The first lesson in artworld reality is that of the many, many highly deserving artists and their work, very few are ever remembered in art history. The reasons are diverse but they imitate the same happenstance that is true in all walks of life. You could almost begin with any reason at all and find that it has some bearing on the fate of someone who deserved greater reknown.
The National Gallery in D.C. has a wonderful collection. We must keep in mind that the bulk of the basic collection was a gift from the dime store king, Kresge. Thus many of the masters included there reflect his taste. Like any significant collector, he had his advisors and their tastes as well as his own and he, like all collectors, had an eye on the market. Your bitter laments about artists who deserve greater recognition and who were the "victims" of an evil cabal of museum curators, merchants., etc., are pointless and do nothing except solidify the cement around the lost artists in the their graves. Pity doesn't do a thing for revisionism. But revision is always needed and there's always room and interest in a deserving lost artist. What you should do is engage in some serious research, write an article, and get it published in a noteworthy Journal. There are plenty of opportunities, especially in the journals published by the museums that do have such a lost artist's work, buried or not. The point is, build over the things you see wrong. Every single thing ever done to advance knowledge and remind us of worthy human efforts was built over previous ignorance and mistakes. That's what I think. WC --- On Tue, 12/16/08, Chris Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> > Subject: Major galleries and their treatment of traditional portraiture > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 9:46 AM > Clearly, the National Gallery has never had a problem with > showing the work of > a "Beaux-Arts- trained portraitist" born around > the time of Thomas Eakins - > but it would be extraordinary if they were to exhibit that > kind of painter > who was born after 1900 -- and shocking if they were to > exhibit portraits or > paintings of Indians by an artist born after 1950. > > As to "the way those paintings were grabbed up and > rarely ever seen" -- isn't > that just because major museums have not been interested in > showing them ? > > Why is De Forest Brush so much more obscure than Thomas > Eakins ? > > I guess it's because he never painted anything like > the "Gross Clinic" -- but > regarding his portraits, at least judging from the jpg > images, I'm not seeing > such a big difference in remarkability. > > De Forest Brush is so magnificently obscure -- he's not > even listed among the > 5,289 mostly 19th C. academic painters found on > Artrenewal.org. > > Now that's obscure. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Take your cooking skills to the next level. Find a cooking > school near you! > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/PnY6rc1mKyRFld7Eec3KrC9bylvtGP > YU9RLDhxXTJahZe61FMXtMg/
