Actually -- I'm not sure I do find value in Dagnan-Bouveret. Most of the internet images, for me, feel heavy handed - they make me depressed! -- and would go into Mr. Brady's category of "Probably not good, but I'll keep an open mind"
Except for the engaging portraits, which I would put into Michael's "Probably good, but I'll have to think about it" category -- no -- more like "Probably good, but I'll have to see the actual painting" I really wish they included one in the Edvard Munch show we had here last Winter. More than half the paintings shown were by other artists; all of them were contemporary with Dagnan-Bouveret; and many of them were quite similar. But still --- Munch came out on top - at least as far as I was concerned. >It was a demonstration in relativity - it might surprise you but I find high worth in Meissonier for his clarity and restraint - likewise I like Monticelli for just the opposite reasons - I am also fond of a wide range of artists such as both modern Couture to Jenny Saville and John Lee, and pre-Modern such as deHooch (sp?)to Poussin, who allowed their skills to serve their creativity even if the work they would produce was uneven, rather than enslaving their creativity to their skills and the sentimentallity and tastes of their audiences I knew you would find value in Dagnan-Bouveret because your dogmatic vision would not allow you to see what he is for what he is - some one trying to keep up with the tastes of his audience ____________________________________________________________ Click to get your online credit check report & score. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxUJpGtcDzhf62N6XGDObewji 1uISkUYSzCmniIGmWTAtAJHp3BFzK/
