You are such a virtuoso with the brush. Hisibility to avoid blending. I saw a John senior sergeant full size original. You stand back from it and it's very realistic and yet so beautifully. Painterly, and then when you walk up close, it's just a bunch of brush Strokes. It's just utterly amazing. His use of color and value and his control of edges just amazes me.
Sargent had alot of patience. Not many have this confidence to wait until the end of the painting to work out the important stuff. Even experienced painters tend to do it too early. Imagine, you work maybe days just doing the basics, you literally cant see the outcome at the end, just a bunch of paint clutted together, but you are confident to get it perfectly right at the end. Its the mind game he was the best in.
This is a wonderful breakdown of Sargent's process. I've admired Sargent for years, and it's one thing to read about him in books, but it's another thing to get a play-by-play of his brushwork. Very well done. An immediate follow, and I look forward to your future videos!
Thanks a lot for this video. I love this long format about understanding the masters through very concrete and technical observations of the painting. I could watch this for HOURS !!
Even compared to the most familiar Impressionists who immediately preceded him, Sargent's colors often 'pop' so vividly, as to seem like Kodachrome slides, in a time when no color photography existed. One thing about this painting, and many of his watercolors, is how overall bright the key is - nary a bit of "black" anywhere, the darkest areas in shadow built from darker brown, blue, or green, with the later overpainting mostly accented lights. No outlining, just adjacent darks left to hint at edges. This is consistent with painting from life, as our eyes adjust and we see into shadows where cameras only read as "black." Modern landscape painters use often wide contrast range, especially in foregrounds, but that darkens the overall image and makes the accented light areas feel exaggerated, and more akin to Classical landscapes painted in the studio. Sargent masterfully used cool and warm midtones to imply contrast and shadow without having to push the actual contrast range, leaving the overall painting feeling brighter and more vibrant, where the darkest areas are one to two values lighter than other painters would have used.
Thank you for your analysis of Sargent's painting and congratulations on your painting study of this painting I think your study is a splendid success! 👍
Hey Pat just wanted to say thanks for making this video; I would've never found that image of Simplon Pass without you sharing it. As a painter myself I love to get really close to artworks to see the techniques up close, so this ultra high res image is perfect.
Good job, Patrick, your analysis of the landscape work of one of my favorite painters, not only of portraits, but of all other subjects he put his mind and brush to. I'm not a big fan of any watercolors, but those of Sargent's inspire me; they are so bold and direct, and not the usual wishy-washy and "Weak" stuff you see folks posting on you tube today. Good stuff you do, please keep it up. Cheers, from beautiful, and highly paintable Arizona!! I'm doing lots of Sedona pictures lately! :D
This is probably my favorite Sargent landscape. Very good analysis. 13:21 Thixotropic actually means that it becomes more viscous (more liquid) and less textured the more you work it. Oleogel medium is a good example of this.
Well deserved but there's no good reason why this shouldn't have hundreds of thousands of views. So much nonsense on RUclips and gems like these are still mostly buried and often don't find their way to the level of attention they truly deserve.
I did a fine art degree in the 70’s, and spent a lot of time researching ‘old master’ technique’s then spent my career in advertising as an illustrator using a whole host of technique’s.Your detailed look at his superb technique is brilliant 👍
Oh my god this is the art content I’ve been looking for, please keep the high res video analysis content coming. Love it soooo much. Can you do a Francis Bacon painting???
Wow that was great, could U do any other breakdowns of how artists work, like u do here? One usually gets historical detail and not actual practical info regarding how the artist actually laid down their paint! Subscribed anyway!
This is the comment I wanted to leave. Your channel would explode if you did exactly as you’ve done here with other older artists. The extreme closeup views are the gold in your video. Invaluable!
I'm from Australia and I am a huge fan of Streeton. However there is not a lot of information readily available on his technique especially on RUclips. Streetons technique appears similar to Sargent. Streeton was known to have obtained a copy of the Book "Hunts talks on Art" by William Morris Hunt published in 1875 which I am sure Sargent would have read the same book since Hunt was from Boston. The painting that you have analysed reminds me very much of Streetons 'Fires on' You can view a high resolution version on the Gallery of NSW website. The brush strokes are so similar. Thanks for your video I have been a fan of Sargent for some time.
Colley Whisson, Australian artist, who has a you tube vids channel is a big fan too, I think he has some in his collection, and he does a lot of good "paint alongs" on his channel.
I don't know if Sargent would have read that book, but it's possible. A quick google search shows that Sargent actually painted his brother, Richard Morris Hunt (never knew!) so it's possible they met and almost certain they knew of each other. But William Morris Hunt doesn't really come up often when people talk about Sargent's early influences. It's more so Carolus Duran, Velazquez, Frans Hals, Claude Monet and eventually some of the British Portrait Painters. Looking at the Streeton painting, I do see some similarities. It's fascinating to think of the possible connections
That refined coordination of the extreme colors into a place that still has a naturalistic atmosphere- that's the gulf that just seems impossible to get across. I can't imagine a trick, a special piece of knowledge for the intuition Sargent must have weilded to achieve it. It can only be the product of a life welded to his study, he must have been ready to paint at a moment's notice, expert too in the humbler art of having his easel and supplies on hand, estimating his effective time-intervals, and truly diving into a flow state when he worked, and doing it again and again and again, every time. At his level it was about orchestrating his life and philosophy and surroundings to propel himself into a higher state of awareness and performance. I can only imagine him finishing a work like this (even afters hundreds like it) and thinking "wow, I may never be able to do it that well again". I think the Buddha would have called that trait "ardency".
He was definitely reacting to the scene, but you still see the same principle in his portraiture- used of almost pure color, pushing red against green within the skin tones. Not overdoing it, but hitting the key just right
focus on a rock in front of you, at least from 5am until 7pm (night) also the same into a far away mountain, hopefully with good atmosphere (lots of oxygen in the air) the rewards later from those patient observations and of course constant practice and color theory will be evident on the work, impressionists (which Sargent has a clear connection with Monet) were deep observators of the play of light and matter.
@togglebutton3312 that´s exactly the goal of the excercise, to see the fleeting light and understand how "everything breathes" all the movement in Van Goghs strokes or the playful of Monet´s waterlilies, for that to happen, first someone had to contemplate nature for extended periods, to understand the pulsating rhythm of life.
