Upon your recommendation, I've been pulling random books out of the art stacks when I visit the library. I look at them when I'm having my coffee, which is a very nice way to start the day.
I have always loved Van Gogh's paintings, but this is helping me appreciate his drawings much more too! My mean old witch of an elementary school art teacher had a copy of The Starry Night on the wall, and I used to get lost in it while she was busy being mean and wretched to us. 😅
Apparently the swirls in the sky that he painted accurately depict laws of physics that had not yet been discovered. I wonder if he could see them somehow or feel them?
@@coffeewithroomforcream I had a terrible 3rd grade teacher who just happened to have a Van Gogh Book in the classroom. She didn’t even know it was there and removed it when she found out I loved to look at it because it was a distraction from “real work”
I feel the same towards Leonardo Da Vinci. Great painter, but his sketches of his inventions, people, water, anatomy and architecture captivate me more.
Great video, thanks! You can see Van Gogh's love of line in both his drawings and paintings. I think he accentuated it differently in each medium, but it's an underlying fascination in all his works. It's crazy how well he can describe planes and value using line in his drawings. And in painting he uses it to play colours off each other. Huge inspiration.
I first saw van Gogh’s work in 1970 when I was 12 years old and I as captivated. So I was prepared to be riled when I read the title. But you make good and valid points and I recognize that the drawings have been attracting more of my attention as I get older. Now I see why. Still love the paintings but the drawings are great too.
Ooh hot take. I can’t say I disagree more. I think his use of color is extraordinary. I love his drawings too but i think his paintings are my favorite
I know right. Her points are valid especially with regards to dynamic range in values when rendering cloth, but-- when it comes to color -- Van Gogh will always be king. I'm so bitter that I will never know how he used the color red.
His early stuff fascinates me. Once he gets to the south of france, he's experimenting with flat perspective and impressionist ideas. How to show forum without structure. It's like an entirely different person once he gets to southern France.
How I wish I had you as my professor when I was in college getting both of my painting degrees. You really get it. All of it. Thank goodness we all have you here on RUclips!!!!
@artprof I do agree with you that his drawings are more structured and have the variance of lines that really give movement, dimension and texture. I do absolutely love his paintings and have a few copies in my home. I love the colors and the imagery. I do believe that the reason why people love Van Gogh is because he was a break away from the classical movement that perhaps felt a bit stiff for some. I loved the example of the side by side of the painting v. the drawing of the postman, it was a great visual on the difference between line variation and how it plays to the technical aspects of constructing a portrait.
What an excellent and thought provoking critique. I went through art school... okay, it was the 1970s. Yeah, quite some time ago. I didn't get anything like this in depth analysis of Van Gogh comparing his drawings to his paintings. I must say, you make very strong points that are not easy to refute, that's for sure. I can't. His drawing technique is fantastic. I do appreciate a lot of his paintings. But I always thought he was inconsistent. I've always given him a pass, because he made some paintings I really love. And because I also get rather inconsistent as a painter. And I've been painting as seriously as I'm able now for a few years! haha
I especially love his reed pen drawings. The sheer variety of marks VvG was able to get with such a simple and crude tool never ceases to amaze. In recent years I've fallen out of love with a lot of his paintings...there are a handful that absolute genius but I feel quite a few suffer from being rushed. I understand that rush of creative energy - I'm currently whipping out 2-3 paintings/week to prepare for my next grad residency - but over the years I've found that slowing down helps so much with composition and form.
I see your point, I copied VG's drawings at 15 years old to learn to draw but 50 years later I have no desire to emulate his painting. But I would hang the sunflowers on my wall! Thanks for your forthrightness and the interesting video.
I think it is the influence of Gauguin that is showing in his paintings, and also the influence of Japanese art, very noticable in the painting of Père Tanguy that is in Musée Rodin, and I'm not sure when he made these drawings, but maybe before the paintings shown here? Interestingly Van Gogh was very keen on an American illustrator, which name I need to look up because I keep forgetting it, but maybe he was aiming at the same kind of realism in his drawings.
