Battle Of The Brush: Walter Sickert Vs John Singer Sargent With Waldemar Januszczak
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- Waldemar Januszczak presents this battle between two of the early 20th Century's best-loved painter, Walter Sickert & John Singer Sargent. The film focuses on some of the most beautiful and alarming paintings ever made in this country; evokes the long-lost atmosphere of Edwardian London; and above all, shows that these two immigrants were waging a war over nothing less than the future soul of British art.
🥊 Who won? Have Your Say In The Comments!
Subscribe and click the bell icon to get more arts content every week:
/ perspectivearts
Perspective is RUclips's home for the arts. Come here to get your fill of great music, theatre, art and much, much more!
From Sickert vs Sargent
Content licensed from ZCZ Films to Little Dot Studios.
Any queries, please contact us at:
perspective@littledotstudios.com
#WaldemarJanuszczak #JohnSingerSargent #WalterSickert
I am an artist myself. Sargent was the greatest portraitist who ever lived. His work has to be seen in person. His skills bordered on magic.
I agree 100%
I agree, in person just amazing
Yes sir
@@667hodge everything in art is arguable. What do you have to say to refute that statement?
I think comparing these 2 artists is like comparing apples to tomatoes. Nirvana to B.B. King. They both present something very different. One is showing the dark reality of average life in that time & the other is presenting a powdered-up dressed for the ball so to speak moment representing high society & fashion. In my opinion, they both employ the perfect approach for their chosen subject. If we were to reverse the subject without swapping styles, the results would b awkward. I view their vision & execution as being equal.
I absolutely love Waldermar, what an absolute delight the way he explains things!! It's just makes everything sound so fascinating and I'm so glad you are posting more video of him. It's a great pleasure 🙏
I absolutely love Waldermar too. What a sensation.
Tu
Yes an absolute comic genius
Even Sargent's teacher in his portrait looked annoyed at how good Sargent was.
You're so right. He seems to be thinking, "Oh, really?"
Never underestimate how competitive most artists are, even with their best friends and lovers.
Your "poor" daughters are great! Your style of making the series of films is like modern art: personal context, spontaneity and immediacy, very alike the subject matter, really fun and enlightening.
Agree! Lovely girls ❤️
🤭
"...and you know how the French can be, about Americans." Plus lots more dry comedy gold.
'Piquant provocation'? Is that what that is? It's in the eye of the beholder, no? Whatever. What is clear is that Sargent appreciated women, while Sickert's eye humiliates them.
Or might Sickert have painted women who were humiliated by the lives they led and the society/milieux they led them in? Perhaps in solidarity?
Waldemar J.'s films are a guaranteed delight and never disappoint. His knowledge mixed with his unique personal viewpoint produce a most enjoyable experience. Bravo, Mr J. !!!
Excellent contrast of artists! (A big admirer of Sargent, I had never heard of Sickert). But no need to pit them against each other when they compliment each other in the times. The gilded era wasn't all "it girls" and high society. Neither was it all prostitutes and dark rumors. I think one artist makes me appreciate the other all the more. Thank you!
There’s no comparison, they’re so different. I have been a great fan of John Singer Sargent for decades and I think he’s underrated. I hope more people appreciate his paintings
He IS underrated- but not by anyone who has ever painted a portrait.
He is one of my favorite, but I (like many) see or attempt to consider the subject chosen by the painter & then how or why they choose to present those moments in a certain way. In this case, both artists r painting very different subject matter. I think they both employ the perfect approach to each. If we swapped subjects between the two while they both executed their standard style/voice, I think both would create something awkward.
We should start knowing that the artist (especially a master) is making a choice in place of assuming they cant draw or paint as representationally as another. When we assume instead that these r intentional choices, then we have a chance to see everything they r communicating.
Stylistically u might just prefer Sargents choices, but as much as I love his choices, I do not want to see every subject painted by every artist in the same light.
@@kindnessfirst9670 This is so true!
I know their styles are different but I don't think there's any comparison. Sargent is a vastly superior artist in my opinion.
Valdemar is comparing their worldviews, not their artistic prowess. And God he was right in 2007. And he is even more right in 2024.
Singer Sargent's watercolours of Venice etc mean that he has an added dimension which makes him the winner hands down.
Total agreement
Another satisfying Waldemar documentary. Nice to include the kids.
I would never have conceived of anyone comparing Sickert to Sargent but this was very enjoyable. If I could have the gifts of any artists in history I would have picked Sargent only after JMW Turner.
The curious thing for me is that Madame X is possibly the most beautiful portrait in the world, while admiting Sickert is more substantial, I could never have one of his paintings in my home. Less of all in my room : could you sleep there?