@togglebutton3312 to do what I´m saying, to acquire that "vision" you don´t even need to be a painter, BUT it´s handy for them to convey a nice vision into painting. You learn and focus how to see, THEN you paint whatever you want, you can use the knowledge alla prima or in a studio painting it doesn´t matter, of course alla prima right in the spot is a magical thing. The important thing is to devote one day, at least a good amount of hours to fix your sight into anything, any object, a rock, the crust of a tree trunk, water, clouds, etc... lose yourself into it, the less thought the better, THEN maybe the veil from the solid reality will be removed and you´ll start to see life just like an impressionist painting! (and beyond...)
This reminds me of standing and looking at the Velazquez paintings in Prado about a year ago. I could often clearly see that, although his techniques were more direct than many of his time, some passages were clearly layered, and others appeared to be wet into wet. Sometimes certainly deliberately (e.g. waiting for it to dry to use a certain texture) , but I think he also sometimes just worked with the situation he had on the canvas.
It’s possible. I remember seeing his work in the Prado, looking at the way he painted Aesop’s boot, and within it seeing so much of Sargent, if I recall he did make a copy of it
@@patrickokraYes I think Sargent did some copies. Velazquez has (I think) the most varied brush strokes I've ever seen, although Rembrandt comes close for sure. Most virtuoso painters, when they become confident, have a lot of those bold straight "chopping" marks (Hals was probably they earliest master of that). Velazquez has some of those, but he often seems to have dragged the brush more slowly (he tends to wriggle the brush more), and often there's a lot of feathery flickering strokes, some almost chalky dry scumbly marks, some glazes that almost drip down the canvas, blobs and dashes of lighter colors etc etc. And I honestly don't think he did it for show, I think he felt it was simply the best way to create a certain light effect, atmosphere etc.
Keep in mind that Sargent had been drawing/painting since childhood so it's not just the time he spent with brush to canvas for this particular painting but all those years of experience with the tools and techniques that worked for him!
I’ve seen some of his work in Rome! Great painter, but not one of my main inspirations, I think Bierstadt, Shishkin, Levitan all get their turn long before
I pretty much work the same way . Near the very end when I’m doing impasto I use a liquin imPasto in my paint. I’m really enjoying that process . my linseed oil I add about 40% of Gamblin Alykid light and that seems to create a pretty amazing medium for the majority of the painting process .
@@patrickokra i’m completely done with liquin original, but interestingly enough, the liquin impasto does not have harmful fumes that are noticeable, and I have no problem using it. But I know Gamblin has something very similar. I’ll be looking into that in the future.
Is it possible he painted over a different painting with the evidence of a previous texture? I love Sargent. I got to see his exhibit Fashioned by Sargent at the BMfa it was incredible to see so much of his work together and the pieces in it.
It is, there are many examples of him doing that. But it is limited to certain parts within his painting- the sky and most of the hills seem clean. I suppose some conservator could settle the debate one day with an xray but until then we won't know for certain
fascinating exploration of one of my favourite painters; many thanks for posting. The question I have is about your theory of layering - would that be done en situ or back in the studio? Thanks again.
I don’t think Sargent was* the sort of painter to start a painting outside for one session and then keep working on it indoors. It’s always possible there are finishing touches done at the end of a session, but the layering in the mountains and mid ground do not look like finishing touches to me. It’s a massive painting in real life. We have a lot of accounts of him going to great lengths to work on the same paintings for days outside, but he wasn’t known to work alone on a painting in his studio, like Monet or Whistler were, as far as I know
Thanks. Nice presentation. I was wondering how much the canvass surface plays (played) into the success of the painting. Obviously, a rougher linen surface vs a smoothly sanded surface affects (even dictates?) the process. Also, brushes. But maybe you answer some of these questions in the longer video. Was the copy the same size as the original? I suspect it was a non-standard size since you are incorporating a 19th century frame.
My copy was a slightly different proporition to fit the frame, and overall much smaller than the original. Generally I've seen Sargent work most often on a medium/semi fine weave, because as yo uguess the texture of the linen has an effect on the brush marks. I forgot to mention brushes in this video, but both Harvard and the Tate have a set of his brushes in their collections. Generally he used mostly bristle rounds and filberts, with an occasional specialty brush
Patrick, some of the strokes look like are done with a palette knife. How can one tell when it’s a stroke from a brush and when it came from a palette knife?
Thoughts on Sargent's brush choices? I've obsessed over how to get that bold brushwork - and I've tried just about every different size and type of brush - plus combinations. The opinion I've formed from that process is that Sargent used very large brushes (probably filbert size 8's at least) - even for making small shapes full extended arm - with almost no wrist pressure - and using just the very tip of the brush head - or turning the wide, flat size of the filbert brush perpendicular to make sharper, or thinner strokes - when needed. Here's why: big brushes, applied with a light touch (no wrist manipulation) are the perfect weight to blend strokes together but not over blended. Because they're big you're naturally painting 'outside the lines' and then painting back inside the line. This type of blending just 'looks' very different from other styles of blending - like using combers or fans - or by gradually tinting or shading on top of a local color transition to blur the edge. The latter - I think he would do sometimes - but a lot of the times he's just relying on the big brush to push and pull the colors into each other creating a feathered effect.
I think that pretty good analysis. One important note is he used almost all bristle brushes. I'm right with ya on making small marks with big brushes- you get so much more variety and interesting marks thats way. Harvard and the Tate have sets of Sargent's brushes, so you can actually see an image of them online. Mostly bristle filberts, some rounds and specialty brushes too
@@patrickokra Very cool, thank you for sharing. I didn't know any of his brushes were preserved! Looking at them now, I think my theory is maybe only partially correct - as I only see a couple large brushes. That said, maybe he's using one or 2 large brushes to mass everything in and then maybe the smaller ones to add highlights, shift corners, delineate edges. We'll never know because they didn't have video back then! Also - agree on bristle brushes. There's just a certain abstraction they provide automatically
Aw thanks man love your videos! I’ve never really compared the replacement whites, but my favorite titanium white is the Williamsburg one, as they add some additives and driers into it so it has a weaker tinting strength and dries faster
Sometimes skipping is caused in wet on wet by an extremely low brush angle. Dry brushing is more usual but other things can happen. He could do what Monet did by setting the oil paint on papers and pulling out more oil before use. To break the color so much he would have had to work over a number of weeks to get dry layers, even with real turpentine.
