Alma-Tadema <3

[Justin.]

I just love the guy so darned much, I couldn't help but make a thread after someone told me they never heard of him...

So in case you never heard of him, now you have. (http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/art.asp?aid=8)

Nobody could do Marble surfaces like Tadema <3

Samples;

[seba_boi]

Yeah, he's awesome with the marble surfaces... He's got a funny mustache too...

This is the very first painting of him I saw and was mesmerized:
http://www.penwith.co.uk/artofeurope/alma-tadema_expectations.jpg

[archipelago]

he did this when he was 16, hah!

it is truly a shame that he is almost nonexistent in todays art history books, the same as Bouguerau and a myriad of others who where at the pinnacle of skill in traditional art before modern art started to take over.

[Hai]

Yup, definitely one of my favorite painters.

[Dizon]

who paints like that these days? Only in the 19th century!

[eskanto]

you have GOOD taste Justin, he's one of my faves too, along with J.W Waterhouse

[m@.]

Hey, thanks for sharing, I didn't know this one. Awesome stuff.

[rpace]

The Tadema books I have are among my favourites to just grab and flip through.

~Richard

[HunterKiller_]

I must say... That marble is rather... Delicious... Mmm.

[aph]

Woah. Thanks Justin.

[Maxine Schacker]

Have you taken a look at Van Dyck? Velasquez? Rembrandt?

I don't fully understand the love of French academic art. Perhaps it makes sense as a reaction to the total lack of drawing and painting skills that is embraced by a large part of the fine art world today. That could make admirable skill levels appealing. I certainly can admire what some of these artists do, but most of Tadema's work seems dead to me. I don't feel any personalities or consciousness residing inside those heads and bodies. Could that be why he hasn't remained well known?

Technical skill gives us the means to express ourselves, and is important to go after, but it is the means, not the end. It just isn't enough. In fact, in some cases work with real feeling that isn't quite as perfect has more life to it.

Norman Rockwell will remain well known because as an illustrator he reaches us on a human level. He had a vision of America, and he expressed it beautifully. He married his technical skill to his vision. His painting of the little girl walking with federal marshals is a masterpiece. Nothing about it could be changed. It holds together on every level.

In the fine art realm, Vermeer is a highly skilled "realist" painter who painted many great paintings. Again, His approach suited his vision. His work is not simply a technical tour de force. His work is filled with feeling, vision and life force. Rembrandt, on the other hand, grew away from academic style and found in texture, in thin areas contrasted with opaque areas, in visible brush strokes contrasted with smoothly painted areas, a great expressive means.

All I can remember about the Tadema paintings is skill, beautiful marble and vacant faces.

On another note, perhaps it would be interesting to discuss the differences between representational fine art and illustration. Some artists (Daumier, for example) do or have done work that exists as both.

[Justin.]

I do love Van Dyck, velasquez (although I must admit my appreciation of Rembrandt isn't quite as high, but I haven't looked into him much at all).

(In my Opinion) To a point I think that Deadness and life in any given painting becomes subjective. I'm not denying that there is a lack of life in Tadema's work, but when I look at it I see interaction and thought. The first example I posted is a pretty good example. The 'slaves' are not all facing the same direction or reacting the same to their task... one looks burdened, as you might expect a slave to be (but perhaps not express it), one has a scolding, thoughtful glance into oblivion, one stares out onto the water- and the two fan holders- one looks up perhaps gazing more at the queen that at his fan, while the other (closer to us) looks to be deeply concentrated on his task.

There is also the female 'musician' (for lack of more knowledgable term), who while playing mindlessly is glancing off the side, perhaps at a bird or butterfly, etc. The right side of the image, with the 2 slaves in front, seem dead- quite literally as they are painted, faceless. They don't even appear to hold the weight on their shoulders- and much like the 2 women holding Moses, it doesn't feel like they have any spirit in them, any personality.

The other images below it I would agree seem woefully stale with minor exceptions- but again, to me it's mostly speculation or opinion as to what is lively and what isn't. I don't at all disagree with anything you've said, really.
This post was mainly just an 'Art History heads up', because I really do love Tadema's work, and he's been on my mind (and desktop) alot recently.




