Andrea here, musing today about art and history, two subjects near and dear to my heart. One of the fundamental reasons I love the Regency era is because it was a time of challenging of the old order and served as a catalyst for new ways of thinking about all aspects of society—the birth of the Modern! Art was no exception. The blossoming of Romanticism—individuals suddenly free to express an emotional reaction to the world around them—ignited a whole new realm of creativity.
Color, brushstrokes, draftsmanship—the traditional ways of depicting subjects gave way to experimentation and imagination. Turner began dabbling in a bold new way that inspired Impressionism. And the French artist Delacroix . . . hmmm, well, Delacroix has been a conundrum to art critics over the years. But a grand new retrospective of his work currently on view at the Met in New York City, is generating raves and new appreciation of what a revolutionary artist he was. (You can listen to the Met curator of the exhibit give a short talk on Delacroix’s genius here.)
“French painter Eugène Delacroix (1798–1863) was one of the greatest creative figures of the nineteenth century. Coming of age after the fall of Napoleon, he reconnected the present to the past on his own terms.” —The Met
I have to confess, it took me a while to understand Delacroix. I saw him as one of a number of artists who depicted historical scenes with great technical skill, but little “genius.” I slowly began to realize what I was missing when I started to read a little about him, and look a little more closely at his art. Oh, was I wrong.
Before I get to why I adore his art, now that I see it in a different way, let’s take a brief look at the artist himself. Like his paintings, his parentage is . . . open to interpretation. I like to believe what many historians think is likely: that his real father was Tallyrand, the legendary (and Machiavellian) diplomat who figures so prominently in early 19th century European politics. Tallyrand was a close family friend (perhaps too close) and throughout his life protected the Delacroix’s career. (In adult life, Delacroix greatly resembled the famous diplomat, both physically and temperamentally.)
Born in 1798, Delacroix received an early education with a deep grounding in the classical subjects, which served as artistic inspiration all his life. Orphaned at age sixteen, he began his formal art training soon after. His first major breakthrough came when his painting, The Barque of Dante, (shown above) was accepted by the Paris Salon in 1822.
In 1825, he made a trip to England and met Sir Thomas Lawrence and Richard Parkes Bonington (two of my favorite painters.) He was influenced by how Bonington and Constable depicted landscapes, and his own style became looser in terms of precise outline and use of color. In addition to classical subjects, he began to take inspiration from Shakespeare and especially from Byron, whose romantic poetry struck a kindred chord with him.
Delacroix also said he was much influenced by music: " . . . nothing can be compared with the emotion caused by music; that it expresses incomparable shades of feeling." Beethoven and Chopin were particular favorites. (His self-portrait is above.)
Recognized as a leader of the Romantic movement, Delacroix seemed to fade from public perception as the Impressionism took the art world by storm (even though Cezanne and van Gogh were great admirers) and in modern times he’s been relegated to the secondary ranks of influential painters. But today his genius is being rediscovered and given its rightful place in art history.
So, back to why I’ve become a big fan. I love the comment in the New York Times review of the exhibit, which I think captures why Delacroix is such a mystery to many people: “While he opened the door to Modern painting as a process, he kept it tightly closed to modern life.”
I think that fact that he chose mostly classical subject or exotic settings (he was very taken with North Africa, which he visited on a diplomatic mission.) which tend to make a viewer overlook his startling creativity with color, brushstrokes and distortion of space and perspective. The powerful compositions, where he uses light and dark to draw the eye to a focal point, are, I think brilliant, as are the brilliant use of color—usually red— as dramatic punctuation. In his last journal entry, Delacroix wrote: “The first merit of painting is to be a feast for the eye.” Well, his works are a veritable banquet.
Pablo Picasso perhaps said it best when he told fellow painter Francoise Gilot: “That bastard. He’s really good.”
So what about you—are you a fan of Delacroix, or is he just one of those names that vaguely rings a bell from an art history survey course? Do you like the paintings shown here, or do you prefer a different style of painting? Who is YOUR favorite painter?
While studying physics in London I was learning to view the world through the mathematical lenses of Quantum theory and Relativity …. a strange vision indeed. But as relaxation I spent time absorbing the culture of the city through theater, music and art. Some works of modern art puzzled me a lot as I looked for meanings or messages. I surmised that perhaps the artists were viewing the world through some kind of emotional lens but could see little consistency in that hypothesis. Eventually I concluded that the objective of the artists was simply to delight or puzzle the eye … agreeing with the quote from Delacroix: “The first merit of painting is to be a feast for the eye.”
