William-Adolphe Bouguereau is a genius, there is no doubt about

Those Adolfs knows their shit:
Willaim Adolphe
Adolf Hirschl
Adolf Hitler

>>2284549
In his own time he was pretty much famous. People either loved him or hated him. But in the 1920 the art world taste were havily influenced by impressionism and more expressif type of art. So bougeuereau was discredited heavily as being boring and not modern.

>>2284551
>lol mom i did it again!

>>2284549
He is boring. His characters mostly look like wax figures. If you like 19th century realistic painting, i would recommend you: Manet, Courbet, Lenoir, Gustave Moreau, and the pre-raphaelites in general.

>>2284578

But why Rafael is so highly esteemed, for example? If we compare his young girls and angels with the OP he is actually inferior in technique and perfection.

I really think that there are a lot of injustices committed in art appreciation; I would like it to be less subjective.

File: The_Birth_of_Venus_by_William-Adolphe_Bouguereau_(1879).jpg (1MB, 1239x1749px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1239x1749px

>>2284549
My art history teacher HATED Bouguereau
She fuckin' bullshotted him too with this painting. She pointed out the awkward face and the emotions of the other figures saying that the look on their faces don't really feel the way they should.

Personally, he was one of my favorite artists long before I wanted to become one. The "Nut Gatherers" is probably my favorite painting of his.

>>2284549
He is the perfect craftsman. But art needs to be more then craft.

>>2284627
>She pointed out the awkward face and the emotions of the other figures saying that the look on their faces don't really feel the way they should.
You should have asked her: "post your work".

Boogeroo is the original poster child of kitsch

>>2284627

But she raved and frothed at the mouth with delight at the mention of Pollock and Hirst right?

>>2284549
He is well known. Pretty much every atelier in America worships him. Sure he's not a household name anymore, but almost no artists are household names at this point in time. As far as 19th century academics go, he is usually considered one of the top guys. His paintings have gone from obscure pieces of trash to being highly esteemed works of art worth millions and being displayed in major galleries.

I think from a technical standpoint he is at such a high level that even his harshest critics have to admit it. That being said, there obviously is lots more to art than technical skill, and while I admire his ability to paint skintones and subtle form changes, I think his art on the whole isn't that interesting or emotional. He essentially stuck to one very very small niche and completely mastered it, but if your interests lie outside of that niche he doesn't really do much for you.

He's also unfortunately got some rather extremist fans *cough*ARC*cough* that almost tarnish his name because of their insane fanboyism and closeminded beliefs.

>>2284627
>The "Nut Gatherers" is probably my favorite
Yeah, I bet it is

>>2284631
This. Fucking art teachers at most schools have no skills. Fuck their opinion

>>2284644
Not really. I dunno, she liked Caravaggio and Michelangelo, as well as some other Norwegian painters
>>2284650
;^)

File: 1437155239421.png (244KB, 456x434px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 456x434px

>>2284639

>tfw you will never be so good to induce such jealous butthurt to your contemporaries that you aid in destroying Western artistic tradition

>>2284697
You don't anything about boogerboo or how we worked

>>2284549
I love Bouguereau, even though is name is a bitch to spell (Boo-Gware-Row). Still, I got to wonder if he was a foot fetishist.

I was always amazed by how realistic he was able to paint. As a child, I thought is was impossible. Takes so much skill. It's a shame he was criticised by his contemporaries just because he wasn't 'in style'.

>>2284549

Bouguereau is actually very famous
He was just a perfect fine arts academy monkey at the time, focusing on technique and was at the time the most consensual academism. Which means that his themes and painting style were bland and conventional, and thus he is not seen as a groundbreaking or innovative painter.

But he is well known and you will find him easily in national museum collections.

>>2284579

Rafael was a Renaissance painter. Bougereau is a 19th century painter.
Both the painting techniques and the style of representation evolved a lot in a few centuries, with a much bigger focus on realistic rendering, made possible by cultural and technical shifts like the quality of paint and pigments, the vision of what art should be at the time, the taste of the public and commanditors.

Renaissance paintings have a more symbolic representation, and realism emerged with the modern paradigm

>>2284773
You made a mention of cultural and technical shifts. How do you think movements like pop art and such affected the way Bouguereau and the like's art was viewed?

