/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

I heard closer to 100 grand. Lady Agnew later went bankrupt and had to sell the portrait in old age. You can tell Sargent didn't have to break too much of a sweat to earn his hundred grand, but it made a great investment.

It's interesting how the brush strokes that make up the women's face is "tighter" and more blended but the brush strokes that make up the rest of her body is looser and "less defined".

I guess it's because her face is the vocal point of the painting? And thanks for the art history lesson!

>>3822248
jesus christ, anyone has any more interesting info on sargent?

>>3822248
who's this sargent guy. this looks really good. the understanding of shadows, colors and grasp on everything here phenomenal.

>>3822419
>who's this sargent guy

>>3822419
>John Singer Sargent (/ˈsɑːrdʒənt/; January 12, 1856 – April 14, 1925)[1] was an American expatriate artist, considered the "leading portrait painter of his generation" for his evocations of Edwardian-era luxury.[2][3] He created roughly 900 oil paintings and more than 2,000 watercolors, as well as countless sketches and charcoal drawings.

>>3822419
>>3822453
>He was born in Florence to American parents, and trained in Paris before moving to London, living most of his life in Europe. He enjoyed international acclaim as a portrait painter, although not without controversy and some critical reservation; an early submission to the Paris Salon, his Portrait of Madame X, was intended to consolidate his position as a society painter, but instead resulted in scandal. From the beginning his work is characterized by remarkable technical facility, particularly in his ability to draw with a brush, which in later years inspired admiration as well as criticism for a supposed superficiality. His commissioned works were consistent with the grand manner of portraiture, while his informal studies and landscape paintings displayed a familiarity with Impressionism. In later life Sargent expressed ambivalence about the restrictions of formal portrait work, and devoted much of his energy to mural painting and working en plein air. Art historians generally ignored "society" artists such as Sargent until the late 20th century.[4]

>>3822453
>>3822455
Cool. Great stuff. Nice paintings. Thanks for answering

>>3822419
>>3822402

Here's a collection of notes on his process and thoughts about art:

https://keenewilson.com/page/2947/john-singer-sargents-painting-techniques

>>3822481

>Painting is an interpretation of tone through the medium of color drawn with the brush. Use a large brush. Do not starve your palette. Accurately place your masses with the charcoal, then lay in the background about half an inch over the border of the adjoining tones, true as possible, then lay in the mass of hair, recovering the drawing and fusing the tones with the background, and overlapping the flesh of the forehead. For the face lay in a middle flesh tone, light on the left side and dark on the shadow side, always recovering the drawing, and most carefully fusing the flesh into the background. Paint flesh into background and background into flesh, until the exact quality is obtained, both in color and tone so the whole resembles a wig maker's block.
>Then follows the most marked and characteristic accents of the features in place and tone and drawing as accurate as possible, painting deliberately into wet ground, testing your work by repeatedly standing well back, viewing it as a whole, a very important thing. After this take up the subtler tones which express the retiring planes of the head, temples, chin, nose, and cheeks with neck, then the still more subtle drawing of mouth and eyes, fusing tone into tone all the time, until finally with deliberate touch the high lights are laid in, this occupies the first sitting and should the painting not be satisfactory, the whole is ruthlessly fogged by brushing together, the object being not to allow any parts well done, to interfere with that principle of oneness, or unity of every part; the brushing together engendered an appetite to attack the problem afresh at every sitting each attempt resulting in a more complete visualization in the mind.

>>3822474
Anytime Anon. This is my favorite Sargent painting.

If it's one artist you should know from the American Golden Age of Illustration it's probably Sargent. Or Rockwell but I like Sargent more.

>>3822577
>should the painting not be satisfactory, the whole is ruthlessly fogged by brushing together
>the brushing together engendered an appetite to attack the problem afresh
What a chad move even for traditional. Based approach.

>>3822577

>Until almost at the end there were no features or accents, simply a solid shape growing out of and into a background with which it was one. When at last he did put them in, each accent was studied with an intensity that kept his brush poised in mid-air until eye and hand had steadied to one purpose, an then...bling!

