I find it interesting that Picasso chose Raphael as opposed to Rembrandt, Michelangelo, or Leonardo for his quote. At the time, Raphael's reputation had declined from where it stood in the 19th-century when he was the inspiration for not only Bouguereau but also Degas, Ingres, and many others. If we're honest, Picasso was undoubtedly a child prodigy. This is more than impressive for a 14 or 15 year old:
But in no way does it equal Raphael:
When we speak of the artist "spilling his guts" or some such thing, we are speaking of "self-expression"... a concept that did not exist until the Romantic era. Artists in the Renaissance or the Baroque or the Neo-Classical era would never have even thought of "the self"... one's personal emotions as a worthy subject of art. As I suggested earlier, this does not mean that these works of art do not convey something of the artist.
The Romantic notion of the expression of the self as the central goal of art was rejected by many subsequent eras and artistic period. Impressionism had little or nothing to do with this notion. Some Modernists lean toward the Romantic: I would say this is true of the Expressionists, Picasso, and later, the Abstract Expressionists. But Matisse? Pop Art?
They commonly teach Art Criticism as following one or more of the dominant aesthetic theories: "Realism" (or Imitationism), Formalism, Emotionalism, Narrative and/or Conceptual Expressionism. Those who follow the Realist Aesthetic deem the artist's skill in rendering the illusion of visual reality to be most important. Formalism places the skill or the artist's success in composing the abstract elements of art above everything else. Emotionalism or Expressionism follows the Romantic notion of the artist's expression of feelings or emotions above all else. Narrative/Conceptual Expressionism places the ability to successfully convey an idea or story as the most important. Most critics, artists, and art-lovers straddle more than one of these aesthetics.
The abstract painter, Sean Scully, suggested that there are more important subjects to make art about than his personal emotions. I quite agree. As John suggests... different artists and different works of art have different goals. One is not inherently superior to another.
And as much as we dislike talking about money being a means of appreciating a work of art (and let’s not go there because we discussed this subject previously quite a bit...), I’d have to say that if Starry Night were to be auctioned it would probably fetch $500M or so. The Scream (the least successful of the three) already fetched $120M (I think) and Bouguereau would probably go for no more than $20-25M or so.
Price does not measure artistic merit for the most part. I agree that
Starry Night would likely fetch well over a couple hundred million... but what is the reason for that? In part, it is due to our culture's obsession with the cult of personality. Van Gogh has a great tragic story.
Starry Night is also famous. Far more so than Bouguereau. But what about the Mona Lisa? This painting... which isn't even undoubtedly by Leonardo... sold for nearly $500 million:
How much would this go for?
The monetary value of a work of art owes much to the fame of the artist and the artwork. It also has much to do with supply and demand. There are few top-tier Renaissance or Baroque paintings available but there are quite a few Impressionist, Post-Impressionist, and Modernist works still in private hands resulting in an increased demand. We might remember that Klimt's Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer... a work exhibiting unquestionable skill... was the most expensive work of art for a period of time:
I have little doubt that this... currently the most reproduced work of art in the world... would likely surpass the price of the Bloch-Bauer and the Leonardo... especially with oil-rich Middle Eastern governments involved in the auctions:
But honestly, I think it is a mistake to limit the discussion of skill to skill in rendering the illusion of visual (photographic) realism. This painting is the result of the exquisite skill:
The same is true of Van Gogh. His skill in the use of color harmonies and his sensitivity of brushwork is different from that of Bouguereau... but in no way inferior.