>>2284779

It's not surprising that with the existence of this kind of art movements his art is less known and recognised, because the focus is not pure technical skill

However, I think it's taking the problem backwards: more groundbreaking painters of his time inspired way more artists than he did, thus their vision was perpetuated, and birthed new art movements

His legacy? he was a pure academic, formed by pure academics, and his legacy is works of pure academism. He was a perfect representation of the bigotry of his time, apart from his skill : something which is very unlikely to attract some artists.

His work was celebrated during his lifetime, while impressionnists, at the same time, were frowned upon by his colleagues. In the end, they inspired more artists than he did and this is no surprise

>>2284785

sorry it's a bit poorly formulated, excuse my english

>>2284785
>>2284788
Thanks anon. Sometimes people want something new, and the old guard with it's static ways gets more and more inclined to sour in the social view. Something else comes along, it's new and exciting, people will change their views.

I ask because, growing up, I had a distinct interprestation of what art 'wa's and did not like it. It was popart, Andy Warhol, and post modern, red dots on white canvases stuff, which I did not care for, thus did not inspire me to become an artist. Of course, I never considered anime to be an art, I was a child, it was read the same way as a cartoon, that is, entertainment.

Since it's been around for some time, I wonder if more people would be inspired by alternative schools of visual art instead of popart, which has become so saturated and parodied (a common trope in entertainment: the snooty white haired art critic standing before a incomprehensible or otherwise unimpressive canvas, calling it marvelous).

So when you say Bouguereau was a pure academic, formed by pure academism, I think of the mirror image of that, the modern view of pop art.

>>2284794
Also I must admit, though it's probably ovious, I have some bias toward popart. It completely set askew my view of art as a whole, along with the 'starving misunderstood artist' and the movement of 'de-skilling- in order to preserve 'artistic ingenuity'. Growing up with this I looked at art with a general distaste, though I suppose the way it was presented to me is as much to blame.

>>2284796

It's understandable, on my side I tend to think that some pop art works from the 60s, some street art from today, and a raphaelo painting serve just a different purpose

>>2284794

concerning anime and entertainment: we surely see today video games, cartoons, comics and graffiti become considered as "art", which I guess is a reaction to this contemporary academism of concept over the form. It focuses instead on entertainement, design, and lack of over-intellectualism.

>>2284802

for example, guys like James Jean and Kim Jung-Gi are now seen in art galleries, while they are very illustrative and have a lot of elements of cartooning in their works

>>2284785
>His work was celebrated during his lifetime, while impressionnists, at the same time, were frowned upon by his colleagues. In the end, they inspired more artists than he did and this is no surprise

To me it seems that when they low the standards they are somewhat allowing that more people, with less talent and less applied time and effort, could come in to the light and think of themselves as artists: that's why impressionists were so influential: they made a lot of untalented and lazy people see themselves as worthy.

To me the only problem with the OP is that he generally uses the same themes and seems to don't really pay much attention to life itself, to actual people (like Rembrandt did, for example). But is better to have an artist that crushes mediocre people hope of success with their works than an artist that makes every lazy slob think that he too is worthy.

>>2284802
>>2284804
I can see the downside to this being people not knowing or ignoring the academic skill needed to pursue these different art syles. For instance, I read that Picasso (or Van Gogh, I'm terribly vague on this particular) was rigorously trained and was able to do what he did because he knew how to bend and break the rules. However some inspired by him are not, and maybe that has something to do with de-skilling?

Another example is the more common way people draw without instruction. I mean, big bug eyes, v-heads, and so forth. Although this is obviously a product of ignorance and poor teaching in schools when it comes to art, you have the people who fall back o 'my style' and 'I don't need to know anatomy or perspective to draw', which I have learned is untrue.

As Van Gogh put it, in regards to perspective, "You need to know it just to draw the least thing," but when academics are painted in such a stilted, bigoted view, as an anon earlier said, people would look at it with distaste, as I have with popart.