I could. Sargent is motly just kitsch.
I'd have to hang it over the bed so it wasn't looking at me the whole time. Or you could hang it facing the bed in the guest bedroom when you're having a hard time shifting guests out of the house...
@@karlkarlos3545 And what's wrong with that? Putting up a painting just because someone tells you you should like it, even if you don't, is silly. It's perfectly fine to enjoy kitsch if it gives you joy. People can prefer more than one type of art depending on their mood, just like you can listen to lighter or more meaningful music at different times of your life. Art appreciation should be free from guilt or embarrassment. Otherwise it's a chore, rather than a pleasure.
Also, Sargent's technical ability is enough to bring a substantial amount of admiration and awe, regardless of theme.
@@Palmieres What are you talking about?
@@Palmieres absolutely! Reminds me if Getty's collection at Sutton Place: crap art by famous artists.
This has been added to my Waldemar is the MAN list.
Another brilliant film by Waldemar the Great as I now call him. Brings art and artists to life like no other.
Your viewers should understand that Singer’s interpretation of the privileged, elitists of his time shouldn’t diminish the “Substance” of his work even if he was one of them
Imagine if people did the same with the fictions of Henry James and Edith Wharton. Sometimes it seems as though it takes a lot of effort for many people to admire the quality of a work, rather than the subject.
As much as I like Waldemar, this whole concept is as stupid as it gets
Why try turning Art and artists into a fight? Why not peacably enjoy them both?
Its specifically about their contemporary popularity, and whether or not one was considered better by the public, it seems. Not that you cant enjoy both lol.
@@glumsulk who really cares who's the more important? Who is biying either?
It’s just a “ploy” to expose each artist’s work. No one involved actually gets knockered in the face.
A more apt comparison would be Sickert with any of the Ashcan painters.
yep, and Sargeant with Joaquin Sorolla. But, I guess that comparison doesn't give you the opportunity to play the "it's grungy and harsh so its better game" that is all too often the default agenda.
Good film but utterly ridiculous to compare the two. Both are very good artist’s but are just totally different. To say Sickert is more substantial is just ridiculous in terms of his place, importance and substance in history. I had never even heard of Sickert until I watched this film (as I suspect of most viewers).
I'd never heard of Sargent, but knew quite a lot about Sickert after a visit to the MoMA turned me into a fan.
I agree strongly- one look at a Sargent watercolor and u know he is a master artist equals to the best who ever held a brush.
It got you to watch the film, didn’t it?
How wonderful. I love Waldemar so much!!! His films are so clever and entertaining. Just a joy to watch! 🤩 I hope he continues making these marvels for years to come. What a treat!
Good video but maybe next time leave some of the bias out of it. Wish you had included some of Sargents landscapes. Instead you put him in a little box.
It would be drab without the bias. It's art: everyone has an opinion and should defend it to the death! Until tomorrow, when they defend a different opinion to the death. It's on-the-surface unbiased media that are most insidious, I feel: through others' opinions, we develop out own!
Sergeant’s paintings are always a rewarding delight to the eye and sensibility. He adored women and made even ordinary women shine with a spark of beauty. The world Seargent paints is light and radiant. Sickest however was a drear dark drudge… joyless in so many ways… let alone adding in Jack the Ripper. Every time I see a Seargeant painting I thrill to the artist’s skill. The living light in the portraits is something no camera can capture. I don’t see why Seargeant doesn’t win the highest artistic accolades. Just because an artist is crude, I don’t think that makes them a more significant artist. Sergeant is the Mozart of painting portraits… Sickert is the monkey grinder’s organ. Lol!
Stupid comparison.Just because an artist doesn't float your boat doesn't make him less of an artist. Sickert celebrated life too. In his paintings of music halls, theatres and domestic interior scenes you gain an appreciation of the vitality of popular culture as well as the drabness of lives lived then. He was a man for all seasons unlike Sargent who was studio bound and painted accomplished portraits for fat commissions. Sickert was complex, forthright with a difficult personality, and could never be accused of blandness or conformity. Certainly,he would seem a much more interesting character than Sargent. His American counterpart was admired for his technique but bedevilled by criticisms of superficiality in his portraiture. He later specialised in murals and working en plein air and expressed mixed feelings about his earlier work. You state you don't understand why Sargent doesn't achieve higher praise. However,his reputation has undergone a reappraisal by some critics who admire his work and regard him as a post impressionist.But,then you obviously didn't know that such is your supreme confidence in your ignorance. Indeed it's difficult to take you seriously, particularly when you're simply incapable of correctly spelling the name of a painter you profess to admire so much. How strange.