He had such a short career that maybe he was really still a beginner. I think he wanted his paintings to be like his drawings, which were not at all like paintings. Also I think drawings come off very well in books but paintings often don't.
thanks for sharing! that was really interesting to hear your perspective. I think you're right that the structure he is able to achieve in his drawings is more impressive than in his paintings, although it is hard for me to appreciate that difference as strongly as you do because it is obviously a strength of his across both mediums. You brought up an interesting critique about the uniformity of his line widths within his paintings. I think the structure within Van Gogh's paintings is attributable in large part to his ability to build forms using uniform line widths but varying the other qualities of his line--in particular placing uniformly thick lines sequentially to create shapes or being very precise with the directionality of his lines in such a way that it creates more well-defined planes and therefore structure. He is able to make bushes, trees, beards, and clouds appear round & full and he can demarcate the many different planes of the faces he paints because of those aspects of his lines--not in spite of the uniformity of his lines but I think precisely because of the uniformity of the other aspects of his lines like width. thanks for another great upload!
I always thought that drawing and painting are two different sets of skills. Like walking and riding a bike. I enjoy exhibitions of drawings sometimes a great deal more, because you can truly get to know the artist through them. How they're thinking, constructing and planning. Fascinating.
When I look at VanGohs paintings they look to me like he was drawing with his paintbrush like a pen with a sameness to the strokes. His style. You made valid points, and I agree. His drawings appeal more to me, also.
Although I really love many of Van Goghs paintings, I can completely agree on your criticism. Taking your point of view, the drawings are really a blessing! And although I do agree that his strokes are not as impressive as his drawing linework, I do want to make the point that the whole composition of his late paintings is what makes him the greatest painter (my opinion of course) of all times, regarding creativity and exploration of the media. I see Van Gogh as paradigmatic really for art! Anyway, I had already a big appreciation of his drawings, and now I have it even more! Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences. That pearl for thought on structure will follow me on my 2025 New Year's artistic resolutions!!!! Thanks!!
I completely agree. I've never taken to his paintings. I respect them in what he was trying to achieve, but not a fan. His drawings however are fantastic. In the end it's all subjective. 😊❤
Until you said this I'd never thought about it. I can see what you're saying and I somewhat agree. Now, I think that his painting is much more about color and that they do have a certain "flatness" to them. van Gogh was a product of his time. Among other things, Impressionists were looking for color within color. This doesn't make me dislike his paintings. My take is that drawing is much more intimate, immediate and direct from the hand. Drawings are often quicker and drawing mediums can be so simple: pencil and paper; a stick on the sand. So, really, I'm not surprised by any of this.
Wow. I love Van Gogh, but I could really see what you where saying. He seemed to substitute the structure and details of his drawings, with strongly painted colors ( I have to admit not my favorite ) and Some movement/swirls. But now looking next to each other, the paintings almost look flat, compared to the drawing depth. Great observation for someone like me, since I'm just barely learning to draw. I still will love the unique simplicity of Van Gogh's folk art style!
As a van gogh superfan I will withhold my rage IF you will make a follow up video where you elaborate on your point about only using one brush, and explaing how Seurat did or did not make this practice work by pushing it to the extreme.
Yes I Love Van Gough's Drawings As Well AS His Paintings . But I Also Love Rembrandt's Drawings More Than His Paintings Which I do Admire Rembrandt's Use Of Lighting. Yes I Watched Your Video On Rembrandt's Drawings And Had Been An Admire Of His Drawings Since Art School.
Several decades ago, possibly after art school, I saw Picasso's drawings for the first time. A light went on over my head. Amazing works. Drawing people simply, clicked for me (I developed bad figure drawing habits in school). Picasso's treatment of hands and fingers.
What I only discovered fairly recently is that for even his most abstracted portraits he would start by doing a traditional, highly rendered drawn portrait, then progressively abstract the face. It explains why even though they are very abstracted his portraits still somehow convey both the anatomy of the face and the character of the model.
I hadn't taken the time to find his drawing before and I can definitely see why they are worth being appreciated. I enjoy his use of colour and still like his paintings but now you've given me even more to enjoy. Art is so wildly subjective so why shouldn't there be a diversity of opinions, nothing wrong with that
Structures in art is simply harmonizing elements ( lines , shapes, shades etc.) that are not perfectly done area by area BUt to see the whole composition is projecting a concrete cohesion where beauty on an art arises on its own
Drawings or sketches ofyen reveal a different dimension of an artist. I appreciate what you are getting at. I enjoy lioking at artists sketches or even sketchbooks, as they reveal their thought process, their trial and errors and their eye for detail. In his paintings, and in many other impressionists, the paintings are less controlled than their drawings, much more loose and they look more spontaneous than the drawings. I find appreciating the artists's drawings offer a different insigt into their work.