>The stroke resounded almost like a note of music. It annoyed him very much if the accents were carelessly indicated, without accurate consideration of their comparative importance. They were, in a way, the nails upon which the whole structure depended for solidity.

>Details, he was convinced, would take care of themselves. He once advised a student: "Do not concentrate so much on the features. Paint the head. The features are only like spots on an apple."

Larger version of the image from this post available here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/John_Singer_Sargent_-_Mrs_Carl_Meyer_and_her_Children_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg

>>3822586

>Should the painting not be satisfactory, the whole is ruthlessly fogged by brushing together, the object being not to allow any parts well done, to interfere with that principle of oneness, or unity of every part; the brushing together engendered an appetite to attack the problem afresh at every sitting each attempt resulting in a more complete visualization in the mind. The process is repeated until the canvas is completed.

>Sargent plotted his major canvases at length, often scraped away days if not weeks of effort, sometimes made second versions of a finished composition when the traces of the campaign appeared too evident. He strove hard, successfully, to make the result seem effortless. With his water colours he seems to have simply discarded the sheet and restarted or simply restricted access to those he considered inadequate.

This one took quite a while:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_of_Madame_X

>Even when composition had been decided upon and painting started, work progressed slowly. In a letter to a friend Sargent wrote "One day I was dissatisfied with it and dashed a tone of light rose over the former gloomy background... The élancée figure of the model shows to much greater advantage."[12] On September 7, Sargent wrote "still at Paramé, basking in the sunshine of my beautiful model's countenance."[12] By the fall, Sargent's interest in the venture was nearing completion: "The summer is definitely over and with it, I admit, is my pleasure at being at Les Chênes [Gautreau's estate]."[13]

>>3822594

>"Always use a full brush and a larger one than necessary." Paint with long sweeps, avoiding spots and dots ('little dabs'). Never think of other painters' pictures ... but follow your own choice of colors with exact fidelity to nature.

>Economy of effort in every way, the sharpest self-control, the fewest strokes possible to express a fact, the least slapping about of purposeless paint.

>Paint all the half tones and general passages quite thick -- and always paint one thing into another and, not side by side until they touch.

>>3822600

>Sargent would press home the fact that the subtleties of paint must be controlled by continually viewing the work from a distance. Stand back -- get well away -- and you will realize the great danger there is in overstating a tone. Keep the thing as a whole in your mind. Tones so subtle as not to be detected on close acquaintance can only be adjusted by this means.

>In painting a picture he would retreat a few steps from the canvas and then once more advance with his brush balanced in his hand as though it were a rapier and he were engaged in a bout with a fencing master.

>Those who watched Sargent painting in his studio were reminded of his habit of stepping backwards after almost every stroke of the brush on the canvas, and the tracks of his paces so worn on the carpet that it suggested a sheep-run through the heather. He, too, when in difficulties, had a sort of battle cry of "Demons, demons," with which he would dash at his canvas.

>>3822339
Yea according to what ive read sargent always started with the face trying to get it right before doing the rest looser thats pretty common in his society portraits

I bet he couldn't even draw from imagination.

>>3822606

>When [Ms Henn and fellow students] were gathered in front of our display of sketches for composition awaiting some criticism, Sargent would walk along the whole collection, rapidly looking at each one, and without singling out any in particular for comment, he would merely say: Get in your mind the sculptor's view of things, arrange a composition, decoratively, easy, and accidental.

>This would be said in a hesitating manner, and then he would quietly retire. On one occasion, when the subject set for a composition was a portrait, the criticism was: "not one of them seriously considered." Many we had thought quite good, as an indication of what might be tried while a portrait was in progress. That would not do for Sargent. A sketch must be seriously planned, tried and tried again, turned about until it satisfies every requirement, and a perfect visualization is attained. A sketch must not be merely a pattern of pleasant shapes, just pleasing to the eyes, just merely a fancy. It must be a very possible thing, a definite arrangement -- everything fitting in a plan and in true relationship frankly standing upon a horizontal plane coinciding in their place with a prearranged line. As a plan is to a building, so must the sketch be to the picture.