For a long time in those early days a print of one of Picasso’s cubist works hung in my hall and to this day his ‘Madame Z’ adorns my staircase, largely as a reminder of those formative student days. Nowadays I look for pure beauty in a painting. I particularly like the pre-Raphaelites but also pictures of natural landscapes, for example the flower meadows of the Welsh artist Meg Stevens.
Thanks for such a stimulating post Andrea 😊
While studying physics in London I was learning to view the world through the mathematical lenses of Quantum theory and Relativity …. a strange vision indeed. But as relaxation I spent time absorbing the culture of the city through theater, music and art. Some works of modern art puzzled me a lot as I looked for meanings or messages. I surmised that perhaps the artists were viewing the world through some kind of emotional lens but could see little consistency in that hypothesis. Eventually I concluded that the objective of the artists was simply to delight or puzzle the eye … agreeing with the quote from Delacroix: “The first merit of painting is to be a feast for the eye.”
For a long time in those early days a print of one of Picasso’s cubist works hung in my hall and to this day his ‘Madame Z’ adorns my staircase, largely as a reminder of those formative student days. Nowadays I look for pure beauty in a painting. I particularly like the pre-Raphaelites but also pictures of natural landscapes, for example the flower meadows of the Welsh artist Meg Stevens.
Thanks for such a stimulating post Andrea 😊
While studying physics in London I was learning to view the world through the mathematical lenses of Quantum theory and Relativity …. a strange vision indeed. But as relaxation I spent time absorbing the culture of the city through theater, music and art. Some works of modern art puzzled me a lot as I looked for meanings or messages. I surmised that perhaps the artists were viewing the world through some kind of emotional lens but could see little consistency in that hypothesis. Eventually I concluded that the objective of the artists was simply to delight or puzzle the eye … agreeing with the quote from Delacroix: “The first merit of painting is to be a feast for the eye.”
For a long time in those early days a print of one of Picasso’s cubist works hung in my hall and to this day his ‘Madame Z’ adorns my staircase, largely as a reminder of those formative student days. Nowadays I look for pure beauty in a painting. I particularly like the pre-Raphaelites but also pictures of natural landscapes, for example the flower meadows of the Welsh artist Meg Stevens.
Thanks for such a stimulating post Andrea 😊
While studying physics in London I was learning to view the world through the mathematical lenses of Quantum theory and Relativity …. a strange vision indeed. But as relaxation I spent time absorbing the culture of the city through theater, music and art. Some works of modern art puzzled me a lot as I looked for meanings or messages. I surmised that perhaps the artists were viewing the world through some kind of emotional lens but could see little consistency in that hypothesis. Eventually I concluded that the objective of the artists was simply to delight or puzzle the eye … agreeing with the quote from Delacroix: “The first merit of painting is to be a feast for the eye.”
For a long time in those early days a print of one of Picasso’s cubist works hung in my hall and to this day his ‘Madame Z’ adorns my staircase, largely as a reminder of those formative student days. Nowadays I look for pure beauty in a painting. I particularly like the pre-Raphaelites but also pictures of natural landscapes, for example the flower meadows of the Welsh artist Meg Stevens.
Thanks for such a stimulating post Andrea 😊
While studying physics in London I was learning to view the world through the mathematical lenses of Quantum theory and Relativity …. a strange vision indeed. But as relaxation I spent time absorbing the culture of the city through theater, music and art. Some works of modern art puzzled me a lot as I looked for meanings or messages. I surmised that perhaps the artists were viewing the world through some kind of emotional lens but could see little consistency in that hypothesis. Eventually I concluded that the objective of the artists was simply to delight or puzzle the eye … agreeing with the quote from Delacroix: “The first merit of painting is to be a feast for the eye.”
For a long time in those early days a print of one of Picasso’s cubist works hung in my hall and to this day his ‘Madame Z’ adorns my staircase, largely as a reminder of those formative student days. Nowadays I look for pure beauty in a painting. I particularly like the pre-Raphaelites but also pictures of natural landscapes, for example the flower meadows of the Welsh artist Meg Stevens.
Thanks for such a stimulating post Andrea 😊
Quantum, it’s so interesting to think how at your advanced level of physics, you’re looking at the nature of reality and what it means . . . and in a way, artists explore the same thing.