I appreciate hearing prof Lieu's appreciation of Van Gogh's drawings. However, if I were given a choice between his amazing, colorful, expressive brush stroke painting/ portrait, vs the drawing of the same person, I'd choose the painting without hesitation. All that I love about Van Gogh... well not all... But much is lost in the drawings. And Van Gogh was not deficient in using his repeat tiny brushstrokes; he learned from fellow artists of his day, which included Seurat & pointillism. He was creative, with his own version of the technique, rather than using dots. Merry Christmas everyone. Happy New Year. Blessings. Peace. Love wins.
There is a living artist by the name of Alexy Steele whose "cartoons" are breath taking but it doesn't often carry over into his paintings. By the way, his "cartoons" bring a nice price.
It's as if he was an Impressionistic painter but a traditional pencil artist. But yeah his pencil and ink pieces really show how good he was as an artist. I'll never come near him but that's the fun of it for me.
I agree with you! I prefer his drawings to his paintings by a huge margin. With someone like John Singer Sargent, I love both equally. With Van Gogh, I really only like his drawings.
Thank you very much for this short but excellent lecture on art. I have been in love with Rembrandt since I was a child. His light, mystery, mastery. Maybe that is why I could not be convinced to V. G.'s paintings. The drawings are extraordinary, but they have such a message that as a child I began to be afraid of life. I was able to feel what he drew so much and I am very reluctant to look at his works. I do not like V. G. :)) Best regards.
Valuable video for awakening people to such an underrated part of his work. Ultimately I think what you are getting at is that his amazing drawings were more faithful to the reality in front of him, and in that way ironically, more "photographic". The effect of color on a viewer hits in an entirely different way though, and is just as legitimate a way of expressing the things that were important to VVG...where objective reality recedes but the truth of interiority, and emotions bursts to the fore. Admittedly this happened in his case, at the cost of complexity of representational accuracy.
Blasphemy! 😄 I guess I can understand why you feel this way, although I love his paintings and drawings. I dislike Seurat's paintings, which look so stiff and lifeless to me, but when I saw his drawings, WOW! Amazing.
I dont agree with you on this, but I really enjoyed listening to you explaining your thoughts on this. I have not really looked at his drawing before! So I am going to go do that.
it is a valid criticism. i love his colorful works (i am a lover of bold colors) but i agree his brush strokes are heavy and look hurried. his drawing by comparison look like he spent time on them and the level of detail shows.
I think poor Vincent has suffered as much from over exposure and adoration after his death as he did from under exposure and dismissal during his lifetime. There is a strange notion that anyone who's work has stood the test of time and made it to the pantheon of universally accepted great artists is beyond criticism. When we engage in thoughtless hero worship we do ourselves, as artists, a disservice. If we look at the works of past masters without a critical eye we elevate them to the status of demigods, beings who whenever they touched pencil to paper or paint to canvas created only works of pure genius. This is not so. Every artist who ever made anything good at all went through a learning process where they stumbled and stagnated, where they made good works and bad. Even at their most accomplished they have strengths and weaknesses. If we refuse to see those strengths and weaknesses and how they came together to form the artist's work, then we cannot learn the valuable lessons these works contain. An artwork doesn't have to be perfect to be exceptional (perfection is an illusion, anyway), an artist doesn't have to be beyond criticism to be one of the greats.
I kind of agree. His art has never been technically beautiful to me, but the emotion he pulls from me when I view his art always struck me. Van Gogh will always be my greatest artspiration
Visual arts are an incredibly subjective area, and to critique, or worse yet, criticize the paintings of Van Gogh is completely pointless. Yes, his drawings are very well executed, and yes, you are entitled not to like his painting style, but to actually criticize his paintings or his style is going a bit far. You do not have to like them, and you are welcome to share your reasons why, but to put down a painting because it was done using one brush only is quite petty. Thanks for sharing, but I still love his paintings, as well as his drawings.
I think Van Gogh is highly overrated. The paint is gobbed on in thick blobs. Some of his paintings look like they were painted with pigmented stringy pizza cheese. I like it when the painting has a smooth finis and I can't see the brushstrokes.
Interestingly enough, l believe Van Gogh didn't think his drawing skills were very good and worked diligently to try and improve them. I also believe that he painted rather quickly, often completing multiple works a day.
I would recommend you trying to do a study of any one of his paintings and I guarantee you will come away, not only defeated but have a whole new appreciation for just how intricate and complex they are. Every brushstroke had feeling. Impossible to replicate , I can't say that for many of the "greats".
