Many of the art books I've been looking at that feature artists are "retrospective exhibitions" of the artists and their works. This makes me wonder, why are many artists more famous after their time than during it?
One example of this can be found a feature article on the Art Daily Web site today. The first thing you see is a picture of the "Bust of Renoir" and the article that follows is about a French artist by the name of Aristide Maillol who now has a retrospective exhibition of more than 120 works of art in Barcelona.
While Maillol was, and still is, known in Paris for his work, he was not famous throughout the art world until recently, when Barcelona opened its exhibition. But why did he have to be “rediscovered” to become famous for his work? Why wasn't he known during his time throughout the art world for his beautiful bronze sculptures and incredible tapestry work?
Johannes Vermeer is another example. Vermeer is known throughout the art world now for his use of lighting in his paintings and his transparent coloring. He joined the Guild of Saint Luke in 1653 and slowly became known in his hometown, but after his death his fame died out as well. Vermeer was rediscovered by Gustav Friedrich Waagen and Thoré Bürger, who wrote an essay attributing 65 works of art to him in the 19th century.
Why did it take so long for Vermeer to be recognized for the art he created? I wonder how many unknown artists are alive today who won’t be when they become famous for the art they created?
Many people think that artists are born well before their time. With the research I've been doing, and all the books of exhibitions done as retrospective views of artists' works, I'd have to say I agree.
No comments:
Post a Comment