492]

>>1467487
i'll be honest. you come off as a feminist tabloid reading dilettante, not someone interested in art or aesthetics.

[Anonymous No.1467503]

>>1467487
>broken pitcher
>sexual

Wait, what? It's a thickly clothed girl sitting in a completely non-sexual pose. Either you are some sort of hardcore femnazi or it is you who has the pedophile thoughts, because normal people wouldn't ever see anything sexual in there.

[Anonymous No.1467508]

>>1467503
Read the thread. Also, the painting wasn't made for "normal people", but commissioned for a specific buyer.

[Anonymous No.1467519]

>>1467487
>I just don't like exploitation - no matter how pretentious that may seem to you.

Answer me this: Do you think the peasant girls themselves felt exploited doing effortless posing for a few days or weeks instead of working on the field all day? Do you really think standing next to a cracked pot and showing a bare foot was bothering them?

Feminists see something that bothers THEM, and they instantly victimize people without even questioning if those people actually were victims in the first place.

[Anonymous No.1467521]

Yes and now we realize what kind of person OP is to make such an asinine thread. It all makes sense now.

[Anonymous No.1467523]

>>1467058
i find it supremely funny that you mention Velazquez while lamenting about exploitation. One of his most famous paintings is that of one of his SLAVES. Talk about clueless.

[Anonymous No.1467525]

>>1467058
One of Velazquez's most famous paintings is that of his slave. What was that you said about exploitation? Do you know what irony is?
God, only on /ic/, I can't make this shit up.

[Anonymous No.1467526]

>>1467487
>If you think that painting by Sargent is even remotely comparable you've missed the fucking point.

You must not have gotten to that chapter in yet in your radical feminist art-hating manual, because it's part and parcel of the generic textbook attacks you're making on old Bill. Don't worry, you'll get there.

[Anonymous No.1467529]

>>1467178
This.

Although it's a generalisation, /ic/ as a general whole has an aesthetic agenda: It champions technical skill above personal expression, and it believes in academic learning and hard work over talent and artistic inspiration. In my opinion this is because the majority of d/ic/ks have little natural artistic talent and are too isolated and introverted in their real lives to have much to put into their art in the way of feeling and insight, but they nevertheless want to believe that they can be successful artists, so they downplay the importance of talent and expression and play up the importance of academic principles and techniques. Put in this context, /ic/'s championing of Bouguereau as the quintessentially great artist over such self-evidently better artists as Raphael, Velazquez, Caravaggio, Courbet, Degas, Poussin, Delacroix, Ingres, etc etc, becomes instantly understandable, for in his art you see a maximum of academically systematised technique and a minimum of raw painterly talent and expression.

[Anonymous No.1467530]

LOOK! It's the evil exploitation actually taking place! The horror. THE HORROR!

>He used his influence to open many French art institutions to women students for the first time.

The monster! How could he?!

[Anonymous No.1467532]

Guys seriously stop, she'll report us all for rape at this rate.

[Anonymous No.1467553]

Oh Jesus, an actual analysis of a painting/artist? Fuck that, lets all just get buttrage and whine whenever someone tries to deconstruct a work of art. Shove your words i dont know and your educated opinion up your ass. Fuck dumb feminism stupid ur wrong and stuff.

[Anonymous No.1467557]

Well, you can't say his technical skill wasn't good. It definitely was or still is. What bothers me is the extreme academism, which is what apparently attracts /ic/ so much. People here care about nothing but anatomy, perspective, the mathematics of art, when really should not be what is important. Yes, those things might me important, but such knowledge comes with practice, it's not like those artists studied art theory their whole lives and then started painting. As you said, he was also just copying, he wasn't creative at all, like most realistic artists. But if I do that, I am unimaginative, useless crap that doesn't even deserve to live.
Also, everyone here loves van Gogh for some reason, even though he didn't paint angels and idealized naked women, he was a true genius, but if anyone else that doesn't have such a famous name uses their style, wrong perspective etc., they're absolutely retarded. >Lulz muh style. Masturbate over Loomis and Vilppu! LOOMIS!
And I'm not talking about animu. It's the least creative thing you can draw.
Besides being addicted to hyperrealism, /ic/ also consists of a lot of sheep, like in real life. Someones decides artist 1 was the best artist that ever lived and states reasons, such as good anatomy, magnificent copying of real life and boom he's the best artists for everyone who read that.