You are very right about the drawings *but* the best paintings have this unique atmosphere of childhood wonder with the world that is just enchanting (to me 😉).
My dear Professor, by sharing how much you know contrasts with the amount you don't know. Most of which is not even heartfelt. Simplify the complicated and complicate the obvious as my red headed fool would say. You look too fast! van Gogh knew how to paint properly. The parts never stand up to scrutiny. Only when the casual observer choose to take the whole as it stands alone. The man painted without thinking only before and after did he amuse this luxury. Painting was breathing for him as it is for a select few. Sometimes at that brief moment when we are embraced by the angels we forget this simple task and we seem to go on forever. Only a select few got Vincent during his life, I fear this remains the same today.
I don't think the comparison is a good way to evaluate his work, although you make good points. Also, most of your comparisons are about what the drawing does and what the painting does not do. It almost felt like you were evaluating the paintings using drawing criteria. Painting has it's own language.
Excellent. I agree with your examples but people also love his landscapes and botanicals where color is crucial. You could do one on Rembrandt who probably (?) a better draftsman than a painter.
Ooh ooh! Do Degas next! I would love to see an entire series of these analyses. And yeah, I strongly disagree with your Van Gogh take 😅. His paintings show me his mental illness in an intersting way.
You don’t like Van Gogh paintings????? Who cares ??? Who are you anyway???? You are not Van Gogh or anyone like him You are just a RUclips artist trying to get views Using fancy titles Of course you don’t like him because you are jealous of the way he brilliantly painted So you conveniently criticize his technique but you ain’t qualified There’s a tremendous difference between an art administrator/instructor of techniques of any university and Vincent VanGogh
Clearly you are not a regular on this channel or you would realise that Prof Lieu has a ton of art credentials that make her qualified to make such a critique. You can agree, or disagree, that's the fun of such discussions, but when you reduce your counter critique to personal attacks rather than offering a cogent counter-critique, it is you who comes across as lacking in credibility.
@@bluewren65 that’s my point people that have received accolades from institutions and colleges can’t criticize Van Gogh VanGogh painted from spirit and soul didn’t receive any accolades Became world famous No comparison between modern day art professors and mad genius Don’t criticize Van Gogh You or the professor host of this video Definitely not qualified This person received accolades so she can criticize VanGogh Not……
I like your scandalous opinion! There are a few different “masters” that I’m like… 🫤🤐🫡😬🤨🤔🫢🙄 …about. ‘Experts’ can tell me a thousand times about how the bold uneven lines on a Picasso portrait are poetry that symbolizes humanity and experimentation, and it’s not about technical skill, or whatever ‘they’ say… but I have a portrait on my fridge that my son drew when he was 4 that looks very similar to a Picasso, and it’s not bc my son is an artistic genius lol. 🥴
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Watch our video on Rembrandt's drawings: ruclips.net/video/qsr0DmOa4NY/видео.html
Upon your recommendation, I've been pulling random books out of the art stacks when I visit the library. I look at them when I'm having my coffee, which is a very nice way to start the day.
I have always loved Van Gogh's paintings, but this is helping me appreciate his drawings much more too!
My mean old witch of an elementary school art teacher had a copy of The Starry Night on the wall, and I used to get lost in it while she was busy being mean and wretched to us. 😅
Apparently the swirls in the sky that he painted accurately depict laws of physics that had not yet been discovered.
I wonder if he could see them somehow or feel them?
@@coffeewithroomforcream I had a terrible 3rd grade teacher who just happened to have a Van Gogh Book in the classroom. She didn’t even know it was there and removed it when she found out I loved to look at it because it was a distraction from “real work”
I feel the same towards Leonardo Da Vinci. Great painter, but his sketches of his inventions, people, water, anatomy and architecture captivate me more.
Great video, thanks! You can see Van Gogh's love of line in both his drawings and paintings. I think he accentuated it differently in each medium, but it's an underlying fascination in all his works. It's crazy how well he can describe planes and value using line in his drawings. And in painting he uses it to play colours off each other. Huge inspiration.
I loved reading this! Great analysis. -Prof Lieu
I first saw van Gogh’s work in 1970 when I was 12 years old and I as captivated. So I was prepared to be riled when I read the title. But you make good and valid points and I recognize that the drawings have been attracting more of my attention as I get older. Now I see why. Still love the paintings but the drawings are great too.
Ooh hot take. I can’t say I disagree more. I think his use of color is extraordinary. I love his drawings too but i think his paintings are my favorite
I know right. Her points are valid especially with regards to dynamic range in values when rendering cloth, but-- when it comes to color -- Van Gogh will always be king. I'm so bitter that I will never know how he used the color red.