Yes It’s a low brush angle but also a light touch But If you look at how the texture doesn’t correlate with the surface in the multiple areas in the painting, it’s impossible to achieve that build up in a single session. Maybe, it’s a different painting under there (Sargent did reuse canvases) Also, his painting could have been fairly dry the next day, it’s only with titanium white that oil paint really takes weeks to dry/ Lead white on its own dries super fast, turpentine dries faster compared to modern oms. Along with Painting outdoors in warm weather, maybe even leaving your painting in the sun to dry, it’s entirely possible the painting was quite dry within a day, definitely within two
Some colors don’t have modern equivalents, and even colors of the same name vary so much that there’s no guarantee what you buy today is the same as he used. The only real important color for his technique is using a lead white instead of a titanium. Whether you use alizarian crimson or rose madder doesn’t matter as much. Most of his brushes were usually bristles, often filberts or rounds
@@patrickokrai have an old tube, almost gone..of lead white. Theres a difference from titanium. The lead mixes nice with other pigments, gradually lightening without smothering the other colors. Titanium seem to cover the other pigment, smothers it giving it a putty like appearance. Its a microscopic thing, but it shows up different in my eyes. Hope I can still buy good lead somewhere.
I have a few new tubes of Lead. If you live in the US it’s readily available, I recommend Michael Hardings’s Cremnitz. Williamsburgs Flake white is kinda ok. RGH is very good for the price I hear
Hello dear patrick, i am a great fan of your journey and work. What advice would you give to someone who came to this world to paint and wants to make a living painting, but got lost along the way.
From one Patrick to another, great job. May I ask where you found that super hi-res image? I would love to download it. And was it from a source that might have a plethora of such hi-res images of other artists?
Can you suggest a book about John singer Sargent about his techniques of painting, not just a collection of paintings? I am more interested in landscape’s.
Sargent was famous for being super cryptic about his technique! You can of course find online some published articles that mention some stuff his students would say about the painting process! It's very interesting. He also did watercolor which are absolutely gorgeous.
Thank you!! I did have a technical question…..assuming he painted it in 10 hours-were the paints dried sufficiently to employ wet on dry or dry on dry? I’m just thinking, in my experience that in order for the paint to tack up enough it’s always 2 days. Do “turps” dry out that fast?
So I would assume it’s 10hours tops by the size of the painting and dried layers, spread over a few days (total guess) so from day to day it would dry. I do know that using turpentine and lead white your paint will tack up in a few hours. Temperature and whether the painting is in the sun also makes a big difference, I would say it’s possible for it to tack up in under an hour in the right conditions. But some parts of the paint look thoroughly dry with texture, and with lead white and a warm day, maybe even storing the paint in the sun for a bit, you can have the painting fully dry to touch by tomorrow
Funny. I had all of those effects happen while painting but I cannot imagine consciously controlling them. That raises the question whether Sargent did?
I strongly feel Sargent could control if he wanted to. The heavy dry brushing and thinner painted shadows are very conscious choices. The blue peaking through the clouds might have been less planned. I’m not talking about each individual mark, but rather the variety he has. Also, he went to extreme lengths in his portraits (especially earlier in his career) to control the texture and surface of the painting, scraping down at the end of every session. Most master painters have very specific ways of achieving the paint surface they want, so I don’t think it’s purely random
Sargent produces an effortless seeming realistic image w the same materials most would fumble into brownish globs. It looks doable, however I've tried, sigh. Still at the brushes of course!
Very interesting. Do you think he painted the reddish brown under painting on the entire canvas? It looks to me that he decided where the sky would be and never put that colour underneath. Perhaps a more greyish colour under the sky, or just white, or, the reddish brown? Hmmm….
In the original take of the footage I actually addressed just that, but that didn’t make the final cut 🤣 looking really closely in the sky, there are some super tiny dots on the upper left I noticed that looked similar to the brown, but nothing as obvious as in the bottom portion. Also, there’s a difference between a tone and a transparent brown underpainting, if that’s what you mean. Just by looking at the painting, it doesn’t look like an underpainting because of the consistency of the color, usually under paintings are brushy and have some sort of texture. Also I’ve never seen Sargent using an underpainting, and generally under paintings are associated with different artists/periods. My best guess is the brown stuck out like a sore thumb in the sky, so he made an effort to cover that completely, whereas he didn’t mind it in the foreground. But that’s my best guess, based off of what I can see and what I know
@@patrickokra Thank you for your reply. Yes, now that you explain how a tone and a transparent underpainting would affect the layers above them differently, your idea makes the most sense. I love how you jumped deep into figuring out his approach. The devil is always in the details. I want to watch it again to pick up exactly what you think happened. I also just need to learn more, and get the techniques straight in my mind. I love thoughtful videos like this. You are a good teacher! Thank you.
Are you really sure that turpentine is a "fast drying medium" ? (12'55) In my experience, turpentine acts as an anti-siccative - it thins paint and slows down drying time.
Yes, practically speaking. Not sure that it is technically a siccative but if you use real turpentine and the thin first layer will be dry to the touch much sooner than using gamsol/oms, or no solvent at all. Are you sure you're using real turpentine and not some sort of mineral spirits? Sometimes people switch the names
Tough to say, it’s a big painting, but he worked fast. My best guess is I don’t think he needed much more than 10 hours, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he did it in as little as 6, considering, you know, it’s Sargent
True, but at the same time many of Sargent’s effects would not have been possible if the paint was drying in 10 minutes- having an open time of 1-3 hours is really advantageous. Very hard to to get the drawing and subtlety of color. Also I don’t know if you can achieve the same body and texture with lead, but I’m sure if people are clever they can replicate similar enough
Yes that vertical blue shadow could be similar to a glaze- I think I said “scumble” in the video, which is also a way of transparently applying paint, just usually slightly thicker/more opaque than a glaze. Matter of consistency. Glazes are super thin, scumbling is more of a middle ground
One thing I forgot to mention was his brushes- he mostly used natural bristle brushes. Many filberts and rounds. Over time they loose their shape just a little bit where little hairs stick out here or there. With a really big brush you’d be surprised how you can actually make very small, varied marks depending on your touch
Thanks for bringing us this high resolution version of Sargent's work. However your analysis was just obvious comments over and over on the wetness of the brush strokes, the under layers--or the dryness of such. Over and over. Nothing about color choice, composition, etc. Just texture, which a novice can see if they look at the original or the high rez version.