I feel the same way you do about some modern art. Struggling to understand what, exactly, an artist is “saying” often feels baffling. For example, Jackson Pollack has always been a total mystery to me. Then I read a wonderful book called “The Art of Rivalry” by Sebastian Schmee. In it he takes five pairs of prominent artists and talks about how they pushed each other to make breakthroughs. It was then that I came to understand Pollack’s exploration with the nature of paint, in and of itself, and how the spatters were him doing gestures above the canvas, testing how different actions affected the way it fell. So suddenly I saw his thinking in a whole new way, and have come to appreciate him as an artist—but in a completely different sense of the word than I use for a figurative painter.
So I’ve come to think painters see the world through an infinite variety of prisms, both emotional and intellectual, and purely technical. And I find that very exciting!
Quantum, it’s so interesting to think how at your advanced level of physics, you’re looking at the nature of reality and what it means . . . and in a way, artists explore the same thing.
I feel the same way you do about some modern art. Struggling to understand what, exactly, an artist is “saying” often feels baffling. For example, Jackson Pollack has always been a total mystery to me. Then I read a wonderful book called “The Art of Rivalry” by Sebastian Schmee. In it he takes five pairs of prominent artists and talks about how they pushed each other to make breakthroughs. It was then that I came to understand Pollack’s exploration with the nature of paint, in and of itself, and how the spatters were him doing gestures above the canvas, testing how different actions affected the way it fell. So suddenly I saw his thinking in a whole new way, and have come to appreciate him as an artist—but in a completely different sense of the word than I use for a figurative painter.
So I’ve come to think painters see the world through an infinite variety of prisms, both emotional and intellectual, and purely technical. And I find that very exciting!
Quantum, it’s so interesting to think how at your advanced level of physics, you’re looking at the nature of reality and what it means . . . and in a way, artists explore the same thing.
I feel the same way you do about some modern art. Struggling to understand what, exactly, an artist is “saying” often feels baffling. For example, Jackson Pollack has always been a total mystery to me. Then I read a wonderful book called “The Art of Rivalry” by Sebastian Schmee. In it he takes five pairs of prominent artists and talks about how they pushed each other to make breakthroughs. It was then that I came to understand Pollack’s exploration with the nature of paint, in and of itself, and how the spatters were him doing gestures above the canvas, testing how different actions affected the way it fell. So suddenly I saw his thinking in a whole new way, and have come to appreciate him as an artist—but in a completely different sense of the word than I use for a figurative painter.
So I’ve come to think painters see the world through an infinite variety of prisms, both emotional and intellectual, and purely technical. And I find that very exciting!
Quantum, it’s so interesting to think how at your advanced level of physics, you’re looking at the nature of reality and what it means . . . and in a way, artists explore the same thing.
I feel the same way you do about some modern art. Struggling to understand what, exactly, an artist is “saying” often feels baffling. For example, Jackson Pollack has always been a total mystery to me. Then I read a wonderful book called “The Art of Rivalry” by Sebastian Schmee. In it he takes five pairs of prominent artists and talks about how they pushed each other to make breakthroughs. It was then that I came to understand Pollack’s exploration with the nature of paint, in and of itself, and how the spatters were him doing gestures above the canvas, testing how different actions affected the way it fell. So suddenly I saw his thinking in a whole new way, and have come to appreciate him as an artist—but in a completely different sense of the word than I use for a figurative painter.
So I’ve come to think painters see the world through an infinite variety of prisms, both emotional and intellectual, and purely technical. And I find that very exciting!
Quantum, it’s so interesting to think how at your advanced level of physics, you’re looking at the nature of reality and what it means . . . and in a way, artists explore the same thing.
I feel the same way you do about some modern art. Struggling to understand what, exactly, an artist is “saying” often feels baffling. For example, Jackson Pollack has always been a total mystery to me. Then I read a wonderful book called “The Art of Rivalry” by Sebastian Schmee. In it he takes five pairs of prominent artists and talks about how they pushed each other to make breakthroughs. It was then that I came to understand Pollack’s exploration with the nature of paint, in and of itself, and how the spatters were him doing gestures above the canvas, testing how different actions affected the way it fell. So suddenly I saw his thinking in a whole new way, and have come to appreciate him as an artist—but in a completely different sense of the word than I use for a figurative painter.
