The layman is often baffled that some of the painters they most admire seem to have fallen through the cracks of history. It is beyond their comprehension that painters who could paint so realistically could so easily be dismissed. They are agas when they also learn that if any of these ‘stalwarts’ made it to a museum that they lay hidden in the dark recesses of the basement. Most found their way to sidewalk sales or the trash. The novice seems quite smitten with the overrefined techniques of the French Academy, especially the period between 1840 and 1890 when the competition with the photographic print held sway.

Looking through the roster of Pre-de-Rome Salon winners of this time one can find a whole string of ‘painters history overlooked’; most of the first place winners for painting are unmemorable. They were the product of popular culture and selected by a government-appointed committee; Nothing worthwhile ever comes out of committee, in particular, a government committee. These paintings are as indistinguishable as the painters faded memories. Most don’t even have a wiki page.

The reality is that history accessed these painters and their mediocrity and deemed them to be lightweights in the annals of history. They were unimpressed with the ‘photographic idealism’ and the unabashed sappy sentimentally of flying putti, frolicking, and their ilk.

This kind of imagery is timely and directed toward the ‘Citizen’ with a narrative that is usually in support of some totalitarian mission. (We could name names.) Let it suffice to acknowledge that history most often gets it right, and in this instance, it is spot on.