Great Republican Artists

I figured that out, osso, and was poking fun that I doubted they were going to crate up and move a painting of that size to show in a Manet/Valasquez exhibition. Sargent painted in oil and especially watercolor many war scenes including some studies for the large canvas. I believe the large painting is entitled "Hell," if I'm not mistaken.

It would seem that as he did portraits mostly of very high society, wealthy clients that they may have been Republican/Conservative (the British subjects being Tories ). Interesting to look it up because if he was even vaguely a Republican, he would be the earliest known example of a Log Cabin Republican. :wink:

Sargent didn't enjoy the portraits did he? but they paid the bills - his other work was what was important to him

I believe at one time he loved doing the portraits, loved moving about in that society (the Marcel Proust of painters!) and later on he declared, "No more portraits." His style may be one of the most imitated of all time -- so much of the current very commercial decorative art is emulating Sargent. They just can't get that look that there is "air" in the painting and something like a large porcelain vase with intricate patterns is just suggested but seems very real. The people in the paintings don't look like they're stilted photorealistic but their flesh comes to life, almost in an eerie methaphysical effect.

I might say, like Proust in the written word, that his frozen instance of time reveals character and personality effortlessly.

Wow, LW, that was an excellent description of Sargent's work. You should write catalogs--but only of work you truly admire.

yes a neat turn of phrase and lovely insight

Awww

Okay, I confess, I have written for art catalogs -- actually, I put the whole catalog together. Part of that experience was working for a company called FACT, an acronym for "fine art communications technology." The owner also wrote a manual for artist's marketing their work. I've since lost some contact with him (he's a painter himself). It was a viable and needed service.

I guess that it all depends on the definition of "great" As far as American artists, who are the only ones that can be considered Republican, I think that the Cowboy Artists of America and the whole "western art" community is full of Republicans. Now "great' or not I guess depends on what the person looking at the artwork thinks. It's not my cup of tea, but these artists seem to sell well and there seems to be a ton of their things in museums.

Welcome to A2K, cannistershot.

I worked closely with the specialized Western art gallery in Laguna Beach on lighting, display and exhibitions for several years (now defunct). I met most of the artists showing their work and many of them were big names in the field but very little of the art was in museums. I also worked with the Desert Museum in Palm Springs who showed John Hilton and several well known artists who specialized in paintings of the desert. In my experience, the artists weren't particularly interested in discussing their politics but those who did were pretty much evenly divided between Republican and Democrat. It's fun to theorize but although many artists are commercially successful, mainly by having their work copied and published as limited editions, they are not considered great artists. The works is almost strictly decorative. If you have any proof with names of any famous Western artists who you can prove were Republicans, have at it. Remington is probably the most famous Western artist in museums but try and determine his politics.

Thank you for welcoming me.I worked in an western art museum for 10 years and got to know alot of the artists and also got to have alot of long converations with them as I was framing their work etc. I know who is considered famous in those circles but out in the "real" art world it is a different story. I will not put any names down because all I have is my conversations to rely on no articles etc. but most of the CAA artists were Bush fans, (of course if you figure in the Texas connection it only makes sense).I have left that museum and am now at a University museum but I still have friends in that world.
As far as being decorative art I agree for the most part, like I said it's not my cup of tea, but I think that realism has it's place just like everything else. I don't even try to decide what is art and what is not, I think that the most important thing is to find something that you like and admire it.

Sorry. Lightwizard, I will take the question of Remington as a personal challenge I haven't really thought about his politics one way or the other. I also noticed that the museum/gallery that you worked at was in Cal. do you think that makes a difference? I'm not trying to turn anything one way or the other I simply read the thread and wanted to put in my two cents. I know that the museum that I work at now I never see a republican or at least anyone who will admit it with all of the Kerry stickers on campus.

Sorry. Lightwizard, I will take the question of Remington as a personal challenge I haven't really thought about his politics one way or the other. I also noticed that the museum/gallery that you worked at was in Cal. do you think that makes a difference? I'm not trying to turn anything one way or the other I simply read the thread and wanted to put in my two cents. I know that the museum that I work at now I never see a republican or at least anyone who will admit it with all of the Kerry stickers on campus.

The problem is always going to be with modern realistic or even impressionistic work that is subjective is it's necessarily marked resemblance to paintings of the past. My experience with these artists is that they too consciously copy styles, subject matter, colors and composition of old masters. The only artist so far that anyone has name that could be absolutely confirmed as a Republican is Thomas Kinkade. 'Nuff said in that case. Yes, I would figure that a western art museum in Texas could harbor some Bush fans!

Privately financed museums can certainly have an agenda, that's for sure. I think what the poster meant by great artists are those who should be known by anyone seriously interested in art and whose work is in major museums. Of course, there are those who are not happy about the quality of their work being judged as second rate or banal and not worthy of being shown in a museum. Hitler happens to be one of them.

I live in a city Western Art is heavily represented. Frankly, I rarely see works which are not banal. They lack aesthetic power or spirit almost as a stylistic requirement of the genre. Their aristic goal, if they actually have one, is rarely more than blatant sentimentalism.

I have another question to add. Are all serial killers artists? I think that in most of the posts the point is that liberals are more creative, I belive that this is interesting as well.

Of course, not all liberals are creative, but I'm quite confident that creative people tend to be liberal. I'm not so sure about serial killers.
By the way, welcome to A2K, Cannistershot. You're a fine addition.

Sure, creative people have a tendency to be very liberal. But they also have a tendency to be highly emotional and illogical. I'm rare in that I am creative, highly emotional, and logical [yes, there are frequent battles in this brain.] And also a libertarian (which you could label "conservative.")

yes, being an artist doesn't necessarily make you a caring person - Renoir was extremely anti-semitic

Libertarianism is closer to anarchism than conservativism. There are conservative Democrats. Anti-semitism was rather stylish in Europe during Renoir's time. Let's not let America off the hook, either. Otherwise films like "Gentlemen's Agreement" would never have been made. My aunt and uncle lived in the part of Newport Beach where it was an unspoken law not to sell any property to those of the Jewish faith in the 1950's and that lasted clear up through the 70's.

I agree, JL, that most Western art could be stills from movie Westerns.