Of course you disagree with me!!😂 -Prof Lieu
@ well I wouldn’t be your foil if I didn’t
I agree with you! Love disagreement because it illuminates what I haven’t yet thought about. His use of colour and stokes inspire.
His early stuff fascinates me. Once he gets to the south of france, he's experimenting with flat perspective and impressionist ideas. How to show forum without structure.
It's like an entirely different person once he gets to southern France.
I am Dutch; our clothes are crunchy.
Deal.🧸
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
hahaha. But the cheese is gouda.
I’m glad you can confirm this!😂 -Prof Lieu
The first time I saw Starry Night in real life I was moved to tears.
I didn't know what to expect but I love learning about ways to look at things! There's a depth to his drawing that isn't always there in his painting.
How I wish I had you as my professor when I was in college getting both of my painting degrees. You really get it. All of it. Thank goodness we all have you here on RUclips!!!!
awesome, plus I'm here now!!! -Prof Lieu
@ ❤️❤️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️❤️❤️
@artprof I do agree with you that his drawings are more structured and have the variance of lines that really give movement, dimension and texture. I do absolutely love his paintings and have a few copies in my home. I love the colors and the imagery. I do believe that the reason why people love Van Gogh is because he was a break away from the classical movement that perhaps felt a bit stiff for some. I loved the example of the side by side of the painting v. the drawing of the postman, it was a great visual on the difference between line variation and how it plays to the technical aspects of constructing a portrait.
It is because of his strong drawing technique that his paintings look so unique. He was drawing with paint!
Him and Klee “drew” with paint.
What an excellent and thought provoking critique. I went through art school... okay, it was the 1970s. Yeah, quite some time ago. I didn't get anything like this in depth analysis of Van Gogh comparing his drawings to his paintings. I must say, you make very strong points that are not easy to refute, that's for sure. I can't. His drawing technique is fantastic. I do appreciate a lot of his paintings. But I always thought he was inconsistent. I've always given him a pass, because he made some paintings I really love. And because I also get rather inconsistent as a painter. And I've been painting as seriously as I'm able now for a few years! haha
Great thoughts! -Prof Lieu
I 100% disagree XD I absolutely love his paintings, how he uses color and how he creates movement using one brush.
I especially love his reed pen drawings. The sheer variety of marks VvG was able to get with such a simple and crude tool never ceases to amaze.
In recent years I've fallen out of love with a lot of his paintings...there are a handful that absolute genius but I feel quite a few suffer from being rushed. I understand that rush of creative energy - I'm currently whipping out 2-3 paintings/week to prepare for my next grad residency - but over the years I've found that slowing down helps so much with composition and form.
Prof Lieu rocking the boat! 😱🥰 I love how you talk seriously about Art to us! Serious art thoughts heal my soul! Tysm!
Hehehe 😂 -Prof Lieu
I see your point, I copied VG's drawings at 15 years old to learn to draw but 50 years later I have no desire to emulate his painting. But I would hang the sunflowers on my wall!
Thanks for your forthrightness and the interesting video.
I think it is the influence of Gauguin that is showing in his paintings, and also the influence of Japanese art, very noticable in the painting of Père Tanguy that is in Musée Rodin, and I'm not sure when he made these drawings, but maybe before the paintings shown here? Interestingly Van Gogh was very keen on an American illustrator, which name I need to look up because I keep forgetting it, but maybe he was aiming at the same kind of realism in his drawings.
He had such a short career that maybe he was really still a beginner. I think he wanted his paintings to be like his drawings, which were not at all like paintings. Also I think drawings come off very well in books but paintings often don't.
His painting techniques look like they came directly over from the drawings to me. Just the color and medium being the difference.
thanks for sharing! that was really interesting to hear your perspective. I think you're right that the structure he is able to achieve in his drawings is more impressive than in his paintings, although it is hard for me to appreciate that difference as strongly as you do because it is obviously a strength of his across both mediums.
You brought up an interesting critique about the uniformity of his line widths within his paintings. I think the structure within Van Gogh's paintings is attributable in large part to his ability to build forms using uniform line widths but varying the other qualities of his line--in particular placing uniformly thick lines sequentially to create shapes or being very precise with the directionality of his lines in such a way that it creates more well-defined planes and therefore structure. He is able to make bushes, trees, beards, and clouds appear round & full and he can demarcate the many different planes of the faces he paints because of those aspects of his lines--not in spite of the uniformity of his lines but I think precisely because of the uniformity of the other aspects of his lines like width. thanks for another great upload!
I always thought that drawing and painting are two different sets of skills. Like walking and riding a bike. I enjoy exhibitions of drawings sometimes a great deal more, because you can truly get to know the artist through them. How they're thinking, constructing and planning. Fascinating.
When I look at VanGohs paintings they look to me like he was drawing with his paintbrush like a pen with a sameness to the strokes. His style. You made valid points, and I agree. His drawings appeal more to me, also.
Although I really love many of Van Goghs paintings, I can completely agree on your criticism.
Taking your point of view, the drawings are really a blessing!
And although I do agree that his strokes are not as impressive as his drawing linework, I do want to make the point that the whole composition of his late paintings is what makes him the greatest painter (my opinion of course) of all times, regarding creativity and exploration of the media. I see Van Gogh as paradigmatic really for art!
Anyway, I had already a big appreciation of his drawings, and now I have it even more!
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences. That pearl for thought on structure will follow me on my 2025 New Year's artistic resolutions!!!!
Thanks!!
I completely agree. I've never taken to his paintings. I respect them in what he was trying to achieve, but not a fan. His drawings however are fantastic.
In the end it's all subjective. 😊❤
Until you said this I'd never thought about it. I can see what you're saying and I somewhat agree. Now, I think that his painting is much more about color and that they do have a certain "flatness" to them. van Gogh was a product of his time. Among other things, Impressionists were looking for color within color. This doesn't make me dislike his paintings. My take is that drawing is much more intimate, immediate and direct from the hand. Drawings are often quicker and drawing mediums can be so simple: pencil and paper; a stick on the sand. So, really, I'm not surprised by any of this.
Wow. I love Van Gogh, but I could really see what you where saying. He seemed to substitute the structure and details of his drawings, with strongly painted colors ( I have to admit not my favorite ) and Some movement/swirls. But now looking next to each other, the paintings almost look flat, compared to the drawing depth. Great observation for someone like me, since I'm just barely learning to draw. I still will love the unique simplicity of Van Gogh's folk art style!
Wow Prof Lieu what an excellent video. I see what you mean and would agree. I learned a lot, thank you.
As a van gogh superfan I will withhold my rage IF you will make a follow up video where you elaborate on your point about only using one brush, and explaing how Seurat did or did not make this practice work by pushing it to the extreme.
Actually, I really don’t like Seurat’s paintings😂 -Prof Lieu
Yes I Love Van Gough's Drawings As Well AS His Paintings . But I Also Love Rembrandt's Drawings More Than His Paintings Which I do Admire Rembrandt's Use Of Lighting. Yes I Watched Your Video On Rembrandt's Drawings And Had Been An Admire Of His Drawings Since Art School.
Several decades ago, possibly after art school, I saw Picasso's drawings for the first time. A light went on over my head. Amazing works. Drawing people simply, clicked for me (I developed bad figure drawing habits in school). Picasso's treatment of hands and fingers.
What I only discovered fairly recently is that for even his most abstracted portraits he would start by doing a traditional, highly rendered drawn portrait, then progressively abstract the face. It explains why even though they are very abstracted his portraits still somehow convey both the anatomy of the face and the character of the model.
Thank you for this beautiful dive into the drawings. I've missed this kind of learning for a bit now!
I hadn't taken the time to find his drawing before and I can definitely see why they are worth being appreciated. I enjoy his use of colour and still like his paintings but now you've given me even more to enjoy. Art is so wildly subjective so why shouldn't there be a diversity of opinions, nothing wrong with that
Structures in art is simply harmonizing elements ( lines , shapes, shades etc.) that are not perfectly done area by area BUt to see the whole composition is projecting a concrete cohesion where beauty on an art arises on its own
Drawings or sketches ofyen reveal a different dimension of an artist. I appreciate what you are getting at. I enjoy lioking at artists sketches or even sketchbooks, as they reveal their thought process, their trial and errors and their eye for detail. In his paintings, and in many other impressionists, the paintings are less controlled than their drawings, much more loose and they look more spontaneous than the drawings. I find appreciating the artists's drawings offer a different insigt into their work.
