Another Great Among Great Painters
As anyone following this blog has probably noticed I’ve been occasionally focusing on a few of the influential artists in my life (most recent being John Singer Sargent). To that list I’d like to add French academic painter William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905). It’s amazing to me that someone who had the supernal artistic facility of this artist has, (much like Sargent, but even more so) been subjected to scorn, apathy and general dismissal by the critical artistic community of the 20th century, finding only more recently a resurgence of respect and admiration for his work. Happily, like Sargent, his career during his own lifetime was wildly successful due to great interest in his paintings among the wealthy.
Here is a painter who’s facility with rendering the human figure easily matched or exceeded many of the old masters who are taught among the pantheon of greats in the annals of art history. Many say his work is too sentimental and, in some instances, I may agree with that. As with any artist, there are a few “weak links” in the chain of his artistic output. But these are easily overlooked as one is dazzled with every other aspect of his technical ability. To me, the elusive emphasis or theme of his work, that missing piece or deeper significance whose absence others claim to be so gnawing, is in every respect his technical ability. Even if the figures were removed from his paintings, the backgrounds alone could stand as masterworks of landscape art. What he may not be saying about the “human condition” or about the politics of his day or about making waves in the calm seas of traditionalism, he is saying about light and atmosphere, the power of nature and living things, perfection in composition and theatrical arrangement. That, I believe, is what attracted people to his work, and still does today.
What do you mean when you say some of Bouguereau’s work is “too sentimental” according to some critics? Also, I love this painting — it served in part as inspiration for one of my sonnets!
Good question! I think this painting is a poor example of that statement. Looking at the larger body of his work, there are lots of pastoral scenes showing youths or young children surrounded by lots of cupids and little angels and such, or little kids suffering with puppy dog eyes over relatively trivial day to day things like a broken vase or a thorn in the foot. I guess that subject matter bothers some people because is seems to them to lack any real substance. To a point I understand what they mean. But the overwhelming quality and mastery of his technique means far more to me than the seeming lack of heroism or human pathos in his subjects. He was like any other successful artist in that he painted what he was interested in and what his clients were interested in. It would serve students of art history well to not brush aside his genius, simply because he was not an impressionist at the time when this was the style in vogue.
I’m glad you like this painting and, by the way, congratulations on your sonnet! I’d love to read that sometime!