I don't know if I mind that the background in "Ryan" occupies such a flat space, which I agree that it does. I do find the thing to be a little gimmicky...I feel like all the bric a brac has been put in to show off the artist's virtuosity. Also, I suppose the painting may be highly allegorical, between the selection of objects and the fact that the kid is standing on a gold ball. It's all beautifully painted, and I'm in awe of it, but it's not straightforward I don't think...I tend not to like art quite as well when you need a printed essay to understand it.
I'm with you in liking the third place painting the best.
ARC is a wonderful resource, isn't it?
It is indeed. Its search facilities can be a bit confusing sometimes, and sometimes the translations of paintings' titles as shown in the sidebars don't match those in the database, but it's still an amazing site.
I wonder how the history of art compares with that of music? Bach wrote pieces in forms which are perhaps quaint compared with some that have been developed since, but he mastered such forms to an extent that most more recent composers can't touch. Although rigid structures can be confining, an artwork of any sort which does not have some sort of underlying structure will just be an amorphous blob.