On the topic of Representational Fine Art v. Illustration- I haven't really had much time or experience to make this call, but from what I know, Fine art is meant to make a statement- it could be irony, or just of a strange observation- where illustration depicts a visual narrative. It isn't to say they can't intersect- if a still life is of muddy sneakers on a kitchen floor with a baseball next to it- It's a still life- but it also tells a story.

[Brendan N]

you must also realise these are falling behind the times a bit. By the time many of these were painted, Neo-Classicism was already in the coffin and awaiting the last few nails if at all.

[Dizon]

There's story-telling at play here. No "deadness". A guy like Alma-tadema wouldn't just paint heads for no reason.

[Favila]

I don't know patdzon, these are amazingly "reallistic" paintings, but I look at them and all I can think is 'wow, that guy had skills'. It's a bit like the beowulf movie, they are not real people but they are closer to look like real people than a disney movie, but the disney movie is so much more "alive".

What does tadema want to tell us in the first picture besides: well they are carrying this princess or whoever and all that. He does not make a personal statement at all. He is not saying that it's unfair for the slaves carrying them, or that it's not unfair because the princess deserves it, he is just saying that this situation of slaves carrying her 'happens'. Even David said something else in his paintings, and those already lacked something (at least to my eyes).

For example Velázquez in the Surrender of Breda is not only saying that those people surrendered to the spanish forces that were finally able to retake the site. No, he's telling just how great were those enemies defending breda and how the spanish acknowledged their greatness and didn't let them be humilliated with the kneeling and all that. He's saying: they were noble as defenders, and we, by admitting this, are as noble as them.

And that's the kind of things this paintings lack to my eyes

[Ian Mack]

I can't imagine why there is a vacancy to these faces...he has painted them with expressions on them to be sure but something is amiss. I wonder if he gave it alot of thought or perhaps he painted the emotions on abitrarily.

Another idea is that there are no blemishes on the faces. They are as perfect as porcelain dolls. I doubt that will hold up as the keystone but his works makes me think of Fragonard whose work is decorative. There is emotion but it doesn't come in as reality. Rather a polished form of it?

The Meeting, Fragonard. I don't know if he's french but the style is Rococo which for me, is when realism oversteps itself.

[archipelago]

believe me, he thought about those faces more than you could possibly imagine, the french academics where crazy perfectionists, and it shows in these utterly beautiful paintings!

also, for those who could not find any emotion in the ones above (which in my opinion are filled with atmosphere and emotion) need only look further into his gallery on ARC

you cant tell me that these to not hold the same level of emotion than Velasquez, Rembrandt or whatever, if that is what you are looking for

it is clearly a matter of taste and opinion though...
for example, Maxine Schacker, everything you said about Rockwell and Vermeer I can say about Alma-Tadema or any of the other french academics.

[archipelago]

you must also realise these are falling behind the times a bit. By the time many of these were painted, Neo-Classicism was already in the coffin and awaiting the last few nails if at all.
what does that have to do with anything?

[Farvus]

Well painted but for me it's too saccharine and a bit too theatrical. It sometimes feels like the characters are nothing more than just background for colorful flowers and decorative draperies.

[Brendan N]

what does that have to do with anything?

Sorry, I didn't make that clear - it's as to why I think his name doesn't show up that often and why he is not as well known as say Velásquez or David. These were painted when the art world was making a move toward abstraction. By comparison, these sort of come across as retrospective.

just my 2c.

[archipelago]

Sorry, I didn't make that clear - it's as to why I think his name doesn't show up that often and why he is not as well known as say Velásquez or David. These were painted when the art world was making a move toward abstraction. By comparison, these sort of come across as retrospective.

just my 2c.
aah I get you now, yeah thats true.

[rpace]

It's an interesting discussion.

I do have some serious affection for the French Academics, but their work often feels too staged -- too theatrical.

Other artists and illustrators, like Rembrandt and Rockwell, plan and compose just as much as the academics, but their work most often feels like captured moments.

