Challenges of the week give artists the opportunity to create new and fantastic art based on a weekly theme set by the challenge moderators. They are also a great place to develop core skills.
Being featured on ConceptArt.org can get your artwork viewed by millions of artists a month including big industry leaders.
|Color and Light||1.1||Do Assignment|
|Color and Light||1.2||Do Assignment||1.3 | 1.4|
|Illusion of Space and Atmosphere||1||Do Assignment|
|Personal Art||1.1||Do Assignment|
decided to check out this section of the forums =)
One of my favorite painters.. and the last time he as mentioned was in a post from 2002!
so here I am to do William Bouguereau (french) some justice w/ a few of my favorite paintings of his (drag the links into a new window for larger and higher quality images):
and i'm sure everyone has seen these two:
Learn more about Bouguereau at:
Last edited by bio; November 7th, 2004 at 08:26 AM.
i liked his works earlier, but alldays i was wondering...
anyone know how to pronunciate his name? maybe some audio file?
french, strange language .
"boogeroh" all in one smooth word. no "booger-oh" but slightly closer to "boogroh"
That was pretty close bio
And yes he rocks. Doing copies of his work is enlightning. (sp??)
Aline, who has no mike here at work.
"La rose ne pique que celui qui la convoite." -?
what a waist of time and talent. he could paint the figure like hell (especially women), by he's so sappy and stupid. well, at least he's dead now.
I prefer Gérôme.
now, that's nice.
Last edited by sea minus; March 25th, 2004 at 12:13 AM.
I've always found most of his paintings to be rather boring. He seems to get too caught up in details and subject matter. He could have livened his paintings up with more interesting line rythm and expressiveness. Ruben's is a good example of what I'm referring to.
.... Ignorant .
If you can not see the mans skill and respect that it is his choice to paint what ever the fuck he wants. I am disgusted. To the point of wanting to puke.
You don't have the right to bash a dead mans life work even if you can replicate it's quality.
You could cry "freedom of speech" but that is not what I speak of. I speak of respect, something many of you obviously don't understand.
"at least he's dead now"
... I can not fucking believe you said that. Even if you where joking.
Last edited by Beltash; April 15th, 2004 at 04:44 PM.
I would have to emphatically agree with Beltash. There is so much to learn from Bouguereau, even if you don't like his subject matter. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you had a lapse of reason.
Take a good look at range of his work and his mastery of color and value, especially with flesh tones.
Finding his subject boring is your prerogative, but the design, composition, color, brushwork, etc. cannot be called boring by anyone who is really looking at his work.
Beltash, you humorless twit. I have immense respect for the guy. I’ve seen many of his works in the flesh and it’s some of the finest quality oil painting ever created by man. And a waist of time, because his scenes are sappy and stupid, as I said before. Many other painters working in a classical style that were less skilled in the aplication of the paint made much more interesting paintings due to there composition, subject matter, wit, humor and drama. He's the untimate technician, but not very imaginative. That’s just my opinion. We’re all entitled to that, right? Even people like you.
Geesh. You'd think I badmouthed your mom. But I shouldn't be picking on you, you're probably 9.
-ozan, formerly sea minus
Lack of humor had nothing to do with my reply, because there was no joke in your post. (Hey, if I missed it, please feel free to point it out with a direct quote.)
Your posts speak for them selves.
I called you on your lack of respect, which you still harbor.
You call a dead man's life's work a "waste of time" as if your preferences in creativity should some how degrade what the artist wanted to paint. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is a waste of time.
I'm 20 years of age. Cheep shot. If you really want to attempt a flame email me so the rest of the forum doesn't have to endure your stupidity.
I didn't finish reading your post but I'm sure it was great. bye.
[Bouguereau made a conscious decision to paint for the buying public and in the style of the times; i.e. the late Victorian age, which tended toward "pretty" and romantic themes that were later called sappy. Sappy didn't exist in the Victorian age. It's a modern concept. However, time judges great art.Originally posted by sea minus
what a waist of time and talent. he could paint the figure like hell (especially women), by he's so sappy and stupid. well, at least he's dead now. I prefer Gérôme.
now, that's nice.