Well hey thanks for watching that long. I tried to stick to what I could confidently say, that showed his specific technique as opposed to other landscape painters. To most people, texture and application is one of the biggest mysteries. The way Sargent approached color is a bit of an educated guess on my part, we can’t be as certain about that as we can be about how he actually executed the painting and controlled his paint. And I’m afraid that whenever we see people talking about composition of dead masters, it’s rarely on solid footing, though we have a few ideas on his influences
Im sorry but as a novice artist, I think I can easily understand color choice and composition of this painting, but I really needed someone explaining me how to read brushwork. Are you sure a novice would be able to do such detailed analysis?
I am a novice myself, but can only be sure of my understanding. To me, the physicality of the brushwork is pretty easy to see and feel. Both the effects of it, and what it took to do it. I may of course be missing something, but part of my point was that he repeated it, somewhat unsystematically, throughout almost the whole video. It was more repetitive than detailed. I would have liked time spent on his interpretation of the choices Sargent might have made in his choice of composition and the effects that he strove for with his choices of colors. Why that spot? Why that angle and framing? Why that palette, though it doesn't appear in nature? @@vincenzopisano5022
Sorry but I think you chose the wrong frame. Because all the “bumps” that are part of the design of the frame are very distracting from the painting. And it competes with the bumps of rocks. I think a smooth wood finish in a medium or dark grey would have enhanced the subject matter in the painting.
To each their own, I think hanging in a room, a barbizon or similar 19th century style frame draws you to the painting, and gives it a real presence. Otherwise in a simple frame it might get lost among some book cases or lamps
I generally agree, sometimes it's cringe, but for educational purposes it's still worth studying the masters, Sargent included. I've learned a lot by looking at his paintings while working on my own
@@patrickokra oh yeah, master copies are a really fun challenge, I've done a few from my fav Victorian painters, but it's vital to separate your own path, from the beauty and perfection of the masters work.. otherwise we all just become less expressive, with no personality. Good work though, i mean, amazing ! keep up the good work.
Correction: yes Sargent isn’t technically an “Old Master”, although he’s a master and by now his art is pretty old 🤷♂️
You are such a virtuoso with the brush. Hisibility to avoid blending. I saw a John senior sergeant full size original. You stand back from it and it's very realistic and yet so beautifully. Painterly, and then when you walk up close, it's just a bunch of brush Strokes. It's just utterly amazing. His use of color and value and his control of edges just amazes me.
He is such a virtuoso
Such an incredible painting. I’ve never seen it in such high resolution. Nice analysis!
Thank you very much!
Nice analysis. I would have never been able to leave that green blob so pure.
You and me both!
Very good to introduce his technique in such details, Thank you !
Thanks so much. I loooove Sargent. Your analysis is superb.
Thank you!
Why do you love him?
Sargent had alot of patience. Not many have this confidence to wait until the end of the painting to work out the important stuff.
Even experienced painters tend to do it too early.
Imagine, you work maybe days just doing the basics, you literally cant see the outcome at the end, just a bunch of paint clutted together, but you are confident to get it perfectly right at the end.
Its the mind game he was the best in.
there's still a lot to learn from him!
Talk about how his watercolors please
This is a wonderful breakdown of Sargent's process. I've admired Sargent for years, and it's one thing to read about him in books, but it's another thing to get a play-by-play of his brushwork. Very well done. An immediate follow, and I look forward to your future videos!
Thank you so much
Thank you for your astute analysis and appreciation of Singer's work. This is a beautiful painting.
Thank you!
Thanks a lot for this video. I love this long format about understanding the masters through very concrete and technical observations of the painting. I could watch this for HOURS !!
This was a great breakdown! Your videos are so high quality and informative!! Subscribed
Aw thanks so much Kelsey! I’ve really enjoyed some of your videos in the past, inspirational 🙌🙌🙌
I made a study of the same painting a few years ago. My results were so far from this! I should give it another go after watching this video
Do it!
Extremely helpful and in-depth analysis, Patrick! Keep going!
Even compared to the most familiar Impressionists who immediately preceded him, Sargent's colors often 'pop' so vividly, as to seem like Kodachrome slides, in a time when no color photography existed. One thing about this painting, and many of his watercolors, is how overall bright the key is - nary a bit of "black" anywhere, the darkest areas in shadow built from darker brown, blue, or green, with the later overpainting mostly accented lights. No outlining, just adjacent darks left to hint at edges. This is consistent with painting from life, as our eyes adjust and we see into shadows where cameras only read as "black." Modern landscape painters use often wide contrast range, especially in foregrounds, but that darkens the overall image and makes the accented light areas feel exaggerated, and more akin to Classical landscapes painted in the studio. Sargent masterfully used cool and warm midtones to imply contrast and shadow without having to push the actual contrast range, leaving the overall painting feeling brighter and more vibrant, where the darkest areas are one to two values lighter than other painters would have used.
Can you describe what you mean by using warms and cools to push contrast ranges?
Fantastic analysis Patrick. Thank you for sharing. It was incredibly interesting.
Thank you!
Thanks Patrick! This is a very valuable and insightful break down into your thoughts and I got a lot of out it! Thanks for making this video!
Thanks!
Thank you for your analysis of Sargent's painting and congratulations on your painting study of this painting I think your study is a splendid success! 👍
thank you very much!
This was phenomenal. Thank you!
Thanks!
Hey Pat just wanted to say thanks for making this video; I would've never found that image of Simplon Pass without you sharing it. As a painter myself I love to get really close to artworks to see the techniques up close, so this ultra high res image is perfect.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Good job, Patrick, your analysis of the landscape work of one of my favorite painters, not only of portraits, but of all other subjects he put his mind and brush to. I'm not a big fan of any watercolors, but those of Sargent's inspire me; they are so bold and direct, and not the usual wishy-washy and "Weak" stuff you see folks posting on you tube today.
Good stuff you do, please keep it up. Cheers, from beautiful, and highly paintable Arizona!! I'm doing lots of Sedona pictures lately! :D
Thank you very much! And Sedona is a great place to paint - I've done some painting there myself!
This is probably my favorite Sargent landscape. Very good analysis. 13:21 Thixotropic actually means that it becomes more viscous (more liquid) and less textured the more you work it. Oleogel medium is a good example of this.
Ah good catch, thanks for the correction
Excellent video, well done! Clear and informative, well presented.
This deserves many more views! Wonderful analysis and thx for the tip with that website.
Thank you! The ironic part of your comment for me is I’ve never had this many views so fast on one of my RUclips videos 😅🙌
Well deserved but there's no good reason why this shouldn't have hundreds of thousands of views. So much nonsense on RUclips and gems like these are still mostly buried and often don't find their way to the level of attention they truly deserve.
Such an insightful and interesting presentation. Thank you 👏
Thank you so much Beth!
Very good analysis! There are many spots touching, which have the same darkness but different colors/hues.
Thanks!
I did a fine art degree in the 70’s, and spent a lot of time researching ‘old master’ technique’s then spent my career in advertising as an illustrator using a whole host of technique’s.Your detailed look at his superb technique is brilliant 👍
Thank you so much for the kind comment!
greetings jeff, from one old illustrator to another
@@dont-want-no-wrenchhi👍
Thank you for your excellent analysis.
This was fascinating. I've never seen a real Sargent painting up close in person before, surprised how thick his brush strokes were.
Thanks!
Thank you for this analysis it was educational thank you so much.
My pleasure!
Fantastic video! Thanks 👍
Thanks!
Wow, bravo, such a brillant video. Thank you !
Thank you!
This is really good Patrick, Well done Mate for putting this together and actually researching it. Happy painting Mate 🎨
Many thanks!
really nice break down, thank you
Glad it was helpful!
Oh my god this is the art content I’ve been looking for, please keep the high res video analysis content coming. Love it soooo much. Can you do a Francis Bacon painting???
Probably not a Bacon but I have other favorite painters I want to get to!
Superb video, I learned a lot. Every inch of that painting is so rich
Thank you, yes it’s one of my favorites of his for sure!
Wow that was great, could U do any other breakdowns of how artists work, like u do here? One usually gets historical detail and not actual practical info regarding how the artist actually laid down their paint! Subscribed anyway!
This is the comment I wanted to leave. Your channel would explode if you did exactly as you’ve done here with other older artists. The extreme closeup views are the gold in your video. Invaluable!
I'd like to try!
fantastic video idea and execution
Thank you very much!
I'm from Australia and I am a huge fan of Streeton. However there is not a lot of information readily available on his technique especially on RUclips. Streetons technique appears similar to Sargent. Streeton was known to have obtained a copy of the Book "Hunts talks on Art" by William Morris Hunt published in 1875 which I am sure Sargent would have read the same book since Hunt was from Boston. The painting that you have analysed reminds me very much of Streetons 'Fires on' You can view a high resolution version on the Gallery of NSW website. The brush strokes are so similar. Thanks for your video I have been a fan of Sargent for some time.
Colley Whisson, Australian artist, who has a you tube vids channel is a big fan too, I think he has some in his collection, and he does a lot of good "paint alongs" on his channel.
I don't know if Sargent would have read that book, but it's possible. A quick google search shows that Sargent actually painted his brother, Richard Morris Hunt (never knew!) so it's possible they met and almost certain they knew of each other. But William Morris Hunt doesn't really come up often when people talk about Sargent's early influences. It's more so Carolus Duran, Velazquez, Frans Hals, Claude Monet and eventually some of the British Portrait Painters. Looking at the Streeton painting, I do see some similarities. It's fascinating to think of the possible connections
That refined coordination of the extreme colors into a place that still has a naturalistic atmosphere- that's the gulf that just seems impossible to get across. I can't imagine a trick, a special piece of knowledge for the intuition Sargent must have weilded to achieve it. It can only be the product of a life welded to his study, he must have been ready to paint at a moment's notice, expert too in the humbler art of having his easel and supplies on hand, estimating his effective time-intervals, and truly diving into a flow state when he worked, and doing it again and again and again, every time. At his level it was about orchestrating his life and philosophy and surroundings to propel himself into a higher state of awareness and performance. I can only imagine him finishing a work like this (even afters hundreds like it) and thinking "wow, I may never be able to do it that well again".
I think the Buddha would have called that trait "ardency".
He was definitely reacting to the scene, but you still see the same principle in his portraiture- used of almost pure color, pushing red against green within the skin tones. Not overdoing it, but hitting the key just right
A true master!
focus on a rock in front of you, at least from 5am until 7pm (night) also the same into a far away mountain, hopefully with good atmosphere (lots of oxygen in the air) the rewards later from those patient observations and of course constant practice and color theory will be evident on the work, impressionists (which Sargent has a clear connection with Monet) were deep observators of the play of light and matter.
@togglebutton3312 that´s exactly the goal of the excercise, to see the fleeting light and understand how "everything breathes" all the movement in Van Goghs strokes or the playful of Monet´s waterlilies, for that to happen, first someone had to contemplate nature for extended periods, to understand the pulsating rhythm of life.
@togglebutton3312 to do what I´m saying, to acquire that "vision" you don´t even need to be a painter, BUT it´s handy for them to convey a nice vision into painting. You learn and focus how to see, THEN you paint whatever you want, you can use the knowledge alla prima or in a studio painting it doesn´t matter, of course alla prima right in the spot is a magical thing.
The important thing is to devote one day, at least a good amount of hours to fix your sight into anything, any object, a rock, the crust of a tree trunk, water, clouds, etc... lose yourself into it, the less thought the better, THEN maybe the veil from the solid reality will be removed and you´ll start to see life just like an impressionist painting! (and beyond...)
Fantastic explanation and detail. Thank you!
Thanks!
Awesome artist.love his work,good video👍
Great video!
Bravo. So well done. Thanks!
Many thanks!
Thanks! Great analysis. I learned a lot from this.
Glad it was helpful!
Love the video, Sergeant is my favorite .
Mine too!
This reminds me of standing and looking at the Velazquez paintings in Prado about a year ago. I could often clearly see that, although his techniques were more direct than many of his time, some passages were clearly layered, and others appeared to be wet into wet. Sometimes certainly deliberately (e.g. waiting for it to dry to use a certain texture) , but I think he also sometimes just worked with the situation he had on the canvas.
It’s possible. I remember seeing his work in the Prado, looking at the way he painted Aesop’s boot, and within it seeing so much of Sargent, if I recall he did make a copy of it
@@patrickokraYes I think Sargent did some copies. Velazquez has (I think) the most varied brush strokes I've ever seen, although Rembrandt comes close for sure. Most virtuoso painters, when they become confident, have a lot of those bold straight "chopping" marks (Hals was probably they earliest master of that). Velazquez has some of those, but he often seems to have dragged the brush more slowly (he tends to wriggle the brush more), and often there's a lot of feathery flickering strokes, some almost chalky dry scumbly marks, some glazes that almost drip down the canvas, blobs and dashes of lighter colors etc etc. And I honestly don't think he did it for show, I think he felt it was simply the best way to create a certain light effect, atmosphere etc.
Awesome video Patrick
Thanks Pedro!
Keep in mind that Sargent had been drawing/painting since childhood so it's not just the time he spent with brush to canvas for this particular painting but all those years of experience with the tools and techniques that worked for him!
of course!
This video excites me. Gonna go paint
🙌🙌🙌
Belated happy namesday Patrick!🎉
Thank you! 😃
Awesome analysis. You should do one on Giovanni Segantini. If you haven’t seen his work, you’ll be in for a huge treat.
I’ve seen some of his work in Rome! Great painter, but not one of my main inspirations, I think Bierstadt, Shishkin, Levitan all get their turn long before
Thank you. This is fantastic ✌🏼
Thank you, glad you enjoyed it!
I am working in a Bierstadt master Copy. Its so interesting to see and hear your thoughts about that topic. Thank you!
thanks!
Great analysis video!! Thank you!
My pleasure!
Can you analyze Gustav Klimts painting technique please 😊?
I pretty much work the same way . Near the very end when I’m doing impasto I use a liquin imPasto in my paint. I’m really enjoying that process . my linseed oil I add about 40% of Gamblin Alykid light and that seems to create a pretty amazing medium for the majority of the painting process .
Interesting. I had to stop using liquin a long time ago because of the smell and headaches
@@patrickokra i’m completely done with liquin original, but interestingly enough, the liquin impasto does not have harmful fumes that are noticeable, and I have no problem using it. But I know Gamblin has something very similar. I’ll be looking into that in the future.
@@patrickokra Do you happen to know what kind of varnish and sheen John singer Sargent would use ?
Very interesting breaking it down.
Thanks!
Is it possible he painted over a different painting with the evidence of a previous texture? I love Sargent. I got to see his exhibit Fashioned by Sargent at the BMfa it was incredible to see so much of his work together and the pieces in it.
It is, there are many examples of him doing that. But it is limited to certain parts within his painting- the sky and most of the hills seem clean. I suppose some conservator could settle the debate one day with an xray but until then we won't know for certain
fascinating exploration of one of my favourite painters; many thanks for posting. The question I have is about your theory of layering - would that be done en situ or back in the studio? Thanks again.
I don’t think Sargent was* the sort of painter to start a painting outside for one session and then keep working on it indoors. It’s always possible there are finishing touches done at the end of a session, but the layering in the mountains and mid ground do not look like finishing touches to me. It’s a massive painting in real life. We have a lot of accounts of him going to great lengths to work on the same paintings for days outside, but he wasn’t known to work alone on a painting in his studio, like Monet or Whistler were, as far as I know
Thanks. Nice presentation. I was wondering how much the canvass surface plays (played) into the success of the painting. Obviously, a rougher linen surface vs a smoothly sanded surface affects (even dictates?) the process. Also, brushes. But maybe you answer some of these questions in the longer video. Was the copy the same size as the original? I suspect it was a non-standard size since you are incorporating a 19th century frame.
My copy was a slightly different proporition to fit the frame, and overall much smaller than the original. Generally I've seen Sargent work most often on a medium/semi fine weave, because as yo uguess the texture of the linen has an effect on the brush marks. I forgot to mention brushes in this video, but both Harvard and the Tate have a set of his brushes in their collections. Generally he used mostly bristle rounds and filberts, with an occasional specialty brush
Patrick, some of the strokes look like are done with a palette knife. How can one tell when it’s a stroke from a brush and when it came from a palette knife?
palette knife is very very clean and flat, and at time super thick. hard to replicate with a brush
Thoughts on Sargent's brush choices? I've obsessed over how to get that bold brushwork - and I've tried just about every different size and type of brush - plus combinations. The opinion I've formed from that process is that Sargent used very large brushes (probably filbert size 8's at least) - even for making small shapes full extended arm - with almost no wrist pressure - and using just the very tip of the brush head - or turning the wide, flat size of the filbert brush perpendicular to make sharper, or thinner strokes - when needed.
Here's why: big brushes, applied with a light touch (no wrist manipulation) are the perfect weight to blend strokes together but not over blended. Because they're big you're naturally painting 'outside the lines' and then painting back inside the line. This type of blending just 'looks' very different from other styles of blending - like using combers or fans - or by gradually tinting or shading on top of a local color transition to blur the edge. The latter - I think he would do sometimes - but a lot of the times he's just relying on the big brush to push and pull the colors into each other creating a feathered effect.
I think that pretty good analysis. One important note is he used almost all bristle brushes. I'm right with ya on making small marks with big brushes- you get so much more variety and interesting marks thats way. Harvard and the Tate have sets of Sargent's brushes, so you can actually see an image of them online. Mostly bristle filberts, some rounds and specialty brushes too
@@patrickokra Very cool, thank you for sharing. I didn't know any of his brushes were preserved! Looking at them now, I think my theory is maybe only partially correct - as I only see a couple large brushes. That said, maybe he's using one or 2 large brushes to mass everything in and then maybe the smaller ones to add highlights, shift corners, delineate edges. We'll never know because they didn't have video back then!