To me, it's the difference between walking out of a movie theatre saying "Wow, what great special effects" or "Wow, what a great film".

Looking at many of the academics' works, one is first struck by their technical skill, looking at a Rockwell, Rembrandt or Frazetta painting; its narrative, its life, and its energy strikes you before you can even consider how technically accomplished they are.

~Richard

[dose]

He's a great craftsman and his work is worth admiring because of that. It's easy to poo-poo him and a lot of the other French academic painters because there are so many others who take it beyond pure craftsmanship. But the fact that his work doesn't go much beyond craftsmanship doesn't change the fact that it is really, really good craftsmanship that's worth appreciating simply because of that fact.

It's good to appreciate in the way you'd appreciate a well-made table or dresser by a master carpenter. I don't necessarily like the way Victorian-age furniture looks, but I do appreciate how much time, effort, and precision it took to design and create something with all those goopy details, and it really was quite an achievement.

[TASmith]

David and Velazquez weren't right before abstraction, they were at least a good thirty years previous. Courbet and Goya were before/during the beginnings of abstraction - right around the time Daguerre made his invention - making realism obsolete, from the mass public point of view. I also thought Tadema was classified as a pre-raphaelite, no? He came much later than David, and other neo-classicals. hmm, I'll have to check.

The argument against Tadema here is hit-and-miss. When I look at the paintings of just two figures together, I see expression. On the other hand, the first two works posted feel unreal. The figures have expressions - in the case of the reclining ladies, too much so. But it's not a believable scene, and I don't think Tadema intended it to be. He was going for idealism, in much the same vein as Poussin and Raffaello, going back to the Greeks - that pretty marble isn't all he borrowed from them. It's a bit ridiculous and very theatrical, but I think that, in itself, is an achievement. Just ask yourself, have you ever seen anything else like it? With that same feeling of perfection and absurdity?

Regardless, there are countless master artists out there who don't share our own vision. Always ask yourself, "What can I learn from this?"

[Izi]

Tadema, of course....I never mention him because I thought everyone knew about him....

I have 12-13 of his pieces in my extra large scan folder....

You guys are just jealous, gtfo....lol

I mean seriously, does anyone think they can even achieve this kind of finish? You won't even try, because you can't if you have time to post here on CA about the "dead 19th century"

Opinions like that, cut and dry and lacking in sympathy for the etheric vision of beauty here is just boorish and outdated itself...often our words reflect a flaw in our own matrix - it's the world of hypocritical assholes who are on the decline - not love for classical realism, that's on a rise due to so much raw precision executed in works from that area.

And you can build on it.

There's some historical innaccuracy in suggesting the Rococco period was a response to realism. On the contrary, the massive restructuring of the french academic art system was a response to the horrors of Rococco, the poor copies of poor copies and stylized works that met a dead end.

The academy returned to basics of drawing and painting from life, Gerome and Bargue realized the series of master copy drawings for use in schools and there was a rennaissance of proper academic training which resulted in many lifelike paintings and drawings.

Say what you like, but the fact of the matter is you're wrong about Academic art being outdated.

We push hard towards realism so we can fall back into abstraction with a grasp of precise light and form.

Another thing - keep Velasquez and Rembrandt for their play with light, and keep Tadema for his thematic and theatrical value, each artist has his or own strengths to draw from, one should not focus on just one or two but strive to incorporate what works

and Tadema works....for many many people....learn from that and if you can't respect it then you should at least keep your mouth shut.

I might as well start ranting about how Picasso can't draw worth shit by now but had a firm grasp of marketing....

Or not....

[Aly Fell]

Interesting thread. Personally I love Alma Tadema but from a technical point of view. I find his paintings don't move me on an emotional level, but I appreciate his aesthetic and imagery. It feels like I'm looking at a play or set piece rather than glimpsing a moment of actuality. But there's an orientalist and romantic sensibility to his work which is wonderful, and he was close with the Pre-Raphaelites as well.

On a side note, he's not French. He was a naturalised British resident who came here from The Netherlands where he was born and started his academic career.

