If he sucks so bad (according got the reviewer) why is this painter even being put in an exhibit?
De gustibus non disputandum; regardless of which modern reviewers like him he deserves exhibition. I personally am not thrilled by his style, taste-wise, but in my opinion his Lutheran works at least are very important and interesting (almost single-handedly developing a reformation style and iconography).
At a guess, I’d say it’s because the exhibitor disagrees with the critic’s opinion.
We have a winner.
To tell you the truth, astro, i’m completely dumbfounded by your question. Not because i think Cranach is awesome–i’d never even heard of him before reading your link–but because it should be patently obvious to anyone who’s paid more than three seconds’ worth of attention to the world of art that people’s opinions are going to differ. Also, as capybara suggests, an artist’s significance is the result of a number of factors that go beyond simplistic questions of personal taste.
I would ask you, in response to your question: why should Cranach’s work NOT be placed in an exhibit, based on a single unfriendly review?
By the way, if you think Sewell’s review represents some sort of consensus about Cranach, i suggest you have a look at these:
Cranach’s Flashes of Inspiration: A highly original talent, Lucas Cranach has been rediscovered
Cranach: Old Master in a New Light
Lucas Cranach: The Greatest Huckser of the Renaissance
The last one is, despite the title, a very complimentary review. The subheading says: “The works of Lucas Cranach show sales savvy as well as artistic genius. And they’re better for it, says Lucy Davies.”
This really is one of the more bizarre art threads i’ve seen on these boards.
Hmmm.
So he seems to think that Cranach has produced some worthwhile stuff but on the other hand
he doesn’t think he’s all that.
The impression I got from skimming the article was that ol’ Brian has got his panties in a bunch about what a crappy exhibition it was, and how it overrated Cranach by making him out to be some sort of artistic genius rather than a bloke who did some very good work but also did some Kincaid-level slop which should not be held up as the equal of his better contemporaries.
It is a Brian Sewell piece after all. The whole point of his Evening Standard reviews is to strike such an elitist pose that virtually nothing can possibly pass muster, while at the same time being several orders of magnitude more erudite than anything else in the surrounding newspaper.
For the full effect, it helps if you imagine them being read in the most campily posh voice on the planet. Of which Sewell is, in fact, the owner.
That said, his reviews are always worth reading.
Cranach turned me into a newt back in 1512. But I’m feeling much better now.
He manages to look down his nose using only his voice, which I’ve always thought is quite an impressive trick.