Great master or king of kitsch?

Most people have heard of Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, Rubens and El Greco. And, of course, a smattering of modern painters. But who on earth was Adolphe William Bouguereau?

Don't worry. I never heard of him either, until I encountered a curious group on the web known as the "Art Renewal Center" (ARC). This group, apparently a kind of artistic version of Dick Cheney's Neo-Cons, opposes modern art, from the Impressionists onwards, claiming it's a gigantic conspiracy (yet, they sell Impressionist artwork). Instead, the ARC wants to promote classical Western art. But are they? Well, not really, since according to this group, the best and greatest painter who ever lived wasn't somebody from the Renaissance or the Baroque, but...Adolphe William Bouguereau!

But why? His paintings are banal, lifeless and, quite frankly, kitsch. Presumably, the unsophisticated Yankees, not having the benefits of a classical European education, can't tell the difference between real classical art and kitschie imitations made for the commercial (US of A) market. Why are we not surprised? The ARC, after all, has a very populist view of art. Their main objection to modern art is that it's incomprehensible (they have a point). But Baroque art is also incomprehensible, unless you are privy to some deep knowledge about the complex symbolism of such artworks. Even the frivolous Rococo turns out to be more complicated once you start studying it. Bouguereau, on the other hand, is immediately comprehensible. His nudes, after all, are just nude. No deep symbolism here.

"Bouguereau" by Fronia Wissman is a relatively positive look at this French painter, born in 1825 and deceased in 1905. The book also contains lavish colour illustrations of his paintings. Personally, I find the book to be too positive and appreciative. After all, there is much to criticize in Bouguereau's art. It's heavily erotic, but usually only women are eroticized. In some paintings, Bouguereau also eroticizes children, often young girls. And while Bouguereau is said to have been an excellent drawer, most of his paintings give a lifeless, stylized impression ("idealized" according to Wissman). A few of them strike me as beautiful in a superficial kind of way, but most are just stale.

Fronia Wissman attempts to defend Bouguereau with the argument that he was a product of his times. I disagree. There was nothing in particular (except market demand, perhaps) that forced Bouguereau to paint nude and eroticized children, and the Impressionists, Pre-Raphaelites and Symbolists were already experimenting with new forms of artistic expression (for good or for worse). Our Frenchman choose consciously to paint the way he did. Besides, since when is it a positive to be simply a child of your own time?

Incidentally, the book has no known connection to the ARC. I just took this opportunity to annoy them a little bit...