Defending Bouguereau

The late-19th century was a pivotal era in the history of art. This period ushered in the Academic Painters, Impressionists, and Post-Impressionists. The latter two groups are considered pioneers whereas the first category of artists are relegated to general obscurity. I say this because the term "academic painting" was and still is considered derogatory. If you are unfamiliar with academic painting, it is basically an art style that is conventional in nature and generally adheres to strict classical ideals. In a nutshell, the Academic Painters represented tradition and the Impressionists and Post-Impressionists sought change.

William Adolphe Bouguereau was a French academic painter, whose works reflected a long tradition of Western style painting. He wanted to keep the art of the Renaissance alive, citing Titian, an Old Master, as inspiration. The problem was, although he was popular among his contemporaries for creating realistic paintings with a fine polish, he would become ignored throughout the 20th century once Modernism took over. The preference for the "new" would be the end of him for a long time.

There's no doubt that Modernism introduced many compelling works for us to enjoy today. Despite the positive aspects that this period brought, the negative ideas revolved around seeing tradition as being useless. When it comes to Bouguereau, critics assaulted his works because they deemed them "too pretty" or "too polished". Other critics today say that many of his paintings look like something you would see on a Hallmark card, cute and cheesy. Another one of the biggest knocks on Bouguereau is that he was a master craftsman with no substance. He could paint with the best of them but he had nothing to say. Here's a link to some of his work so you can get an idea of where they're coming from: http://www.artrenewal.org/museum/b/Bouguereau_William/bio1.asp

Although such critics make arguable points, I feel the need to defend the strengths Bouguereau did possess. Viewing his paintings from our current time in history can indeed make his work seem a bit sentimental and dated. However, his ability to compose figures for the most impact is second to none, not to mention he was a virtuoso with color. When you gaze at some of his portraits, he does idealize certain aspects of a person, even if it doesn't reflect the misfortunes they face in life. He doesn't paint realism, which is why many critics do not appreciate him. Instead of painting what he sees, he tries to convey the unapparent beauty that remains obscured. This comes across as sentimentality but I think it is just another way to make art. In my opinion, some people make art to express beauty unseen, while others capture the hard reality of the subject. Bouguereau accomplished the former.