[Rembrandt_fan]

When I think of art and artists, I don't tend to think in terms of schools or movements, but rather, in terms of individuals. Watteau is one of my favorites not because he is associated with Rococo, a style and approach I personally detest, but because his conte crayon drawings are so extraordinarily wonderful and fine. Further, Watteau 'did' Rococo, I suspect, because that's the style the wealthy patrons (such as Mme. Pompadour) were buying. Artists follow the markets and the mood of their times, by and large. Watteau was no different: a man's gotta eat. That 'starving artist' business is a fool's game. So while his Rococo-style paintings, colorful and frivolous, don't exactly detract from his oeuvre, I generally don't think of them when I think of him.

(Here's an irony, though: from what I've read, Rembrandt did not paint his religiously themed pictures because of the market--the demand for religiously themed work was notoriously low in Europe at that time, except for Spain. He did them because he had to. I can appreciate that kind of irresistible impulse, that desire to tackle the truly big subjects, markets be damned.)

[Sam Cree]

"When I think of art and artists, I don't tend to think in terms of schools or movements, but rather, in terms of individuals."

Now there is a clear sign of someone who is no longer a leftist!

[AnAmericanMother]

It was the paintings that I can't stomach - I agree that Watteau's crayon sketches are marvelous.

[AnAmericanMother]

Re Rembrandt's religous paintings, I absolutely agree.

He's in another league altogether . . . maybe in a league of his own. I'm just shagging fly balls in the Industrial Association (a rough league, if you remember it. I knew a fellow who was a Texas Ranger and an Industrial League umpire -- said the latter job was far more dangerous.)