Clearly, the National Gallery has never had a problem with showing the work of a "Beaux-Arts- trained portraitist" born around the time of Thomas Eakins - but it would be extraordinary if they were to exhibit that kind of painter who was born after 1900 -- and shocking if they were to exhibit portraits or paintings of Indians by an artist born after 1950.
As to "the way those paintings were grabbed up and rarely ever seen" -- isn't that just because major museums have not been interested in showing them ? Why is De Forest Brush so much more obscure than Thomas Eakins ? I guess it's because he never painted anything like the "Gross Clinic" -- but regarding his portraits, at least judging from the jpg images, I'm not seeing such a big difference in remarkability. De Forest Brush is so magnificently obscure -- he's not even listed among the 5,289 mostly 19th C. academic painters found on Artrenewal.org. Now that's obscure. ____________________________________________________________ Take your cooking skills to the next level. Find a cooking school near you! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/PnY6rc1mKyRFld7Eec3KrC9bylvtGP YU9RLDhxXTJahZe61FMXtMg/
