Posted: May 03, 2013 1:58 pm
by orpheus
Regina wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
ramseyoptom wrote:I suspect one reason the Turner is not credited as the father of Impressionism is a form of art world snobbery. For some continental art critics the idea that a major art movement could be traced to a British artist would be anathema, especially that quite a few of the Impressionists were French.

This may seem a chauvanistic statement, but I have noticed that in the art world, especially the European, that the idea that Britain/England could contribute originality to art is treated as laughable.


The Pre-Raphaelites blow that canard out of the water with a nuclear depth charge. :)

I find it mildly amusing that the construct of "nationality" still seems to play a role in discussions of art. Or does it still rankle that the Court considered Holbein and van Dyck to be superior to the local talent of the time?


Yes, but remember that art is one thing; discussions about art are another. That "nationality" plays a role in discussions about art doesn't mean it plays a role in the making of the art itself. Artists and art critics are quite different animals.