Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: SunkenCiv; Pharmboy

I agree, even the best lithographs of the Impressionists are worthless. Other than the true Renaissance masterpieces, Impressionism is probably my favorite. Any time I’m in a new city with a decent art museum I find time to go. For whatever the reason, Europeans at the time saw little value in Impressionism, so many of the greatest works are in the US.


32 posted on 04/14/2007 10:29:01 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]


To: wagglebee

I noticed that a lot of well-known Impressionist stuff is in the National Gallery, which is where I noticed the discrepancy between live and repro. But as I said, not my favorite genre. Van Gogh was a nut, and I’m also not a big fan, but his work looks spectacular in person; I doubt he’s considered an Impressionist. J.S. Sargent is best known for portraits, but also painted impressionist works which I’ve never seen “live”.


33 posted on 04/14/2007 10:41:50 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (I last updated my profile on Monday, April 2, 2007. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

To: wagglebee; SunkenCiv

Chicago is the place to see Impressionists. New York City turned their nose up to this new French “art” and Chicago bought it (1890s I think).


38 posted on 04/14/2007 4:03:10 PM PDT by Pharmboy ([She turned me into a] Newt! in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson