All the impressionists were appreciated towards the END of the beginning of the impressionist movement. This was around 1900. It took the United States of America to accept the art before it became somewhat popular in France and Europe even though Renoir, Monet, Manet, etc.. were able to be accepted into the Paris shows every now and then.
The impressionist Paul Gauguin was a friend of Van Gogh and called him genius.
For the most part. Many painters or artists who stray away from the accepted or “norm” may not find fame within their lifetime, some never will. It all depends on the artists overall acceptance throughout the community. The reason I say “acceptance” is because some artists want to be KNOWN as a great artist but their art suffers a valuable balance of aesthetic pleasure, creativity and also just plain hard work. In other words, “All they want is recognition now, their vanity precedes the art pieces themselves.”
You look at Van Gogh’s work. He is famous because of the art he produced not the name he placed on it. Heck, he even threw some of his stuff away and people would say, “Can I have this?”
2007-03-05 21:21:17
·
answer #1
·
answered by Renoirs_Dream 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
New concepts in art precede parallel concepts in science after which society accepts them. Van Gogh was ahead of his time, and his personality was more than a bit odd. Few people liked Van Gogh or his work...brother Theo was about his only supporter and support.
2007-03-05 20:17:33
·
answer #2
·
answered by Victor 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
most artists weren't. it is a known fact that artists paintings go up in value once the artist is dead. however, i was recently at an art exhibit at a museum in chicago that was about this art dealer who would buy paintings from artists from van gogh to piccasso and a number of other well known artists, and sell them to collectors and other people. im sorry i dont recall the name of the artist but there was one artist who had 150 or so of his paintings purchased by the same man, after this dealer had them, so some of them were popular in their own right, just not popular as we might define them.
2007-03-05 15:25:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by Ashley M 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
One of the reasons his paintings were not appreciated is because of his lack of proper perspective (linear). He was a genius with color and brushstroke but his drawing ability was naught. I doubt his awful drawing ability was "on purpose" to create a new genre of art. More power to the fauves though for their ingenuity and use of color. I love "Starry Night" and some of Van Gogh's landscapes which have a more impressionistic feel.
2007-03-09 14:50:06
·
answer #4
·
answered by SarahLynne 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
He was known to be ecceentric and his paintings were non conventional....
2007-03-05 15:21:42
·
answer #5
·
answered by cesare214 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
It takes seven seconds for the YAnswers web page to open for me to be able to click on the [add your answer] button. thus, is my laptop slow??
2016-08-23 20:21:51
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