Also - agree on bristle brushes. There's just a certain abstraction they provide automatically
Great video! Have you tried any of the lead white replacement paints?!
Aw thanks man love your videos! I’ve never really compared the replacement whites, but my favorite titanium white is the Williamsburg one, as they add some additives and driers into it so it has a weaker tinting strength and dries faster
@@patrickokra Thanks, likewise! I'll have to check out Williamsburg white!
Such a great video man! Thanks for all the insights
Thanks bro!
Great analysis 🙏🎨🇿🇦
Thank you!
Sometimes skipping is caused in wet on wet by an extremely low brush angle. Dry brushing is more usual but other things can happen. He could do what Monet did by setting the oil paint on papers and pulling out more oil before use. To break the color so much he would have had to work over a number of weeks to get dry layers, even with real turpentine.
Yes It’s a low brush angle but also a light touch
But If you look at how the texture doesn’t correlate with the surface in the multiple areas in the painting, it’s impossible to achieve that build up in a single session. Maybe, it’s a different painting under there (Sargent did reuse canvases) Also, his painting could have been fairly dry the next day, it’s only with titanium white that oil paint really takes weeks to dry/ Lead white on its own dries super fast, turpentine dries faster compared to modern oms. Along with Painting outdoors in warm weather, maybe even leaving your painting in the sun to dry, it’s entirely possible the painting was quite dry within a day, definitely within two
That’s really helpful. I’m heading out for a long plein air camping trip. Maybe I should use some real turpentine this trip. It dries a lot faster.
I wasn't familiar with the word scumble. I'm glad that exists.
Very nice analysis but it should be good to tell us the name of the colours and the brushes used. Ty.
Some colors don’t have modern equivalents, and even colors of the same name vary so much that there’s no guarantee what you buy today is the same as he used. The only real important color for his technique is using a lead white instead of a titanium. Whether you use alizarian crimson or rose madder doesn’t matter as much. Most of his brushes were usually bristles, often filberts or rounds
Thanks very much for your speedy, useful and kind reply. ❤@@patrickokra
@@patrickokrai have an old tube, almost gone..of lead white. Theres a difference from titanium. The lead mixes nice with other pigments, gradually lightening without smothering the other colors. Titanium seem to cover the other pigment, smothers it giving it a putty like appearance. Its a microscopic thing, but it shows up different in my eyes. Hope I can still buy good lead somewhere.
I have a few new tubes of Lead. If you live in the US it’s readily available, I recommend Michael Hardings’s Cremnitz. Williamsburgs Flake white is kinda ok. RGH is very good for the price I hear
@@patrickokra t.y. I like Harding's. I'll try them.
Hello dear patrick, i am a great fan of your journey and work.
What advice would you give to someone who came to this world to paint and wants to make a living painting, but got lost along the way.
I think never giving up is the most important thing, but also being realistic and setting plans and goals
@@patrickokra Thank you so much for you kind words.
I have been doing more paintings recentely!
what goals do you think are important to set?
From one Patrick to another, great job. May I ask where you found that super hi-res image? I would love to download it. And was it from a source that might have a plethora of such hi-res images of other artists?
Thanks! National gallery’s website- the link is in the description 🙌
Can you suggest a book about John singer Sargent about his techniques of painting, not just a collection of paintings? I am more interested in landscape’s.
Sargent was famous for being super cryptic about his technique! You can of course find online some published articles that mention some stuff his students would say about the painting process! It's very interesting. He also did watercolor which are absolutely gorgeous.
it's hard to find a book about his technique, much of this information is things I have gathered over time and figured out through painting on my own
Thank you!! I did have a technical question…..assuming he painted it in 10 hours-were the paints dried sufficiently to employ wet on dry or dry on dry? I’m just thinking, in my experience that in order for the paint to tack up enough it’s always 2 days. Do “turps” dry out that fast?
So I would assume it’s 10hours tops by the size of the painting and dried layers, spread over a few days (total guess) so from day to day it would dry. I do know that using turpentine and lead white your paint will tack up in a few hours. Temperature and whether the painting is in the sun also makes a big difference, I would say it’s possible for it to tack up in under an hour in the right conditions. But some parts of the paint look thoroughly dry with texture, and with lead white and a warm day, maybe even storing the paint in the sun for a bit, you can have the painting fully dry to touch by tomorrow
@@patrickokra GREAT THANKS! Awesome presentation!!
Funny. I had all of those effects happen while painting but I cannot imagine consciously controlling them. That raises the question whether Sargent did?
I strongly feel Sargent could control if he wanted to. The heavy dry brushing and thinner painted shadows are very conscious choices. The blue peaking through the clouds might have been less planned. I’m not talking about each individual mark, but rather the variety he has. Also, he went to extreme lengths in his portraits (especially earlier in his career) to control the texture and surface of the painting, scraping down at the end of every session. Most master painters have very specific ways of achieving the paint surface they want, so I don’t think it’s purely random
Sargent produces an effortless seeming realistic image w the same materials most would fumble into brownish globs. It looks doable, however I've tried, sigh. Still at the brushes of course!
Very interesting. Do you think he painted the reddish brown under painting on the entire canvas? It looks to me that he decided where the sky would be and never put that colour underneath. Perhaps a more greyish colour under the sky, or just white, or, the reddish brown? Hmmm….
In the original take of the footage I actually addressed just that, but that didn’t make the final cut 🤣 looking really closely in the sky, there are some super tiny dots on the upper left I noticed that looked similar to the brown, but nothing as obvious as in the bottom portion. Also, there’s a difference between a tone and a transparent brown underpainting, if that’s what you mean. Just by looking at the painting, it doesn’t look like an underpainting because of the consistency of the color, usually under paintings are brushy and have some sort of texture. Also I’ve never seen Sargent using an underpainting, and generally under paintings are associated with different artists/periods. My best guess is the brown stuck out like a sore thumb in the sky, so he made an effort to cover that completely, whereas he didn’t mind it in the foreground. But that’s my best guess, based off of what I can see and what I know
@@patrickokra Thank you for your reply. Yes, now that you explain how a tone and a transparent underpainting would affect the layers above them differently, your idea makes the most sense. I love how you jumped deep into figuring out his approach. The devil is always in the details. I want to watch it again to pick up exactly what you think happened. I also just need to learn more, and get the techniques straight in my mind. I love thoughtful videos like this. You are a good teacher! Thank you.