So I’ve come to think painters see the world through an infinite variety of prisms, both emotional and intellectual, and purely technical. And I find that very exciting!
p.s. I’m a big fan of the Pre-Raphaelites, too.
p.s. I’m a big fan of the Pre-Raphaelites, too.
p.s. I’m a big fan of the Pre-Raphaelites, too.
p.s. I’m a big fan of the Pre-Raphaelites, too.
p.s. I’m a big fan of the Pre-Raphaelites, too.
Another vote for the Pre-Raphaelites! I love the exquisite details and the way the pictures tell stories.
I looked at the Barque of Dante and for some reason thought “Caravaggio.” The robust naked bodies, probably.
Another painter I’m very fond of in a very different style is David. Such exquisite draftmanship!
Another vote for the Pre-Raphaelites! I love the exquisite details and the way the pictures tell stories.
I looked at the Barque of Dante and for some reason thought “Caravaggio.” The robust naked bodies, probably.
Another painter I’m very fond of in a very different style is David. Such exquisite draftmanship!
Another vote for the Pre-Raphaelites! I love the exquisite details and the way the pictures tell stories.
I looked at the Barque of Dante and for some reason thought “Caravaggio.” The robust naked bodies, probably.
Another painter I’m very fond of in a very different style is David. Such exquisite draftmanship!
Another vote for the Pre-Raphaelites! I love the exquisite details and the way the pictures tell stories.
I looked at the Barque of Dante and for some reason thought “Caravaggio.” The robust naked bodies, probably.
Another painter I’m very fond of in a very different style is David. Such exquisite draftmanship!
Another vote for the Pre-Raphaelites! I love the exquisite details and the way the pictures tell stories.
I looked at the Barque of Dante and for some reason thought “Caravaggio.” The robust naked bodies, probably.
Another painter I’m very fond of in a very different style is David. Such exquisite draftmanship!
I went to see the two exhibits at the Met. “Devotion to Drawing” showed his amazing draftsmanship. His work of learning anatomy of humans and animals continued with the painting exhibit.
His work of tribes warring with each other and animals fighting shows such astounding action in the moment.
I was so taken by the painting of Cleopatra contemplating the snakes hidden in a basket of figs brought to her by a peasant who looks a little too pleased to show it to her.
I take in the visual from a more visceral viewpoint because I’m a dancer, and Delacroix truly is “…a feast for the eye.”
I went to see the two exhibits at the Met. “Devotion to Drawing” showed his amazing draftsmanship. His work of learning anatomy of humans and animals continued with the painting exhibit.
His work of tribes warring with each other and animals fighting shows such astounding action in the moment.
I was so taken by the painting of Cleopatra contemplating the snakes hidden in a basket of figs brought to her by a peasant who looks a little too pleased to show it to her.
I take in the visual from a more visceral viewpoint because I’m a dancer, and Delacroix truly is “…a feast for the eye.”
I went to see the two exhibits at the Met. “Devotion to Drawing” showed his amazing draftsmanship. His work of learning anatomy of humans and animals continued with the painting exhibit.
His work of tribes warring with each other and animals fighting shows such astounding action in the moment.
I was so taken by the painting of Cleopatra contemplating the snakes hidden in a basket of figs brought to her by a peasant who looks a little too pleased to show it to her.
I take in the visual from a more visceral viewpoint because I’m a dancer, and Delacroix truly is “…a feast for the eye.”
I went to see the two exhibits at the Met. “Devotion to Drawing” showed his amazing draftsmanship. His work of learning anatomy of humans and animals continued with the painting exhibit.
His work of tribes warring with each other and animals fighting shows such astounding action in the moment.
I was so taken by the painting of Cleopatra contemplating the snakes hidden in a basket of figs brought to her by a peasant who looks a little too pleased to show it to her.
I take in the visual from a more visceral viewpoint because I’m a dancer, and Delacroix truly is “…a feast for the eye.”
I went to see the two exhibits at the Met. “Devotion to Drawing” showed his amazing draftsmanship. His work of learning anatomy of humans and animals continued with the painting exhibit.
His work of tribes warring with each other and animals fighting shows such astounding action in the moment.
I was so taken by the painting of Cleopatra contemplating the snakes hidden in a basket of figs brought to her by a peasant who looks a little too pleased to show it to her.
I take in the visual from a more visceral viewpoint because I’m a dancer, and Delacroix truly is “…a feast for the eye.”