He was the most popular painter of the rich and famous during his career. Even the poetry of the period reflects this romantic style.
During the late 19th century Bouguereau was considered the greatest painter of his era. He was an academic and if you get close to his work, it is so precise and clean that one can barely see a brushstroke. The results of an education at the Ecole.
During the advent of the modernists, Bouguereau came under particular fire as did most of the Victorian painters. He was literally degraded. Art history books skipped the Victorians completely, jumping from artists like David to the impressionists. Therefore, a generation of future educators and artists were never exposed to Bouguereau or his contemporaries. His paintings were sold for pennies by museums that did not predict the return of an appreciation for realism; especially since art schools were ridding themselves of realist teachers through natural attrition and then forcibly, and replacing them with modernists who were not pragmatically trained. The techniques and methods were nearly lost – some were undoubtedly lost.
While Bouguereau’s more minor works have sold for about 600,000 plus recently, his major serious paintings have been reclaimed for millions of dollars and gobbled up by museums and collectors.
If you enter his name in Google and click on News, you'll see some interesting recent happenings regarding the sale of what has been considered one of his minor gypsy paintings by the Minneapolis Institute of Art.
Fred Ross, chairman of the Art Renewal Center owns ten Bouguereau paintings (all of which fall into this category or are studies). He encouraged a public outcry in response to the then pending sale of “The Bohemian” by the Minneapolis Institute of Art.
The MIA had actually not exhibited the work for ten years and before that, it had hung it in the ladies bathroom at the museum. However, it was a particularly popular print and could be purchased on cups and plates, calendars etc.
No artists, art students, art historians’ etc. had apparently had been allowed access to the painting in all this time.
The negative publicity surrounding the objections to the sale is believed to have affected the selling price. The predicted value was between $700K to $900K but it sold at Christie's for only about $635K about a week ago. It was sold to an American collector, identity still unknown.
Last edited by Justme; May 1st, 2004 at 02:24 PM.
Thats fascinating, thank you.
Thats fascinating, thank you.
I've seen that first painting in person at the Getty. It's pretty awesome.
It's a shame that anyone who is here would degrade him and his work, how many of us are creating contemplative masterpieces which will stand the test of time? Seriously, 99 percent of our jobs are drawing an alien, or some space ship for a videogame or an rpg or toy. Are we really creating some bastion of timeless art for the world to wonder at for generations to come? If you are looking for great meaning in art then maybe doing watercolor sketches of dwarves for video games ain't the way to go....
steve, I assume your talking to me because I have so far I've talked the most smack about ol' bougee, so I'll respond. I'm so tired of defending myself on these forums when I'm critical of something or someone. What is the gd point of this comunication when someone cant say they dont like something? Give me a break. Trust me, I see that the kind of "art" that we make here not exactly art history material. Just because I can't paint like that doesn't mean that I dont have the right to say that I dont like it. His shit is not intesting to me. And there is a lot of "low art", stuff that will probably not be remembered that I much prefer to look at. So there.
*note to self, never speak your mind on an internet art forum
Last edited by ozan; May 8th, 2004 at 01:09 AM.
Okay. I repent. Let me apologize for my misbehavior. I let my posts in this thread get a little too surly.
I also apologize to Beltash. You overreacted and then I fueled the fire. Sorry.
Perhaps I should have not posted at all considering that this thread was intended to allow people (bio initially) to share their appreciation of Bouguereau’s paintings. So then, my comment was inappropriate for the context. However, I would like to quote myself in order to restate the crux of my opinion:
“Many other painters working in a classical style that were less skilled in the application of the paint made much more interesting paintings due to there composition, subject matter, wit, humor and drama (like Gerome). He's the ultimate technician, but not very imaginative.”
Bio, I “boogered” up your thread, sorry. I’m done. But for the record, I must say that I am fully aware of the connection between Bouguereau’s work and that of contemporary fantasy artists. And I DO think that the artwork on my website is derivative and silly. Sometimes stupid and boring, even. Just like most fantasy art, so I don’t know where you were going with that one.