Some of his work can be less representational though. There's a real impressionistic vibe to this pic:

http://www.darkrising.co.uk/Stuff/Bluebells.jpg

[Flake]

He compares poorly with Velasquez, Vermeer or Rembrandt but then so do most artists so I won't hold that against him.

I kinda like the overblown technically obsessed fluffiness of them.

[Favila]

For me, it's just the same as (some) abstract art, it can be pretty but there's much more to art than being pretty. I'm not saying that anyone could match tadema's skill (as happens with abstract art).

[Dizon]

I really can't make honest assessments on his works as I've not seen any of them in person. I live in the Philippines so most of the stuff I see here are post modern crap, and mediocre realism. I just think that any painting deserves to be seen in person and I can't say what my reaction would be like if I'd see any of his work. I do believe that the golden age of illustrators took something from the works of these academics. And you can definitely see their influence on their work. The works of the illustrators also have that theatrical quality to it and one of the important things they learned from the academics is the story-telling aspect of picture making. Alma-Tadema definitely has that. And when I look at these images that's one of the things I notice regardless if it affects me in an emotional way or not.

[sweetoblivion314]

I also thought Tadema was classified as a pre-raphaelite, no? He came much later than David, and other neo-classicals. hmm, I'll have to check.


Tadema lived and worked at about the same time as the original Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood but he was not one of them. He was Dutch and is classified as Neo-classical so he was not French academic either. He was actually extremely succesfull at the time and showed mostly in britian (he finaly moved there in 1870 when he was 58). He also influenced many painters during and just after him. Waterhouse especially liked his work and this can be seen in waterhouses early pieces.
He also painted in the middle 19th century so he was before the impresionists and abstraction.

as far as my opinion i have never been a huge fan of his work. His compositions are very well thought out and aranged but i do get that dead feeling from his pieces that Maxine mentioned. It feels like he cared more about the composition and rendering then he did about what he was capturing. Richard Schmid says in Alla Prima that me must allways keep that emotional reason for why we wanted to depict a particular image in our mind so we dont lose the magic. I agree alot with this statement.
I also get anoyed at the fact that every one of his backgrounds is on some kind of veranda or porch and they are all in 1 point perspective. I have seen maybe 2 pieces where he decided to do 2 point. variation is the spice of life and he just didnt do it.

[Izi]

I'm surprised by this, because Tadema actually is one of the few artists who moves me on an emotional level...maybe it's because I'm a woman? Alot of what I see here on CA portraying women may bring out my sexy bitch side but definately not my true feminine side...

So you may have to think about that - Tadema is in tune with the very subtle emotional responses of some women, that's what I think.

His enviroments are quite posh as well, and I love Italian marble verandas with tiger skin...not to mention Roman baths...

[Chris Bennett]

I guess he illustrates a kind of paradise - I remember coming across a book of his stuff in the junior school library when I was about 8 or 9. I had absolutley no idea who he was, but I was spellbound by the world of blue and marble and enternal play. It's a kind of world the Eloi of H.G.Well's Time Machine inhabit. Except there are no Morlocks.

And that's the basic problem. There is no dragon in his eden. You don't need to see it, but you must have the feeling that it lives somewhere in the world, even if far away. Renoir too paints eden, but his dragon is the faint hint of sadness that the beauty is only a blossoming and that one day winter and arthritis will follow. So too does Waterhouse, but his nymphs are always Psyche and with the Siren not far away either. It is what gives art its vitality.

That said, his colour sense is quite remarkable, based on a conception of it as a sort of coloured pollen out of which all his forms are built. In fact your eye is encouraged to move around the pictures very much like a bee going from petal to petal. Lazily you soak up these honeyed pictures of an eternal summer afternoon and doze on the cool marble.

[Ryn]

I'm surprised by this, because Tadema actually is one of the few artists who moves me on an emotional level...maybe it's because I'm a woman? Alot of what I see here on CA portraying women may bring out my sexy bitch side but definately not my true feminine side...