>>2284549
You know he traced right? He used a camera lucida and was an avid collector of photos

>>2284821
>To me it seems that when they low the standards they are somewhat allowing that more people, with less talent and less applied time and effort, could come in to the light and think of themselves as artists: that's why impressionists were so influential: they made a lot of untalented and lazy people see themselves as worthy.
Uhm no. The impressionists made some major leaps and bounds when it came to colour and light in images. In a time when people were questioning whether painting was dead with the invention of photography, impressionism brought in a breath of fresh air and a new vitality to art. It's not like the impressionists were just liked by your average sunday painter. People like Sargent saw tons of value in impressionism and were influenced by the ideas and paintings of them.

>>2284824
>For instance, I read that Picasso (or Van Gogh, I'm terribly vague on this particular) was rigorously trained and was able to do what he did because he knew how to bend and break the rules.

Probably Picasso. People always parrot the idea that he was this master artist and started doing the cubism thing because he was bored of straight representationalism or whatever. Fact is his early work wasn't that great. But yes, he probably did get bored of doing still life paintings and portraits and such strictly from life. Most artists do. It's not that he was this genius master artist, fucker was just bored of doing studies all the time. Understandable.

Van Gough also started off looking more 'traditional' or whatever you want to call it, drawing things more as they are. But he was worse than Picasso.

>Another example is the more common way people draw without instruction. I mean, big bug eyes, v-heads, and so forth.

This is because we are descended from ancient aliens and we are all subconsciously depicting our original forms. And the forms that we shall regain when our overlords return.

>>2284549
he is not famous because he spend his whole life drawing little girl and naked woman and sell them to private collector. he was technically talented but did nothing interesting with his talent.

people will tell that he wasn't popular because of the time fashion, but that not true. Gerome lived practically exactly at the same time and was way more famous and respected while belonging to the same classical school.

look at "l'eminence grise" and you will see more wit and genius that in the whole work of bouguereau.

>>2284824

I've seen Picasso's realist works, not even close to the level of B. He probably could have become as good as him if he continued down that road though.

>>2284905
>and naked woman

But this is the best subject :)

>>2285131
Do smiley faces fall under Poe's law?

>>2284905
Was Gerome more famous and respected? I'd like to see a source on that. Not that I don't believe you, just curious. I thought both Bouguereau and Gerome were very famous in their times and it was only a bit later on that they fell out of fashion. During Bouguereau's lifetime he was a household name. And I wonder about Gerome, how much of his fame came from his art, and how much was from his teaching? He has taught probably the greatest number of "important" artists, but he also did teach a ton of people (helped by the fact that his teaching was showing up at studios once a week). Though Bouguereau was also a well known teacher and held some pretty high up positions in some major art schools iirc.

I find it interesting how people regard different artists at different times. Meissonier was once the top guy and everyone thought he'd be the one in the history book and being talked about 100 years later...and yet here we are and only a handful of people with an interest in artwork of that time period have heard of him.

>>2284549
The lighting is weird in this one. I'd assume the ambient colors and global lighting would have some blue tint to them, but the painting is still great.

Truly the sakimichan of his generation.

>>2285203
More like a degrading of skill and taste with each generation: Bouguereau>Elvgren>Sakimi

>>2285193
Looks like a model posing in front of a cheesy roll-down backdrop. Hah. That goofy Boogerbro!

File: boogeridoo.jpg (1MB, 1469x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1469x1500px

>>2285226
You want some atmosphere in there?

>>2284549
>naked woman drawing
>genius

is she picking dog shit of the bottom of her foot kek

>>2285393
Terrible

>>2285393
The patron saint of footfags. At least he draws them well.

File: 12351_5502_antunez _Figurative_self-portrait_primary_image-small.jpg (5KB, 180x207px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 180x207px

>>2284773
>Renaissance paintings have a more symbolic representation, and realism emerged with the modern paradigm

This is why contemporary realism looks like back of the art school dumpster trash. Participating in academy structure and exhibiting figure studies realized through the lens of technique rather than purpose makes everything look preliminary. Is there anything really more pretentious than a white knight ghotee fedora hanging a painting of a man wearing a sheet.

just because the model is costumed does not make the painting look older. These ateliers are preaching this and that flavor of stylization, passing it off as a lost art. It's out of context, wrong century, built for fools fooling themselves, fantasy roleplayers pretending to culture.

pic related, it's not a rembrandt. but you already knew that.

>>2286702

You must like Pollock.