Adios. I’m off to pretend I’m intelligent elsewhere.
No hard feelings man. I did over react.
It's not really that you said you didn't like it, but the way to acted like it was fact that he wasted his time or whatever.
Anyway. Cheers and let's get on with art history. I think Zorn needs a thread... He had a host of Gods in his hands.
lol @ jrr..
i dunno, i like bougereau and gerome about equally..
I must say if you are looking for exquisite paintings from history, you must lookk into salvidor dali!!!!!! THE BEST
I agree with both Ozan and everyone in here.
After looking at much of the art work done by masters of the past, most of it is sappy by todays standards of subject matter, and art execution. Most of all the European art masters subject matter consisted of pretty women in robes in pretty poses doing something pretty, or sometimes the dudes in robes are doing the same, looking real fruity, like in Michaelagnelo's works. Even many of his women looked grossly masculine, which I;m sure his attraction to men played some part. Once in a while, a pianting of a king, or the kings warriors. Or more naked cupids. Cute angel chicks with dove wings. Or it's a romantic environment painting. Just about the entire art world of the Eurpoean past was sappy artwork by today's standards. But back then, they didn't have the ideas we have today. Back then, what they painted was considered cool and great, not sappy at all. As an artist of today, I think that whether the art's subject matter is sappy and redundant or not, try to think back to how life was back then to appreciate what it took for those artists to do what they created. And yeah, their subject matter doesn't hold up to many people today, but their skills in everway holds up in a timeless way. Not just with rendering, but with Story Telling. It takes great skill to be able to tell a story so well with well thought out composition, thinking of clothing and other elements, building structure design, etc.
'Sappy' (or actually a better word could be 'Dated') could be used for many master artists work of today. After a while, any art no matter how good you are, the subject matter may eventually become sappy in the future because ideas become old and clitche' through time. But it's still great art work, and not a waste of time, because without those, (now) sappy artists, artist wouldn't be doing what they're doing today. Artists don't become good by themselves, they become good by learning techqniues of the past in some way or another.
Boug may be sappy by todays standards, but he captured those moments in time that he created, excellently, with such believability.
It is so petty to see this guy take heat for his subject matter. What would be the big different if he were producing Biblical, historical, or Portrait paintings of wealthy chumps.
The bottom line is that he produced well designed and well painted pieces.
It's funny to have Art History teacher ignore Boug and Sargent just because their lives weren't played out like a Soap Opera as much as Ruben's.
The more you learn about art, the more you learn it has little to do with the physical painting on the canvas. Well, at least the art in Art History.
Josh - And I've learned that art history, like any history, is a very biased one thats usually not very true to reality. Like when the historians and critics write down in their own dramatic way about specific artists that they claim were the best or most divine with talent, neglecting all the others who were just as good or better. And what ever is written in the history books, and what ever the critics have said and written about artists, usually dictates what readers and those who study these books, feel towards specific artists and art movements. A lot of people feel that, "hey, this was written in the history books, so it must be true." Yeah right. And then groups of artist and new historians and critics follow what ever was written.
Like for example, not all, but a lot of writtings in history books talk down about Norman Rockwells works. They called him and his works all sorts of stuff. Not all, but those people who's eager to believe what evers written then think, "yeah, Rockwells work is this way and that way", restating what ever they read in the history books. But for those who enjoy Rockwell's work first without any knowledge of the corrupt literiture written about Rockwell, they usually see past the bull that was written by historians and critics of the past. And if you read the shit first then saw a Rockwell, it takes some strength to realize not to trust everything that was written. And if people don't like Rockwell's work because of their own opinion about it, without any biased jargon from any literiture or here-say gossip, then I respect that.
This is just some of the things that bothered me about how some teachers and students acted at school when it came to history.
yep, me and my big ass posts. I gotta cut that out soon.
When I die, I'm going to form a gang with Rockwell, Bridgman, and Bruce Lee, and we're gonna beat all the critics asses.
Great stuff! That Art Renewal site is awesome, as well.