>>948604what? so because they worked on same themes their work must've been equal? no. it's not what you paint, it's how you paint it. bouguereau's work adds nothing new to the subject.
>>948611great strawman.
bouguereau WAS ignored - after his death, for hundreds of years. same will happen to contemporary shit tier artists like jeff koons and hirst. just because you make lots of money doesn't mean your work will stand time.
also, having an entire damn art movement started because your works sucks so much should be a good clue. it's ironic that nowadays bouguereau is mostly liked by people who hate contemporary art and will favor any mediocre works as long as they have "realism". it's a knee-jerk reaction and you people seriously think you are better than those who automatically hate all classical art?
and I have seen this guy's paintings. they are well painted, but so what? do you even realize how many painters are working right now all over the world who are technically just as good as him but will never be considered truly great? because good technique does not good art make.
that's something people here fail to realize again and again and it shows how immature your understanding of art and it's language really is. things like substance, meaning and symbolism are not just some buzzwords. western art has a great tradition of subtle and not-so-subtle ways of sending a message trough single painting. artists like bouguereau don't use it. they simply focus on the most superficial level of painting: the beauty of it.
and considering that there are plenty of painters who manage to have BOTH style AND substance, why should anyone waste their time with anything less??