I’ll admit to not having known much about Delacroix, so thank you for your post, Andrea.
The artist whose work has most intrigued me is Escher. And I like works by the contemporary artist, Michael Atkinson. You can see some of his works here: https://www.pinterest.com/bray0296/michael-atkinson-artist/
I’ll admit to not having known much about Delacroix, so thank you for your post, Andrea.
The artist whose work has most intrigued me is Escher. And I like works by the contemporary artist, Michael Atkinson. You can see some of his works here: https://www.pinterest.com/bray0296/michael-atkinson-artist/
I’ll admit to not having known much about Delacroix, so thank you for your post, Andrea.
The artist whose work has most intrigued me is Escher. And I like works by the contemporary artist, Michael Atkinson. You can see some of his works here: https://www.pinterest.com/bray0296/michael-atkinson-artist/
I’ll admit to not having known much about Delacroix, so thank you for your post, Andrea.
The artist whose work has most intrigued me is Escher. And I like works by the contemporary artist, Michael Atkinson. You can see some of his works here: https://www.pinterest.com/bray0296/michael-atkinson-artist/
I’ll admit to not having known much about Delacroix, so thank you for your post, Andrea.
The artist whose work has most intrigued me is Escher. And I like works by the contemporary artist, Michael Atkinson. You can see some of his works here: https://www.pinterest.com/bray0296/michael-atkinson-artist/
David is wonderful, Mary Jo! Truly exquisite skill. SO many great artists from which to choose. I could name a very long list of those I love viewing.
David is wonderful, Mary Jo! Truly exquisite skill. SO many great artists from which to choose. I could name a very long list of those I love viewing.
David is wonderful, Mary Jo! Truly exquisite skill. SO many great artists from which to choose. I could name a very long list of those I love viewing.
David is wonderful, Mary Jo! Truly exquisite skill. SO many great artists from which to choose. I could name a very long list of those I love viewing.
David is wonderful, Mary Jo! Truly exquisite skill. SO many great artists from which to choose. I could name a very long list of those I love viewing.
Patricia, I saw the drawing show too, which is extraordinary. He’s just such an amazing talent, with an observant eye to go along with his technical virtuosity.
His action in movement is, I think, one of the key elements to his genius, and you make such a good observation about dance and art. He knew how to make the human body come alive and seem in motion on the canvas.
Patricia, I saw the drawing show too, which is extraordinary. He’s just such an amazing talent, with an observant eye to go along with his technical virtuosity.
His action in movement is, I think, one of the key elements to his genius, and you make such a good observation about dance and art. He knew how to make the human body come alive and seem in motion on the canvas.
Patricia, I saw the drawing show too, which is extraordinary. He’s just such an amazing talent, with an observant eye to go along with his technical virtuosity.
His action in movement is, I think, one of the key elements to his genius, and you make such a good observation about dance and art. He knew how to make the human body come alive and seem in motion on the canvas.
Patricia, I saw the drawing show too, which is extraordinary. He’s just such an amazing talent, with an observant eye to go along with his technical virtuosity.
His action in movement is, I think, one of the key elements to his genius, and you make such a good observation about dance and art. He knew how to make the human body come alive and seem in motion on the canvas.
Patricia, I saw the drawing show too, which is extraordinary. He’s just such an amazing talent, with an observant eye to go along with his technical virtuosity.
His action in movement is, I think, one of the key elements to his genius, and you make such a good observation about dance and art. He knew how to make the human body come alive and seem in motion on the canvas.
Escher is fascinating! And thanks for the link to Michael Atkinson. I’m not familiar with him—very nice work!
Escher is fascinating! And thanks for the link to Michael Atkinson. I’m not familiar with him—very nice work!
Escher is fascinating! And thanks for the link to Michael Atkinson. I’m not familiar with him—very nice work!
Escher is fascinating! And thanks for the link to Michael Atkinson. I’m not familiar with him—very nice work!
Escher is fascinating! And thanks for the link to Michael Atkinson. I’m not familiar with him—very nice work!
I feel about Delacroix much the same way that I feel about Rubens—I can admire them enormously, but I don’t really like all that swirling, tempestuous emotion. Oddly enough, I like it in novels and poetry, just not in the plastic arts, where I prefer stillness. One of my favorite artists is Piero della Francesco—I love the solidity and symmetry. A still spot giving order to the chaotic universe.