[Anonymous No.1467559]

>>1467374
I agree, Rembrandt was skillful and important for art, but to me personally he doesn't "speak" either. Like most pre modernist artists.

[Anonymous No.1467564]

>>1467448
I'm sorry for these idiots to behave like this. I actually do "know" quite a bit about art, yet that doesn't mean I have to like Mona lisa.

[Anonymous No.1467569]

I wish this board would be changed to Illustration/Critique.

[Anonymous No.1467587]

>>1467557
>Besides being addicted to hyperrealism

Is this like your first day on /ic/ or something? Whenever someone makes a thread posting hyperrealism work, 99% of posts are going to be "it's boring", "human xerox machine", "why not just take a photo?" etc.

[Anonymous No.1467626]

>>1467557
>considers loomis and vilppu hyper-realism
lel

[Anonymous No.1467632]

>>1467626
Anything that shows even a hint of form is probably hyper-realistic to him.

[Anonymous No.1467636]

>>1467336
Anon give me some books. Where do I read about that symbolism?

[Anonymous No.1467679]

I think his paintings are beautiful, and i also don't think they're emotionless or bland. I also like Rembrant's work, because it's interesting, and there's a lot going on in his paintings that you may not notice the first time you see them.
Can we like both? Can we like a variety of artists for different reasons? Is that okay? I like Van Gogh's life story and his art, because they're interesting, and I like talking with people about them. His paintings are eye-catching and pretty. And it's okay to like pretty things.
But you should at least appreciate or respect things that are historical and meaningful, even if you don't like them. It's okay to like pretty things, just have some respect for the things that may not be so pretty.
Like that one guy with the rainbow-vomit-knife-paintings that everybody here seems to hate? I like his flower arrangement paintings. They are so lovely. I know there's not a whole lot of skill involved, but gosh, i like the way they look. I guess I also like Picasso, and his pre-cubism work. Because wow, that takes some skill. And i like how Rembrandt sneaks his own face into his paintings.
Art is a varied and wonderful thing, guys. I kind of forget where I was going with this originally, but everyone just sounds so buttpained trying to defend some artist or another, and shoving accusations around. Take a moment, reach behind you, grab those knickers, and just kind of smooth them out, everyone.Untwist them as necessary Isn't that better?
Man, I'm so tired. I kind of forgot what I was doing here. I need to get some sleep, it's been far too long since I slept.
Oh, and I guess I can see where the exploitation bit comes from. I could see that being a thing. Those young girls are far too pretty, not like children in real life. What with the boogers and the messy hair, and the defiant expressions. It's nice, in a way, though. they are very pretty. Like dolls.
Night, /ic/. you guys are a hoot.

[Anonymous No.1467723]

>>1467058
There is some good counter-modernist propaganda on Art renewal center website. I suggest you read it.

[Anonymous No.1468726]

Just to clear something up, Bouguereau painted mostly from photos, not models.

[Anonymous No.1468747]

>>1468726
Really? Some proof would be nice, because I haven't studied the matter.

Right now the only proof I see is of him painting from life:
>>1467530

[Anonymous No.1468753]

>>1468726
>although Bouguereau actively collected photographs and tempered his observations of nature with a keen awareness of the qualities of light inherent in the photographic image, he almost never worked from photographs. The rare exceptions are a few portraits, usually of posthumous subjects, which are readily identifiable as photographic derivatives as they exhibit an uncharacteristic flatness and pose.

It's from the ARC, so take it with a chunk of salt, since they promote Bouguereau above all others and have a political aversion to allowing for photo reference or various types of optical aids.

[Anonymous No.1468761]

>>1468726
Here's another photo of Bouguereau working from a model.

[Anonymous No.1468804]

>>1468747
>>1468753
>>1468761
This discussion has been brought up a number of times on the Rational Painting board, here are a few quotes from Graydon Parrish himself on it;

"It is interesting to read what artists, well trained ones, thought about photography in the 1870s. Many thought that photography would allow the artist to avoid copying. Art, they reasoned, would be free from pure naturalism, documentation, portraiture and instead be more imaginative."

"Mark Walker also stated that Bouguereau did not use the camera lucida extensively. Yet I have a collection of photographs of his drawings., perhaps around 200 or so. Almost every one from his mature days reveals a dependence on this instrument. For Mark, it was wishful thinking."