>>3822618

>He thought it was excellent practice to paint flowers, for the precision necessary in the study of their forms and the pure brilliancy of their color. It refreshed the tone of one's indoor portraits, he insisted, to paint landscapes or figures out of doors, as well as to change one's medium now and then. He disliked pastel, it seemed to him too artificial, or else it was made to look like oil or watercolor, and in that case why not use oil or watercolor?

>Cultivate an ever-continuous power of observation. Wherever you are, be always ready to make slight notes of postures, groups and incidents. Store up in the mind without ceasing a continuous stream of observations from which to make selections later. Above all things get abroad, see the sunlight, and everything that is to be seen, the power of selection will follow. Be continually making mental notes, make them again and again, test what you remember by sketches until you have got them fixed. Do not be backward at using every device and making every experiment that ingenuity can devise, in order to attain that sense of completeness which nature so beautifully provides, always bearing in mind the limitations of the materials in which you work.

(I think that this last bit is more of a paraphrase summing up his advice, and less of a direct quotation.)

Much larger version of the image from this post available here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John_Singer_Sargent_-_Cancale.jpg

>>3822419

Only the best artist that ever lived

>>3822328
>You can tell Sargent didn't have to break too much of a sweat to earn his hundred grand, but it made a great investment


Sargent’s portrait of Lady Agnew has pride of place at the Frick. Completed in just six sittings, the portrait was painted entirely from life. Without even preliminary drawings, this is the alla prima technique of a showman, risking everything in the moment. (https://www.nysun.com/arts/major-sargent/88931/))

>>3822339
>I guess it's because her face is the focal point of the painting?
Yep.

This part is almost abstract, son.

>>3822582
Rumors at the time said he did it with his dick.

>>3822606
>He, too, when in difficulties, had a sort of battle cry of "Demons, demons," with which he would dash at his canvas.
the fuck is wrong with this nigga?

>>3822651
sorry but thats ruan jia

>A seemingly unlikely subject for a fashionable painter, alligators caked with mud nevertheless presented a pictorial challenge that recurs in Sargent's oeuvre: the depiction of light and shadow on sun-drenched forms. This writhing, menacing mass of serpentine creatures evoked intriguing possibilities of surface and texture, to which he brought to bear the resources of his bravura technique. A number of preparatory sketches exist for Muddy Alligators: four graphite drawings, all of which the Worcester Art Museum owns, and two watercolors (in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; and the Ormond Family Collection). This finished watercolor reveals a diversity of means: scratching into the paper to denote teeth, applying wax resist to suggest rough textures, and laying on broad brushstrokes to delineate tree trunks.

https://www.worcesterart.org/collection/American/1917.86.html

>>3822248
>82,235 Dollars
Damn, Sargent was making bank!

>>3822600
>always paint one thing into another and, not side by side until they touch.
thx you so much for this

>>3822594

gazing into this and the other sargents at the met was a major life highlight. it is fucking massive

Posting Sargent Notes where his method is discussed. It's a short read, only 9 pages.
https://files.catbox.moe/sniw6y.pdf

>>3822851
I only get a grey screen

>>3822248
>Imagine a $82,000 dollar commission on DeviantArt

>>3822862
Are you sure it didn't go straight to your downloads? It's a direct link to the pdf.

>>3822871
I have the option to decide where to download something before actually doing, and it does not ask me, disabled that option, and it still does not download it in the default folder for downloads

>>3822875
Okay what about this
https://my.mixtape.moe/qehbqi.pdf

>>3822878
yep, this worked, thx anon. always find this kind of stuff useful. I do recommend http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/29904 for something in the same manner. If it wont teach you anything new, atleast it will give you an idea of how older artists though process

>>3822746
Nigga invented YOLOing.

>Paint a hundred studies: keep any number of clean canvases ready, of all shapes and sizes so that you are never held back by the sudden need of one. You can't do sketches enough. Sketch everything and keep your curiosity fresh.
>You can't do sketches enough.

>Cultivate an ever-continuous power of observation. Wherever you are, be always ready to make slight notes of postures, groups and incidents. Store up in the mind without ceasing a continuous stream of observations from which to make selections later. Above all things get abroad, see the sunlight, and everything that is to be seen, the power of selection will follow. Be continually making mental notes, make them again and again, test what you remember by sketches until you have got them fixed. Do not be backward at using every device and making every experiment that ingenuity can devise, in order to attain that sense of completeness which nature so beautifully provides, always bearing in mind the limitations of the materials in which you work.