I appreciate hearing prof Lieu's appreciation of Van Gogh's drawings. However, if I were given a choice between his amazing, colorful, expressive brush stroke painting/ portrait, vs the drawing of the same person, I'd choose the painting without hesitation. All that I love about Van Gogh... well not all... But much is lost in the drawings. And Van Gogh was not deficient in using his repeat tiny brushstrokes; he learned from fellow artists of his day, which included Seurat & pointillism. He was creative, with his own version of the technique, rather than using dots. Merry Christmas everyone. Happy New Year. Blessings. Peace. Love wins.
Really great to read your analysis! -Prof Lieu
There is a living artist by the name of Alexy Steele whose "cartoons" are breath taking but it doesn't often carry over into his paintings. By the way, his "cartoons" bring a nice price.
It's as if he was an Impressionistic painter but a traditional pencil artist. But yeah his pencil and ink pieces really show how good he was as an artist. I'll never come near him but that's the fun of it for me.
I agree with you! I prefer his drawings to his paintings by a huge margin. With someone like John Singer Sargent, I love both equally. With Van Gogh, I really only like his drawings.
Thank you very much for this short but excellent lecture on art. I have been in love with Rembrandt since I was a child. His light, mystery, mastery. Maybe that is why I could not be convinced to V. G.'s paintings. The drawings are extraordinary, but they have such a message that as a child I began to be afraid of life. I was able to feel what he drew so much and I am very reluctant to look at his works. I do not like V. G. :)) Best regards.
I think he is very good at making interesting texture with his mark making - so great
Valuable video for awakening people to such an underrated part of his work. Ultimately I think what you are getting at is that his amazing drawings were more faithful to the reality in front of him, and in that way ironically, more "photographic". The effect of color on a viewer hits in an entirely different way though, and is just as legitimate a way of expressing the things that were important to VVG...where objective reality recedes but the truth of interiority, and emotions bursts to the fore. Admittedly this happened in his case, at the cost of complexity of representational accuracy.
Blasphemy! 😄 I guess I can understand why you feel this way, although I love his paintings and drawings. I dislike Seurat's paintings, which look so stiff and lifeless to me, but when I saw his drawings, WOW! Amazing.
I’ve never seen his drawings before. I love his paintings. The drawings are wonderful as well. Thank-You for a great video !
I tend to greatly prefer his early "dark" work to the stuff he became famous for. Probably also a controversial opinion. :-)
I dont agree with you on this, but I really enjoyed listening to you explaining your thoughts on this. I have not really looked at his drawing before! So I am going to go do that.
Thank you! I love that our audience is so diverse in opinions, a big part of my role is to not agree with everyone as an educator😀 -Prof Lieu
I couldn’t agree more. I’ve never been a huge fan of his paintings, with the exception of a couple. His drawings, on the other hand….
Yes, he's always seemed inconsistent, as I was just saying in a post. But he also hit some major home runs with some of his paintings imho.
Wow, well said. Great critique!
it is a valid criticism. i love his colorful works (i am a lover of bold colors) but i agree his brush strokes are heavy and look hurried. his drawing by comparison look like he spent time on them and the level of detail shows.
I feel the same way about Tiepolo. Love his sketches, but the paintings do nothing for me.
Love every bit of his art !! Thx so much !!
I think poor Vincent has suffered as much from over exposure and adoration after his death as he did from under exposure and dismissal during his lifetime. There is a strange notion that anyone who's work has stood the test of time and made it to the pantheon of universally accepted great artists is beyond criticism. When we engage in thoughtless hero worship we do ourselves, as artists, a disservice. If we look at the works of past masters without a critical eye we elevate them to the status of demigods, beings who whenever they touched pencil to paper or paint to canvas created only works of pure genius. This is not so. Every artist who ever made anything good at all went through a learning process where they stumbled and stagnated, where they made good works and bad. Even at their most accomplished they have strengths and weaknesses. If we refuse to see those strengths and weaknesses and how they came together to form the artist's work, then we cannot learn the valuable lessons these works contain. An artwork doesn't have to be perfect to be exceptional (perfection is an illusion, anyway), an artist doesn't have to be beyond criticism to be one of the greats.
That was great, cheers 🤟
Thank you for sharing your opinion, it was interesting and make sense
Glad you enjoyed it! -Prof Lieu
I kind of agree. His art has never been technically beautiful to me, but the emotion he pulls from me when I view his art always struck me. Van Gogh will always be my greatest artspiration
Both are good… haha he just used one brush😂
Structure! Just as important as value 😊
Totally agree Prof!
great video, well stated. though i love almost all his paintings
Totally agree
Yeah I hate that a lot of people favor paintings over drawings
Probably because he was a beginning painter. I wonder what he would’ve done with thirty more years instead of ten.