"The truth is that most artists after 1830 used photography to some degree or another. They were exposed to the image or it influenced the way they painted. For example, the mosaic approach to painting, where one color spot is placed next to another is a product of seeing the flat image. Tissot, Bouguereau, Alma-Tadema, Gerome, Bastien-Lepage, Eakins, Gauguin, Degas, Seurat, Rodin all work from photos at one time or another. The difference is that they were trained very well from life. What distinguishes most great artists is training and knowledge. The lack of it also hinders them more than the camera."

"Finally, think of how painting changed after photography was invented. Suddenly art had elaborate street scenes by Jean Beraud, recreations crowds in antiquity by Lawrence Alma-Tadema, an arrested Niagra Falls by Frederick Church and perfectly painted cherubs by William Bouguereau with the most accurate bird wings in the history of art."


Anyway, Boug definitely worked from photos, to what extent is up for debate, I suppose.

[Anonymous No.1468806]

Seeing people claim that academic art is too "stiff" and "lacking emotions" and then praise egotistical bullshit that is most modern art hurts my soul. Personally, I think the utter mess that fine art has become today in Western society is the reason that it has become the least respected out of all the arts.

Music has rules. Dance has rule. Writing has rules. Drama has rules. Yet, somehow the visual arts lack rules. Without these rules or having some sort of hierarchy/structure you work ends up being more restricted. At least if there were rules you would know which ones to break rather than thinking "Art has no rules."

[Anonymous No.1468808]

The fact that Bouguereau's backgrounds look like backdrops rather than apart of the painting bothers me.

[Anonymous No.1468820]

>>1468806
Nothing has rules. Anyone can do whatever the fuck they want. Apparently you haven't been to any modern drama, haven't read any modern prose or poetry and definitely haven't listened to any modern experimental music.
You are just a close minded person, who is happy with all those unneccesary rules. Good for you, but well, I'm not.

[Anonymous No.1468821]

>>1468806
All of the media you mentioned (music, dance, writing) have been through modernist trends, just like visual art. Movements are usually philosophical in nature and are expressed through various art forms, not just painting.

[Anonymous No.1468859]

>>1468821

That is true, but that STILL doesn't mean that the basic rules of those artforms are completely disregarded.

In American art classes this is how they teach:
>Just let the kids do whatever they want, because they just need to express themselves.

They aren't taught about any of the rules of art, because then that would be "oppressive."

When you are in music class they teach you the rules of music right of the bat. Do you think that in band they let you blow whatever the fuck you want? No, you learn about half notes, quarter notes, and all of the symbols and what they mean. You also learn how to read music and how to play your notes.

In modern day art classes they give you a brush, paint, and paper and tell you: "Go for it. Draw whatever you feel"

[Anonymous No.1468860]

>>1468820
>Nothing has rules.
>You are just a close minded person, who is happy with all those unneccesary rules.

The irony here is that you are more free with with rules and boundaries then you are with none.

Also, everything has rules or some sort of hierarchy. EVERYTHING.

[Anonymous No.1468920]

>>1468860
I don't think I understand what you mean. Do you even know what freedom means? Secondly, no, there don't have to be any rules. If I decide I want to draw muddy shit art, I will. I don't see your point there. Please explain yourself better.

[Anonymous No.1469010]

>>1468920
>Please explain yourself better.

See: >>1468859

In music you are taught the basics. Those basics are the rules of music. Once you understand those basics (or RULES) you can then proceed to break them as you see fit. The same goes for artists such as Picasso, the Impressionist, and etc. ALL of them were taught the rules of art before they went out and broke them.

Today though, you are taught that there are no rules to art and you can do whatever you want. This isn't true. This line of thinking is hurting the art world. It's as if the fine art world set themselves on a private island to which all others are not allowed. This line of thinking is also why, at least in America, art programs are the first classes to get cut and music programs are kept. It's something without rules, therefore it's considered a huge waste of time.

Sure people can do art of whatever they want, but it says a lot when these old ass paintings from waaaaaay back in Europe are still so loved and revered today.

[Anonymous No.1469011]

>>1469010
Not necessarily. I'm not saying it's bad to study anatomy, perspective, etc., but it's by no means necessary. Picasso wasn't actually very good at such things and yet he is considered one of the greatest artists of all time.
Also, a lot of nonclassical musicians never learn any notes and all of that and they still make great music by using their own technique.