I'm going to have to politely disagree with you here. As a female who has been brought nearly to tears from .jpgs of work by Velazques and Waterhouse, Tadema doesn't really do it for me. Like a few posters have already mentioned, I absolutely respect the inherent ability in Tadema's work, but it doesn't move me otherwise. I believe much of this comes down to personal taste rather than the predisposition of an entire gender.

[Izi]

If your demon is boredom, then perhaps Tadema is clearer....thanks for the thoughts, think I've discovered the only true inspiration for me personally is blackness infinite - in small doses of course.

Phyrric Dance is my favorite I think, right now...and how is the spectre of war no "dragon"?

[JPC]

He's a great craftsman and his work is worth admiring because of that. It's easy to poo-poo him and a lot of the other French academic painters because there are so many others who take it beyond pure craftsmanship. But the fact that his work doesn't go much beyond craftsmanship doesn't change the fact that it is really, really good craftsmanship that's worth appreciating simply because of that fact.

It's good to appreciate in the way you'd appreciate a well-made table or dresser by a master carpenter. I don't necessarily like the way Victorian-age furniture looks, but I do appreciate how much time, effort, and precision it took to design and create something with all those goopy details, and it really was quite an achievement.


I agree on all points. Although I do think that Sir Tadema ( he was knighted wasn't he?)was also conveying
a story in every painting, albeit, in a more subtle way.
The first pic ( cleopatra) was the first work of his that I ever saw, and it blew me away for some reason.
btw..I see a lot of prints of his paintings for sale here...they actually come
framed, or is it that your buying the picture frame and the print comes for free? At 20 RMB, it is literally a steal...which is why I dont buy them.

BTW, anybody know where hi-res pics of his paintings are available? for
master studies?

[Izi]

I suppose, if like me, you always have silly men chasing after you, Sir Tadema's paintings also strike a chord...we're always most attracted to that which reflects us, the supremacy of narcissicism being that shadowy and inobvious kind...you can usually tell a person by their favorite pieces...I psychoanalyze constantly.....

Here is a high-res copy of the "in the tepidarium"...note the very subtle "threat" ie, "dragon" as mentioned previously of the phallic object, serpentine, almost cobra like, that vies with the maiden and her impotent weapon, the fan -

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/206/523416460_290f0b6ae9_o.jpg

I can't go without mentioning the one where he paints the death of the firstborn of Egypt, of the pharaoh, it's a morbid piece and not the kind I like at all - it depresses me -

http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/images/aria/sk/z/sk-a-2664.z?leftcoulisse

the despair is tangible here

edit:

clearly Tadema was first a reconstructionalist, a task at which he succeeded in fulfilling elaborately and very successfully for his time - some are outdated now but they mark the passage of Egyptian and Romantique revivalism in his country. However he has his darker moments, and ignorance seems to be on the menu as far as his works go, unsurprising, considering the tastes of the public are what they are, even now.

I assure you, I have no reason to doubt that I would be missing something from my repertoire were it not for Tadema's indirect instruction. I am so far from his skill level I can't even imagine getting there, or what I would paint when I did...gosh

[Art_Addict]

I don't fully understand the love of French academic art.

On a side note, he's not French. He was a naturalised British resident who came here from The Netherlands where he was born and started his academic career.


He was actually extremely succesfull at the time and showed mostly in britian (he finaly moved there in 1870 when he was 5



Just out of the sake of clarity and historical accuracy.. Alma-Tadema was not a French academic artist as stated before and he did not move to england when he was 5.

Alma-Tadema received his training at the Royal academy of Antwerp in Belgium where he studied under Gustaaf Wappers and Nicaise de Keyser. He then started working in the atelier of Henri Leys who also studied at the Academy before him.

[Serpian]

I like Alma-Tadema. He's not my absolute favourite artist of that period, but The Finding of Moses really got me. I think that he should not be rejected just because of his sentimental subjects. Even silly sentimentality reflects something human.

Of course, it's all a matter of taste.

