Why is pompier art considered bad? Am I a pleb for liking it?

>>1564095
Because the (((art community))) was pushing distorted impressionist nonsense in the late 19th century, and these kinds of paintings distracted from their evil goals.

File: Birth-venus-AC-L.jpg (19KB, 525x305px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 525x305px

I'll just post some I like

>>1564155
What's wrong with impressionism? It's pretty damn aesthetic

File: Claude Monet ~ Gladioli.jpg (3MB, 2000x1451px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2000x1451px

Because at some point, the world became retarded and decided that only art that looked intentionally sloppy could convey actual emotion and artistry.

Now, I generally like the impressionists/post impressionists/Cubists/ folks like Chagal, but assholes like Pollock and Rothko suck, objectively.

File: Jean-Leon_Gerome_Pollice_Verso.jpg (61KB, 447x300px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 447x300px

>>1564155
But I like impressionism too. Why does it have to be either or?

>>1564095
Why should it matter? It's your subjective taste after all

File: Waterhouse_Hylas_and_the_Nymphs_Manchester_Art_Gallery_1896.15.jpg (411KB, 2124x1317px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 2124x1317px

>>1564173
Just trying to figure out why it was so derided from the perspective of an art historian. Maybe even start a discussion idk.

File: Bouguereau_William-Adolphe_(1825-1905)_-_Italian_Girl_Drawing_Water_(1871).jpg (199KB, 1373x2092px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1373x2092px

>>1564095
>Why is pompier art considered bad?
Anti-Academy backlash.

>>1564172
Because the division between the Impressionists, who started the Continental discontent with the academic style, and the Academy were drawn by each other.

The Academy liked finely wrought Works of art, while the Impressionists didn't, and the Academy decides who gets to be shown at Academy Exhibitions.

Both can be good, but snobs on both sides get made because of centuries old biases.

Poor Bouguereau was buried for like 60 years after his death, despite being one of the greatest talents ever, while van Gogh failed to be recognized in life.

>>1564095
>Why is pompier art considered bad?
It looked staid and antiquated next to the novel Impressionist paintings and "down-to-earth" Realist paintings. Later art movements appeared to validate the view that new, novel, and "anti-bourgeoisie/anti-capitalist" art as superior to raw craftsmanship and traditionalism. The industrial revolution going on at the same time also had something to do with it.

>Am I a pleb for liking it?
No. It has its own merits.

>>1564203
Bouguereau draws some quality waifus

>>1564168
It's kinda like games nowadays
they develop art to look more and more like reality but when it gets to the point where it's indistinguishable people try to find other avenues since there's nothing left to explore in that one.

that and photography trivialized it (draw a realistic woman vs. taking a picture of a real woman).

File: William-Adolphe_Bouguereau_(1825-1905)_-_Before_The_Bath_(1900).jpg (168KB, 687x1279px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 687x1279px

>>1564273
>Bouguereau draws some quality waifus
Yesssss top tier foot pussy too

>>1564168
Is it weird that I like Pollock but hate Rothko? I think there's a genuine artistry to Pollock's work, whatever else I think of it, it does make me "feel" things. Rothko doesn't.

>>1566373
Rothko is shit. I can totally understand becoming bored with "traditional" stuff but not to the point where you consider what Rothko does as art.

>>1564168
>objectively

File: Édouard Manet, Le Suicid.jpg (374KB, 2025x1594px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 2025x1594px

>>1566427
Yeah, objectively.

If you like Rothko, kill yourself. Nigga wasn't even fucking trying.

>>1566373
Pollock couldn't even paint well, which is why he turned to the shit he's famous for.

Picasso could paint, Monet could paint, and they chose their styles deliberately. Pollock just sucked dick.

>>1566817
Regarding your filename - Im pretty sure there's an "e" at the end.