[Anonymous No.1469023]

>>1469010
Don't bother, he's not going to listen. People just want to hear that whatever they do is validated as something, without having to put any effort in. I agree with everything you just said though.

The fact of the matter is, the rules have been designed around what we, as human beings, find appealing to our senses. Composition in a picture, color harmony, scales key and tempo in music. Everything has a set of patterns, and when those are mastered and exploited the results are typically pretty great. It's a testament to effort and time put forward, and it's the reason people are idolized.

People are just fucking lazy and want to be patted on the back
>>1469011
Greatest technical artist, no. His work is known because of the movements he was a part of. Your nonclassical(?) musicians example also makes absolutely no sense. If they stumble upon some notes that sound good together, they just managed to know what sound is pleasant without knowing the system behind it. I play guitar but I've never had any training in theory. I can write a half-decent song, but it's tremendously more difficult because I actually have no clue what the fuck I'm doing. I'll eventually stumble on notes that sound good together sure, but that's luck. There's a scale there that I don't know, and my song would be much stronger if I knew it and how to use it well.

The difference is that I don't bitch about it being "muh style" when it sounds like shit. I accept it as a weakness, not as something that's too deep for people to understand.

[Anonymous No.1469081]

>>1468859
I've never been to a single art class that teaches that way, most every program in the country requires you to learn the foundations first. Not

[Anonymous No.1469087]

>>1469011
>Picasso wasn't good at such things
Are you joking, or are you one of those his-father-made-his-early-work conspiracy theorists? Picasso studied and conquered all that shit.

[Anonymous No.1469093]

>>1469081
I have. Ironically, it was my high school art classes, while the middle school classes touched on foundation skills without being overwhelming, because, you know, middle school kids.

[Anonymous No.1471114]

>>1467519

I love how this is the one where the poster gets ignored.

So many famous photos and are wind up having this weird retroactive narrative applied to them that are impossible, because a lot of the concepts used didn't exist at the time the painting was made/photo was taken.

I mean lets be totally honest here, even the female nude in and of itself was probably preferable for a lot of these women. I mean when you're likely a prostitute and your job for a couple of weeks is to sit there and do nothing you don't have much to complain about.

[Anonymous No.1471202]

>>1471114
You can't have a rational discussion with feminist extremists or, in this case, feminist extremists in training.

[Anonymous No.1471316]

>>1471202
I see you know very clearly what the word feminist means.
>being rational
>not wanting human equality

[Anonymous No.1471330]

>>1471316
You dumb fuck, it says "feminist extremists". Nice attempt at a straw man - or maybe you'd prefer "straw womyn" - either way it's not gonna work.

Run along now and point your imagined crimes in some other venue.

[Anonymous No.1471331]

>>1471316
You dumb fuck, it says "feminist extremists". Nice attempt at a straw man - or maybe you'd prefer "straw womyn" - either way it's not gonna work.

Run along now and point out your imagined crimes in some other venue.

[Anonymous No.1471333]

>>1471331
stop. responding.

[Anonymous No.1471370]

>>1471331
you do realize that "feminist extremists" want the same end goal as less extreme feminists, they just use a (justifiably) angrier tone

[Anonymous No.1471372]

>>1471370
Stop shitposting or people are going to start reporting you.

[Anonymous No.1471376]

>>1471370
Not him, but... The way I see it, feminists view men and women as equals and they fight for equal rights and treatment. Extreme feminists view women as "better" then men, in a lot of ways. They'll jump at anything they can to claim it as an attack of their gender, victimize them selves and presents men as the big bad wolf.

[Anonymous No.1471378]

THIS IS NOT ART, THIS IS NOT CRITIQUE GO TO /r9k/ AND FUCK OFF

[Anonymous No.1471405]

>As you said, he was also just copying, he wasn't creative at all, like most realistic artists.

It's very narrow to view correctly observed, well proportioned, realistically lit work as realistic, since it is generally still idealized. It's first been projected through the eyes, then filtered through the mind of the artist. It is an interpretation based on observation, but the ultimate goal is rarely to record the subject with mindless accuracy like a camera does (and even then this is an interpretation, not the subject as it exists in reality). To say that artists who employ the methods of accuracy to portray their subject matters lack creativity and are only copyists is unfair, because their work is never without a point a view.

That's not to say there aren't artists who see accuracy as an end in and of itself, failing to imbue the painting with inner life. One of Hitler's favorite painters Adolf Ziegler is an example of creating accurate but lifeless humans.