>>3822419
>who's this sargent guy

>>3822594
>imagine getting sucked by her

>>3822419

>>3822248
>
>>3822248
luv that im literally Lady Lochnaw none of y'all gonna believe me but its true its true scot and all

>>3823406
post your ugly mug

It's amazing how much of an unremarkable hack sargent was. It's so sad history is gonna forget all about him :(

>>3823406
if you are pls be my gf aaahhhh ahhh lonely horny etc.

>>3822764
muddy alligators is so fucking kino like how the fuck. I heard he used opaque whites and goache sometimes in his watercolors but goddamn

>>3822339
Yeah, even Richard Schmid does the same thing.
You put detail and focus on the key areas like the face and make the rest progressively more abstract.
Actually it's how you make good art in general, that's why you don't render every brick in a wall

>>3822339
See his work in person. It's really obvious, jpgs and prints can't really do it justice. Boston MFA had some amazing pieces last I was there.

>>3822419
>who's this sargent guy
you like anime, don't you

>>3823542
You're a dumbfuck.

>>3823548
He's right though.

>>3822606
>his habit of stepping backwards after almost every stroke of the brush on the canvas
I already knew this but that's insane discipline

why is it that every amateur artist owes their style to Gauguin, but strives for Sargent? Nowhere along the path Paul Gauguin set for us does it wrap up into academicism. Stop pining for a different path through art history. Sargent is irrelevant, or you'd all be able to draw like him. Stop letting the monstrosity of Gauguin's crimes take away from his absolute domination of the path of art history. Sargent is but a blip.

>>3823568
>Sargent is irrelevant, or you'd all be able to draw like him
What?

>>3823568
lol found the tard that ate lead paint chips as a kid

>>3822419
>who's this sargent guy.

$80k? Wow. Those were the good old days. Now you have top tier anime artists scrounging for $50 commissions on Patreon.

>>3824871
Did you just compare anime artists to mother fucking Sargent? Are you out of your mind?

>>3824886
They're cut from the same cloth. Sargent was an illustrator, anime is illustration. Doesn't take much to get to Sakimichan from Sargent

>>3824871
you compare digital art to traditional fine art that will no doubt increase price greatly in the future?
hardly a fair comparison
some of the portrait like OP (127 cm × 101) that can take up to hundreds of hours

>>3824897
Commissions never sell for anything at auction, and Sargents personal work was uninspired schlock. A Sargent will never exceed a few million dollars. They're not art historically important paintings, just commissions. Like Sakimichan

>>3824900
>A Sargent will never exceed a few million dollars
what does that have to do with this
traditional cost alot more than digital art
especially big one from famous artist
today people still pay tens of thousand dollar for traditional commission
comparison 1 piece of art between traditional and digital is useless

>>3824897
You’ve never seen a top tier anime artist livestream have you? Sakimichan is mid-high at best. Top tier artists take multiple many-hour sessions to finish their work. I’d post examples but the best artists are doing a lot of things that are not allowed on 4chan. Just look at Pixiv some time instead of Deviantart.

>>3824940
I do aware of high render digital artist, anime or not
my point is that high end physical artwork cost will cost alot more than digital one

>>3824940
>not allowed on 4chan
>a site which allows almost everything
What did he mean by this

>>3824967
Pixiv runs a distributed Twitter clone instance of Mastodon called Pawoo, look up why it is banned from sharing “tweets” with most Western instances of Mastodon

>>3823103
needs to be a banner

>>3824900
jesus fucking christ anon

>>3824973
Why is the west so sensitive to such an issue but the Japanese have absolutely no qualms about it? It’s the most polarizing thing I’ve ever seen in humanity. Props to them for stepping up and setting their own site and community up though.

https://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/artist19.html
Interesting read about Sargent and his watercolor work.

>>3823568
This is a new one.

>>3823568
Gaugin’s style was childish, crude, and unrefined.