EDIT: This one is pretty great as well. HI-RES: http://208.49.98.6/www/imageserver/8/Alma_Tadema_Spring.jpg

http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/a/Alma-Tadema_Lawrence/large/Alma_Tadema_Spring.jpg

[Izi]

Judging from the blank looks of helplessness in the DEEP project categories for a Utopia, indeed, we could all probably pick up some pointers on how to portray paradise...death, danger and gloom is no longer as new or original as it seems...we're all obsessed with morbidity to a degree, and what the hell do you expect from Gen X at least? :)

Tadema's marble is exquisite, that's my favorite part of his paintings,, the stone work.

[NoSeRider]

http://user.aol.com/pnhassett/art/tademafull.jpghttp://user.aol.com/pnhassett/art/tademacloseup.jpg

There's a Alma-Tadema painting, about 6 feet tall, in the Getty museum.
I should have just stood there and took more pictures, but this is what I took.
I just have a cheesy LCD digital camera.

The colors are more vibrant then this URL portrays:
http://208.49.98.6/www/imageserver/8/Alma_Tadema_Spring.jpg

Here's a description as posted in the Museum:
http://user.aol.com/pnhassett/art/tademadescription.jpg

[Serpian]

Wow. The colours differ a LOT between photographs. One should really see all great pieces of art in person....

[dcorc]

While some of Alma-Tadema's paintings are large, many are small - I don't think one can fully appreciate this one, for example:

http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/5090/attachmenthi8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

without knowing that it is 16 x 10 inches in size, or that this one:

http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/1866/attachmentko4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

is 12 x 9 inches.

"In the Tepidareum" (see link in post #36, above) is 9 1/2 x 12 7/8 inches


All I can remember about the Tadema paintings is skill, beautiful marble and vacant faces.

Then perhaps you need to become more familiar with his work? - while mostly subtle, there's a hint of satire or social commentary about quite a few of his paintings. Probably the most striking is this one?

http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/383/anexedrava0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


Dave

[Izi]

(grow thinner skins ^_^?)

I want to make out with Tadema's beautiful goils now noserider!!!!

I am very fond of the one of the Senators you just posted dcorc...

Look at the great way he renders those celadon pillows and then contrasts it with the dark nut browns of the soldier's gear, it's awesome!

[arttorney]

Whether or not Tadema had feelings about these works or intended them to express feelings, they inspire no feelings whatsoever in me.

Once again we are confronted with the ugly fact that art is not only subjective, but so are the feelings of art viewers. If we have any sense, we are each seeking our respective niches in artistic expression. This is definitely not the direction I would choose, personally, but I don't say there is no merit. There's just nothing here for me emotionally.

If we try to be just like somebody else, or some particular school of thought, the slope leads inexorably to a place where we become a bunch of drones. I say look inside of yourself to decide who you want to be, or you too will soon be one of the blank-faced-ones. Of course, by saying that, I virtually ensure I will never get a job drawing plastic-faced video game characters. C'est la vie!

[NoSeRider]

Even if you can't relate to it emotionally, you should be able to see the complexity and maturity of the pieces.

These are master works.

The expressions in the figures are not so much in the faces, but in the gesture of the figures themselves. It's also about composition and color, texture and detail.

[arttorney]

I'll have to go look at the one in the Getty in person before making a final judgement. I know the paintings always look better in person. I just see a hell of a lot more in Poussin's paintings of the Rape of the Sabine Women, for example. (I much prefer the one in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.)

[InterstellarSky]

I am one of the biggest admirers(Spelled Wrong) of Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema. This may be to your surprise Naomi, but Alma was not part of his name but he adopted his wifes or mothers maiden name, I forgot which one.
I am a male but the emotions his pieces dont just strike a chord, they play me a song. well it may be that I love the ages before the end of world war two, when making love was a mystery and not something utterly abused, when someone would die for their honor, maybe Tadema's pieces strikes a chord with those that hold on to those old strange values, maybe all artwork's appeal to certain values rather than emotion alone. What I really love, is in most of his pieces he expresses a state of deep thought in the mind of a subject, he made it very personal as if you can directly relate and even want to reach in and either help or take part in the scene. What you may notice that he may have a been a slight femenist or a supporter of femenism through his pieces and his name. sorry I got carried away, and have to stop myself, I think of somethign new everytime I type something, and it ends now!
Darn, I wish I could go the Getty Museaum, but im on the other side of the country!! Why cant they get a piece to the Met??