Watching this made me wanna draw huhuhuhu
Visual arts are an incredibly subjective area, and to critique, or worse yet, criticize the paintings of Van Gogh is completely pointless. Yes, his drawings are very well executed, and yes, you are entitled not to like his painting style, but to actually criticize his paintings or his style is going a bit far. You do not have to like them, and you are welcome to share your reasons why, but to put down a painting because it was done using one brush only is quite petty. Thanks for sharing, but I still love his paintings, as well as his drawings.
I think Van Gogh is highly overrated. The paint is gobbed on in thick blobs. Some of his paintings look like they were painted with pigmented stringy pizza cheese.
I like it when the painting has a smooth finis and I can't see the brushstrokes.
Interestingly enough, l believe Van Gogh didn't think his drawing skills were very good and worked diligently to try and improve them. I also believe that he painted rather quickly, often completing multiple works a day.
Perhaps that's why his drawings are so much better.
I would recommend you trying to do a study of any one of his paintings and I guarantee you will come away, not only defeated but have a whole new appreciation for just how intricate and complex they are. Every brushstroke had feeling. Impossible to replicate , I can't say that for many of the "greats".
I never understood the appeal of van Gogh's paintings.
You are very right about the drawings *but* the best paintings have this unique atmosphere of childhood wonder with the world that is just enchanting (to me 😉).
My dear Professor, by sharing how much you know contrasts with the amount you don't know. Most of which is not even heartfelt. Simplify the complicated and complicate the obvious as my red headed fool would say. You look too fast! van Gogh knew how to paint properly. The parts never stand up to scrutiny. Only when the casual observer choose to take the whole as it stands alone. The man painted without thinking only before and after did he amuse this luxury. Painting was breathing for him as it is for a select few. Sometimes at that brief moment when we are embraced by the angels we forget this simple task and we seem to go on forever. Only a select few got Vincent during his life, I fear this remains the same today.
I don't think the comparison is a good way to evaluate his work, although you make good points. Also, most of your comparisons are about what the drawing does and what the painting does not do. It almost felt like you were evaluating the paintings using drawing criteria. Painting has it's own language.
Feel the same. His paintings are meh.
Excellent. I agree with your examples but people also love his landscapes and botanicals where color is crucial.
You could do one on Rembrandt who probably (?) a better draftsman than a painter.
Yeah, nah, that dude could paint. Whether he was better at drawing? It would be a 50:50.
Ha.
The internet and social mead is has lead to complete madness! Not joking.
Ooh ooh! Do Degas next! I would love to see an entire series of these analyses.
And yeah, I strongly disagree with your Van Gogh take 😅. His paintings show me his mental illness in an intersting way.
You don’t like Van Gogh paintings?????
Who cares ???
Who are you anyway????
You are not Van Gogh or anyone like him
You are just a RUclips artist trying to get views
Using fancy titles
Of course you don’t like him because you are jealous of the way he brilliantly painted
So you conveniently criticize his technique but you ain’t qualified
There’s a tremendous difference between an art administrator/instructor of techniques of any university and Vincent VanGogh
Clearly you are not a regular on this channel or you would realise that Prof Lieu has a ton of art credentials that make her qualified to make such a critique. You can agree, or disagree, that's the fun of such discussions, but when you reduce your counter critique to personal attacks rather than offering a cogent counter-critique, it is you who comes across as lacking in credibility.
@@bluewren65 that’s my point people that have received accolades from institutions and colleges can’t criticize Van Gogh
VanGogh painted from spirit and soul didn’t receive any accolades
Became world famous
No comparison between modern day art professors and mad genius
Don’t criticize Van Gogh
You or the professor host of this video
Definitely not qualified
This person received accolades so she can criticize VanGogh
Not……
I like your scandalous opinion! There are a few different “masters” that I’m like… 🫤🤐🫡😬🤨🤔🫢🙄 …about. ‘Experts’ can tell me a thousand times about how the bold uneven lines on a Picasso portrait are poetry that symbolizes humanity and experimentation, and it’s not about technical skill, or whatever ‘they’ say… but I have a portrait on my fridge that my son drew when he was 4 that looks very similar to a Picasso, and it’s not bc my son is an artistic genius lol. 🥴
Can you do a vid on just how bad the overated Frida kahlo was please?
There is no mention of story or meaning or purpose or what Van Gogh was expressing in his paintings. Only technique