I have noticed most artist don’t even try to use his technique even when they say they are.
🤷♂️
Thats great.
🙌
He is the best other than modern instagram artists
LOL
@@patrickokra think about it
Are you really sure that turpentine is a "fast drying medium" ? (12'55) In my experience, turpentine acts as an anti-siccative - it thins paint and slows down drying time.
Yes, practically speaking. Not sure that it is technically a siccative but if you use real turpentine and the thin first layer will be dry to the touch much sooner than using gamsol/oms, or no solvent at all.
Are you sure you're using real turpentine and not some sort of mineral spirits? Sometimes people switch the names
thank you
thanks!
How long do you estimate it took John Singer Sargent to paint this painting?
Tough to say, it’s a big painting, but he worked fast. My best guess is I don’t think he needed much more than 10 hours, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he did it in as little as 6, considering, you know, it’s Sargent
To me it's clear that Sargent painted in various sessions letting it dry between those sessions. Today with acrylics you can paint it in one day.
True, but at the same time many of Sargent’s effects would not have been possible if the paint was drying in 10 minutes- having an open time of 1-3 hours is really advantageous. Very hard to to get the drawing and subtlety of color. Also I don’t know if you can achieve the same body and texture with lead, but I’m sure if people are clever they can replicate similar enough
Was that from a sketch he had done first, ?
I don’t know of a sketch that the painting would be based on, but he often did small pencil drawings of ideas before making paintings
yes
thanks!
The mountains are glazed ?
Yes that vertical blue shadow could be similar to a glaze- I think I said “scumble” in the video, which is also a way of transparently applying paint, just usually slightly thicker/more opaque than a glaze. Matter of consistency. Glazes are super thin, scumbling is more of a middle ground
@@patrickokraThank you for an incredibly informative lesson. Would you consider Sargeant to have been a nouveau impressionist in this work? Thx
This was plein air you said....so obviously many visits back to the same spot, yes?
That’s what I think but I could be wrong. Just my educated guess
ES ORIGINAL DE SARGENT?
Yes 🙌
@@patrickokra me refiero si es una copia del original que ya vi que lo pintastes gracias
It's weird when people think you are great. Because sometimes you are just playing . There is a movie about that .
Sorry?
What?
There are a lot of marks on Sargent’s paintinga that look like he was using a brush with only a few bristles…
One thing I forgot to mention was his brushes- he mostly used natural bristle brushes. Many filberts and rounds. Over time they loose their shape just a little bit where little hairs stick out here or there. With a really big brush you’d be surprised how you can actually make very small, varied marks depending on your touch
@@patrickokra Filberts forever!
Amen 😂
Thanks for bringing us this high resolution version of Sargent's work. However your analysis was just obvious comments over and over on the wetness of the brush strokes, the under layers--or the dryness of such. Over and over. Nothing about color choice, composition, etc. Just texture, which a novice can see if they look at the original or the high rez version.
Spoke too soon, at seventeen minutes in, you spoke about some of his color choices for less than one minute.
Well hey thanks for watching that long. I tried to stick to what I could confidently say, that showed his specific technique as opposed to other landscape painters. To most people, texture and application is one of the biggest mysteries. The way Sargent approached color is a bit of an educated guess on my part, we can’t be as certain about that as we can be about how he actually executed the painting and controlled his paint. And I’m afraid that whenever we see people talking about composition of dead masters, it’s rarely on solid footing, though we have a few ideas on his influences
No problem, the painting is magical. Thanks for your explanation. @@patrickokra
Im sorry but as a novice artist, I think I can easily understand color choice and composition of this painting, but I really needed someone explaining me how to read brushwork.
Are you sure a novice would be able to do such detailed analysis?
I am a novice myself, but can only be sure of my understanding. To me, the physicality of the brushwork is pretty easy to see and feel. Both the effects of it, and what it took to do it. I may of course be missing something, but part of my point was that he repeated it, somewhat unsystematically, throughout almost the whole video. It was more repetitive than detailed. I would have liked time spent on his interpretation of the choices Sargent might have made in his choice of composition and the effects that he strove for with his choices of colors. Why that spot? Why that angle and framing? Why that palette, though it doesn't appear in nature? @@vincenzopisano5022
Sorry but I think you chose the wrong frame. Because all the “bumps” that are part of the design of the frame are very distracting from the painting.
And it competes with the bumps of rocks. I think a smooth wood finish in a medium or dark grey would have enhanced the subject matter in the painting.
To each their own, I think hanging in a room, a barbizon or similar 19th century style frame draws you to the painting, and gives it a real presence. Otherwise in a simple frame it might get lost among some book cases or lamps
@patrickokra I think a darker frame with a similar design would work better as the colors of the painting itself just blends with the frame
AI robot will reproduce such easy. lol
Ai will replace those who paint from photos or from imagination but never those who paint from life ✨
Sargent wasn't an Old Master. He's too recent for that.
Yeaaaaaaa, that and not mentioning what brushes he used are my main regrets of the video
Почему руками машешь?
👇 *promosm*
Excellent analysis. - Please, turn off your radio. Annoying sound in the background. I would like to concentrate on listening to what you say.
Sorry about the background music. The alternative was to hear the background noise while recording that I was trying to hide :(
@@patrickokra I never noticed.
I never noticed the radio ☺️
great video, but i wish people would stop simping so much, trying to 'be' sargent, and just find their own style, and voice.
I generally agree, sometimes it's cringe, but for educational purposes it's still worth studying the masters, Sargent included. I've learned a lot by looking at his paintings while working on my own
@@patrickokra oh yeah, master copies are a really fun challenge, I've done a few from my fav Victorian painters, but it's vital to separate your own path, from the beauty and perfection of the masters work.. otherwise we all just become less expressive, with no personality.
Good work though, i mean, amazing !
keep up the good work.
I don't understand why everyone gets so wet on wet for Sargent.
Lol good one!
you are explaining your painting by saying you are explaining Singer.....
Very instructive and insightful. Thanks!