[NoSeRider]

I would think that Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema influenced illustrators such as Barry Windsor Smith and Jeffrey Jones and others of my comic book collecting days.

There's a chivalry and elegance that comes out in his figures. It lends itself to a certain amount of civilizing and nobility.

Not every art piece has to be about brute force and extreme circumstances. I believe these pieces lends itself to a certain amount of hope.

[Flake]

Tadema is a like a crap Leighton or Waterhouse.

Seriously, "Bring out yer tasteless"..

He did some sweet stuff but compared to Waterhouse' "Ophelia" etc, he was a rubbish noob.

[Blue]

you must also realise these are falling behind the times a bit. By the time many of these were painted, Neo-Classicism was already in the coffin and awaiting the last few nails if at all.

Classicism is like baggy pants, it may skip a few generations, but it will ALWAYS come back in style.

[Carl Dobsky]

You'll be lucky if you ever create a work as memorable as some of the ones that are linked in this thread. Why don't you try to learn from it instead of trashing it.

And if you're not into the subject matter maybe you should just go paint something "relevant" like dragons and space marines.

[Izi]

I am one of the biggest admirers(Spelled Wrong) of Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema. This may be to your surprise Naomi, but Alma was not part of his name but he adopted his wifes or mothers maiden name, I forgot which one.
I am a male but the emotions his pieces dont just strike a chord, they play me a song. well it may be that I love the ages before the end of world war two, when making love was a mystery and not something utterly abused, when someone would die for their honor, maybe Tadema's pieces strikes a chord with those that hold on to those old strange values, maybe all artwork's appeal to certain values rather than emotion alone. What I really love, is in most of his pieces he expresses a state of deep thought in the mind of a subject, he made it very personal as if you can directly relate and even want to reach in and either help or take part in the scene. What you may notice that he may have a been a slight femenist or a supporter of femenism through his pieces and his name. sorry I got carried away, and have to stop myself, I think of somethign new everytime I type something, and it ends now!
Darn, I wish I could go the Getty Museaum, but im on the other side of the country!! Why cant they get a piece to the Met??


Interstellar that is amazing I think you hit the nail on the head, you're correct, I think it is absolutely value-based.

We have a Bouguereau here in Memphis, a very obscure one - actually I can't remember any other piece directly hitting an emotional chord with me in persone except that Bouguereau piece, and I never remember seeing Tadema in person I was far too young. So an excellent point is to really just be able to see the work in person to judge. Waterhouse is a good representation of the femme fatale but his misses other parts of the human psyche that Tadema addresses, they're all equally wonderful....Flake now you're joining my ignore list... ;)

Now I want to talk about Waterhouse too, damn...but the thing I liked most about Tadema's compositions was he could take a scene and tell a story without outright borrowing from fable...You can get a sense of the Roman Senators discussing some outrageous drama and even guess at it without much help from fable, Waterhouse relied alot on old folk tales and Shakespeare too....

Alma-Tadema was a great, great artist, and it adds to his appeal to know he might have been a feminist, that's just great, it was so rare in those times. I do know that Bouguereau was the one who made it possible for females to join the Academy. :hugsmile: I love Bouguereau

[Chris Bennett]

Tadema is a like a crap Leighton or Waterhouse.

Seriously, "Bring out yer tasteless"..

He did some sweet stuff but compared to Waterhouse' "Ophelia" etc, he was a rubbish noob.