>>2286760
you must stand in the corner complaining about your foothurt

File: Calvins-artists-statement.jpg (43KB, 305x380px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 305x380px

>>2286767

Running from the question, aren’t you?

The simple fact is: there are things that every single human being in the world consider to be art, and then there are things that only a bunch of university students and pseudo-teachers consider to be art. When people say “I could do that” they are actually right, the only thing they lack is the lack of shame to actually pose to the whole world as artists when they would know very well that they were charlatans. And every charlatan, when he lays his head on the pillow at night, knows very well who he is and what is his real worth.

If covering your laziness and lack of strong-will and effort with illusions of “the spirit of the time” and “the art of this or that century” and “modern and actual statement” works for you, then fine: good luck. But remember: nobody other than your friends on your University course think that the crap that you and others like you produce is art.

Wasn’t Picasso or some other abstract artist who said: "Today, as you know, I am famous, I am rich. But when I am alone with myself, I haven't the courage to consider myself an artist in the ancient sense of the word. Great painters are people like Giotto, Titian, Rembrandt, Goya. I am only a public entertainer who has understood the times and has exploited as best he could the imbecility, the vanity and the greed of his contemporaries. Mine is a bitter confession, more painful than might seem, but it has the merit of being sincere."

>>2286784
>When people say “I could do that” they are actually right, the only thing they lack is the lack of shame to actually pose to the whole world as artists when they would know very well that they were charlatans.

running from it aren't you

show me, show the world, your pollock.

>>2286900
You do know that even experts have trouble identifying the legitimacy of Pollock paintings right? Like there are a lot of fakes out there of his work because it's easy money, and the most qualified people on the planet can still have issues telling them apart.

FYI: Most studios that claim to teach classical traditions or academic traditions are actually teaching a hodgepodge of techniques pulled together after WW2.

While there have been studios with european art instructors established in the States before WW2 it wasn't until afterwards, mainly because of the French and Italians, did the trend pickup.

The biggest contributors were the French artists seeking refuge from Nazi occupation who came to the states and taught art in small schools or opened their studios. They brought thier Beaux Arts traditions with them.

After awhile these traditions became Americanized. They were gutted to fit the American's appetite for the pragmatic. Regionally different Americanized renditions popped up. Even today there is similarity because of their shared history.

The idea of grouping some aspects of these traditions into fundamentals, like gesture, anatomy, perspective etc., is mostly a post WW2 phenomenon. They were grouped like this to structure the lessons. Illustration art was a booming industry then because of large ad agencies and heavy government propaganda publishing. So schools put together aspects they thought would be fundamental to the kind of art requested from illustrators at the time.

You can still see some the original ideas from schools like the beau arts today in the Americanized lessons of today. But this idea about there being a categorized aspects fundamental for all of art making is mostly an education strategy marketed at advertisement illustration of the post WW2 era. It still works today because it's practical, but it's not the whole story in learning to how do art.

>>2286937
The exception to this are the Russian art academies which still teach the same things they did 100 and 200 years ago. They have always received funding and have been kept in traditional views rather than getting caught up in all the art movements of the 20th century. The quality of the teachers and students is lower than it was 125 years ago, but by today's standards it is one of the best in the world without a doubt.

A lot of the Chinese academies are based on the Russian system and have teachers trained in Russia.

>>2286939
Given Russia's history of censorship and let's not forget the "cleansing" of aristocrats like the czars I don't the traditions were always passed down in their entirety. Moscow and St. Petersburg schools are old and traditional yes, but they weren't always opened nor were they able to hold on to everything. Even today there are debates on how the o.g. teachers were doing it

>>2286911
You can't do it can you, it's not like I'm asking you to have a real artistic break through, he already made them for you to copy.

I bet you couldn't even stretch a twelve foot canvas.

He came in at a time when art was taking an experimental turn.

>>2286946
>>2286937
I'm super interested in this kind of training. Are there good books about it?

Whatever Sargent and gerome etc learned is what I'd like to learn. I had a prof who was into conceptual crap be nice enough to recognize I wanted something different, and he pointed me at the ARC website. I've been doing sight size per that cirriculum and trying to combine it with bridgman, hopefully to have some eventual confidence in my facility.