I feel about Delacroix much the same way that I feel about Rubens—I can admire them enormously, but I don’t really like all that swirling, tempestuous emotion. Oddly enough, I like it in novels and poetry, just not in the plastic arts, where I prefer stillness. One of my favorite artists is Piero della Francesco—I love the solidity and symmetry. A still spot giving order to the chaotic universe.
I feel about Delacroix much the same way that I feel about Rubens—I can admire them enormously, but I don’t really like all that swirling, tempestuous emotion. Oddly enough, I like it in novels and poetry, just not in the plastic arts, where I prefer stillness. One of my favorite artists is Piero della Francesco—I love the solidity and symmetry. A still spot giving order to the chaotic universe.
I feel about Delacroix much the same way that I feel about Rubens—I can admire them enormously, but I don’t really like all that swirling, tempestuous emotion. Oddly enough, I like it in novels and poetry, just not in the plastic arts, where I prefer stillness. One of my favorite artists is Piero della Francesco—I love the solidity and symmetry. A still spot giving order to the chaotic universe.
I feel about Delacroix much the same way that I feel about Rubens—I can admire them enormously, but I don’t really like all that swirling, tempestuous emotion. Oddly enough, I like it in novels and poetry, just not in the plastic arts, where I prefer stillness. One of my favorite artists is Piero della Francesco—I love the solidity and symmetry. A still spot giving order to the chaotic universe.
Very interesting, Lillian! I totally get it. There are painters I love for just that same reason——a sense of quiet serenity and order that is very calming when the rest of the world seems in utter chaos.
Very interesting, Lillian! I totally get it. There are painters I love for just that same reason——a sense of quiet serenity and order that is very calming when the rest of the world seems in utter chaos.
Very interesting, Lillian! I totally get it. There are painters I love for just that same reason——a sense of quiet serenity and order that is very calming when the rest of the world seems in utter chaos.
Very interesting, Lillian! I totally get it. There are painters I love for just that same reason——a sense of quiet serenity and order that is very calming when the rest of the world seems in utter chaos.
Very interesting, Lillian! I totally get it. There are painters I love for just that same reason——a sense of quiet serenity and order that is very calming when the rest of the world seems in utter chaos.
Lillian, I rather agree with you. I find Delacroix interesting, but there’s something rather unfinished about all that swirling. *G*
Lillian, I rather agree with you. I find Delacroix interesting, but there’s something rather unfinished about all that swirling. *G*
Lillian, I rather agree with you. I find Delacroix interesting, but there’s something rather unfinished about all that swirling. *G*
Lillian, I rather agree with you. I find Delacroix interesting, but there’s something rather unfinished about all that swirling. *G*
Lillian, I rather agree with you. I find Delacroix interesting, but there’s something rather unfinished about all that swirling. *G*
I’m aware of Delacroix, but I don’t particularly know him. I like a great many styles of art on an individual piece-by-piece basis.
When I was growing up, the St. Louis Art Museum had a Saturday activity for children. We had great fun and we learned to look. The art museum has a well rounded collection, so I saw examples of may periods. But I still like individual pieces of art because of what they say to me.
I’m aware of Delacroix, but I don’t particularly know him. I like a great many styles of art on an individual piece-by-piece basis.
When I was growing up, the St. Louis Art Museum had a Saturday activity for children. We had great fun and we learned to look. The art museum has a well rounded collection, so I saw examples of may periods. But I still like individual pieces of art because of what they say to me.
I’m aware of Delacroix, but I don’t particularly know him. I like a great many styles of art on an individual piece-by-piece basis.
When I was growing up, the St. Louis Art Museum had a Saturday activity for children. We had great fun and we learned to look. The art museum has a well rounded collection, so I saw examples of may periods. But I still like individual pieces of art because of what they say to me.
I’m aware of Delacroix, but I don’t particularly know him. I like a great many styles of art on an individual piece-by-piece basis.
When I was growing up, the St. Louis Art Museum had a Saturday activity for children. We had great fun and we learned to look. The art museum has a well rounded collection, so I saw examples of may periods. But I still like individual pieces of art because of what they say to me.
I’m aware of Delacroix, but I don’t particularly know him. I like a great many styles of art on an individual piece-by-piece basis.
When I was growing up, the St. Louis Art Museum had a Saturday activity for children. We had great fun and we learned to look. The art museum has a well rounded collection, so I saw examples of may periods. But I still like individual pieces of art because of what they say to me.