To me, the difference between Tadema and Waterhouse is one of range. Tadema had a very small song to sing but sang it very well. Everything he painted has the same mood, whether it was a Phyric Dance, reading a love letter, or ladies gawping at marching soldiers from a high point above a harbour. It made no difference, it was always a soundless, warm afternoon with play acting ghosts that he painted. Waterhouse, on the other hand, had much more range and visionary firepower. His Ulysses and the Sirens is an amazing piece of narrative visualisation that not only evokes the sheer drama of the moment but is a fantastically composed painting on the 2D surface. (We discussed it with diagrams on the 'Advanced Composition Thread'). Waterhouse can then paint a broken hearted lover as she ties her scarf around her knight's arm or the nymphs as they lure our hero to his watery death, all done with the eroticism of 'self destruct'. These kind of emotional variations are simply not found in Tadema's work. It's not because it is bland, but rather because he is happy to sing the same tune over and over again. He made the right decision - if you do not have the 'imaginative put-over' of someone like Waterhouse then it is best to plough the field you are good at, even if it is only one furrow wide.

[Aly Fell]

To me, the difference between Tadema and Waterhouse is one of range. Tadema had a very small song to sing but sang it very well. Everything he painted has the same mood, whether it was a Phyric Dance, reading a love letter, or ladies gawping at marching soldiers from a high point above a harbour. It made no difference, it was always a soundless, warm afternoon with play acting ghosts that he painted. Waterhouse, on the other hand, had much more range and visionary firepower. His Ulysses and the Sirens is an amazing piece of narrative visualisation that not only evokes the sheer drama of the moment but is a fantastically composed painting on the 2D surface. (We discussed it with diagrams on the 'Advanced Composition Thread'). Waterhouse can then paint a broken hearted lover as she ties her scarf around her knight's arm or the nymphs as they lure our hero to his watery death, all done with the eroticism of 'self destruct'. These kind of emotional variations are simply not found in Tadema's work. It's not because it is bland, but rather because he is happy to sing the same tune over and over again. He made the right decision - if you do not have the 'imaginative put-over' of someone like Waterhouse then it is best to plough the field you are good at, even if it is only one furrow wide.

Totally agree. I have a print of ‘Ulysses and the Sirens’ on the wall in my lounge and love it. Powerfully dramatic, and although not Waterhouse’s most well known piece it is certainly one of his best. Like I said earlier I love Tadema, but I just don’t find it emotionally deep, and also not to be disingenuous, Waterhouse’s emotional depth is actually one of thorough cliché. However it is a Victorian sensibility toward cliché, and that was fashionable at the time and no less resonant for that. And probably inevitable by today’s standards when Waterhouse draws upon mythology and legend for his subject matter. I would like to mention another artist that gets little recognition from that era, Edmund Blair Leighton, who often gets confused with Lord Leighton. EBL’s subject matter is often similar to Waterhouse’s; what a friend once described as ‘doe eyed bints poncin’ around in fields’. Ah, such eloquence!

[Flake]

OK, "rubbish" is totally harsh but I was speaking relatively.

Like, if you go to the National Gallery in Edinburgh, there's a Franz Hals there, pretty damn good painter but it looks quite rubbish because it's in the same small room as a really sweet Rembrandt.

I shouldn't post at 3am.

[Kai H]

I dont get people who dont get french academic art.

I love, alma-tadema, waterhouse, laurens, gerome, bargue, boulanger, dagnan-bouvret, lepage, edelfelt, bonnat etc.. perfectionist painters of the 19th ceuntury. There is also something to aim at, when you practice.

I hate when people try to mystify art, and speak about some poetic strange feelings and emotions. Ofcource you got to understand some basic feelings and emotions when you plan your painting and think about whan you want to represent. But i think it is more the choise of the artist that does he want to lean more for the analytic observation and draughmanship than the narrative stuff. I would rather have super draughmanship skills than some mysterious visionary skills, but this would be my choise (a 22 old skilless drawing student :) ofcource.

And also they offer very beautiful images of the world we see. It takes hell alot of practice of seeing shapes, blocking in, seeing tones, adjusting edges, seeing the gesture, rythms of lines... knowledge of anatomy... good taste of subjects and compositions, understanding of human emotions etc. to do that.

For example painter like Bargue, hes subjects were kind of naive. But the technical quality of the paintings were just something unbelieveble (atleast what ive seen from the reproductions). I rank him as number one of my favourite painters or maybe top 3. Just because the draughmanship is so great, that could be also something you look at paintings.