The dream is to sell charcoal portraits to tourists, then eventually move on to painting oil commissions, but the only/best instruction on paint is the gurney stuff.

File: calvin-writing1.gif (121KB, 2000x2500px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 2000x2500px

>>2286956

That post was not mine: to me it doesn't even make a difference if people can forge a Pollock or not: it's all trash in the end, only art students think it's art.

Nobody cares about you and your diploma, m8: everyone knows you guys are charlatans, it is only your own tribe that pretends not to see the obvious.

You must be so lazy you don't even know how to draw the male and female figures. Don't you feel bad knowing that people like Beethoven, Mozart, Tolstoy, Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Da Vinci and Bach existed, but that you need to pretend that Pollock was meaningful just because you feel that you can do the same thing? Why don't you stop being lazy and actually put effort into your work instead of your "artistic persona"? Don't you feel ashamed knowing that Michelangelo worked like a mad man and that you simply keep inventing excuses to feel comfortable by doing "art" that everyone else can do it too?

You guys are a joke to the whole world. Pic related: it's you and your University teachers.

>walks on sand
>no sand on feet
>genius

>>2287027
>to me it doesn't make any difference
to you, i guess, besides thinking anyone can do it.
>nobody cares
that must be why traditionalists run the art market, oh wait, no, the CIA does right? :^)
>you must be so lazy
i have got so much energy i've got extra to banter
>you don't even know how to draw the male and female figures.
Is that a milestone?
>Don't you feel bad knowing that people like Beethoven, Mozart, Tolstoy, Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Da Vinci and Bach existed
what's wrong with them?
>but that you need to pretend that Pollock was meaningful just because you feel that you can do the same thing?
my challenge stands about yer pollock
> Don't you feel ashamed knowing that Michelangelo worked like a mad man and that you simply keep inventing excuses to feel comfortable by doing "art" that everyone else can do it too?
you mean like chinese cartoon fan art

You guys are a joke to the whole world. Vid related: it's you and your future.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOpzhBR18W8

>>2286784
also

>Wasn’t Picasso or some other abstract artist who said
are you not sure because you forgot who was quoted but remembered the whole quote or you know it's of dubious pedigree nigga please

>>2286939
>>2286937
>The idea of grouping some aspects of these traditions into fundamentals, like gesture, anatomy, perspective etc., is mostly a post WW2 phenomenon
So how did they teach art before WW2?

You are all retarded.
Art is a language, a form of communication.

What kind of skills you need to utilize to communicate a message depend entirely on the message and the intended audience.

Some ideas can be communicated with only primitive shapes and colors. Others need more complex visual tokens.
Or the audience might be "in on it" so you can leave out some visual elements and still get your point across. Or maybe the audience is particularly daft and you have to include obvious visual metaphors and hit them over the head with the message.

There's no "right" way to draw just like there's no "right" way to write. It all depends on what you're trying to tell.

But it helps to have a large vocabulary.

>>2287538
>There's no "right" way to draw just like there's no "right" way to write.
>no "right" way to write.

Yes there is, asshole. It's called grammar, spelling, and syntax

>>2287383
>> Don't you feel ashamed knowing that Michelangelo worked like a mad man and that you simply keep inventing excuses to feel comfortable by doing "art" that everyone else can do it too?
>you mean like chinese cartoon fan art

troll or seriously deluded

>>2287577
u r a fukn tard

I assume you've understood the message despite the errors?
You should read what Mark Twain had to say about literacy.

>>2287579
Why call them errors, if you believe there's no "right" way?

checkmate, fool.

>>2287585
Because they're grammatical errors. Being grammatically correct, though, is not necessarily "right"

4chan lingo, for example, incorporates many grammatically incorrect words and nobody calls them "wrong" or "errors". They're just called memes.

>>2287577
prescriptive vs descriptive linguistics

I no can tell you how come, but.

File: Nymphs_and_Satyr,_by_William-Adolphe_Bouguereau.jpg (2MB, 1615x2337px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1615x2337px

>>2284549
>>2284627
Why are women in this time so godess-like?
Jeezus

>inb4 they were painted to look attractive
A man can dream, can't he

>>2286702
this is a good post

>>2286702
>>2286767
>>2286956
>>2287383
>>2288199

I pity you all