Finally some Sargent
Awesome as always. So many juicy tidbits. Sargent wins for me simply because I have a thing for Chinese lanterns and our world is too dark right now. Thank you!
I personally agree with you. All art is subjective and what we would enjoy having in our homes is not necessarily what we would appreciate as an artist's success at accomplishing his/her objective in creating their work. Thank you for your comment.
@@fleur7891 Astute comments. There are some great artists whom one would not necessarily want to see all of the time-Francis Bacon and Lucien Freud come to mind. The modern cult of ugliness takes precedence over the pursuit of beauty. Art should represent civilisation at its highest level but some artist particularly contemporary ones wish to drag it down to the lowest level.
Why you are drawn to Sickert is a mystery to me. He is talented in his technique,but his subject matter is not something you would want to hang on your wall to look at every day. It’s murky and bleak and hard to make out.
You need Sickert to balance the equation.
One thing I feel doesn’t get enough love are Sargent’s watercolors. They’re bold and confident with punchy colors and strong contrasts between light and shadow. I love his oil paintings, but his watercolors and charcoal sketches are almost more impressive to me. An oil painting you can tweak over and over again but to be that bold with watercolor takes real flair. His watercolors are also a lot more personal than his portraits, he was painting what he liked and what interested him. They’re gorgeous.
totally agrre! though i hasten to add that his use of oils were fast and bold, yet incredibly delicate. its true that only a master can be bold with watercolour
Great programme as always; I think Sargent's watercolours would have deserved a mention, he devoted a great deal of effort to them in his later years, and they show another side of his talent.
Very well done Waldermar [ as always I might add]. As An aging artist now 70, and classically trained Sargent is one of the greatest Portrait artists of all time.[ my opinion.] Sickert on the other hand always looks for the mood of the painting. This can be light, location subject etc. Each followed a different discipline in art. Sickert in the 21st century is the winner. You look into the soul of the man expressing his realty through his art. A genius with canvas and paint. As a professional artist myself i wish I could paint like Sickert, but alas I cannot. Sargent , yes. I hope you can fathom the dichotomy this causes, painting portraits like Sargent but wishing for Sickert. Last note: you refer in your wrap at the end to 18th century, rather than 19th century. no matter it's a fabulous show as all you work testifies. Yes I've watched them all
You sound very talented , please enjoy your talent as it is your gift to you and the world.
Oh but I think Sargent could and did present a view of a harsh, cruel future when he painted his tableau of WWI soldiers suffering from mustard gas. It's a heartbreaker.
Made my day. Sargent for me....
Aways, the most sensitive approach and usually the most engaging exploration. However I enjoyed that bit with your daughters, it made me smile and humanized you a bit more. Congratulations on having two beautiful children. Thanks once again for another informative and impactful conversation.
🧑🏽🎨 I love Perspective ❤️
Specially with Waldemar..
Everything he explains has more meaning, more intense meaning. Definitely my favorite art Documenter 🎨
I wish he could tell my story.
Waldemar, you are amazing (as always). Absolutely charming that you included your lovely daughters in this program and the fact that you unearthed the music to that song .... well, obviously you are in a class by yourself and it is much appreciated by many of us, without a doubt. Please don't ever stop. We NEED you! Thank you again, for being great!
I’ve been looking forward to this episode for weeks. It was as advertised! Waldemar is always perfect. ❤
It's Sickert's misfortune to have painted just the sort of pictures Jack the Ripper would have painted...had he been a painter...
Until the price went up to $25, I used to visit Madam X every year along with other Sargent portraits at the Met in NYC
Such a morbid rendition of "Bicycle Built for Two" accompanying the first portion of Sickert and his dreary room. Very fitting.
It’s just in a minor key.
But yes.
Sargent is a better painter, without question. And his sketches are beautiful too. But Sickert’s work actually makes me feel more. There’s a sort of weird nostalgia in his paintings, as though even when he painted it he was feeling the moment’s impermanence. They feel like someone’s memories, faded and ordinary but the best or most memorable moments of some person’s life. I dunno, they’re haunting.
Although they were contemporaries I've never thought of making a comparison, which made this documentary all the more enticing. Sargent was indeed tied to the 18th century, but he did it with such bravura and facility that it is impossible not to be drawn to the magic of his paintings. Sickert, on the other hand was indeed more the man of his time. The emotional intensity and the darkness of his paintings were perhaps a portend of the darkness that would engulf Europe in the 20th century. Having said that, he was also still part of an earlier tradition in art that was being pulled down by the Modernism movement in Europe. Looking at them both now in 2022 and detaching them from their time I find them both too interesting to declare winner in this match. A draw?
Waldemar should be declared a National Treasure!
How was Sargent tied to the 18th century? He was born in the 19th century and most of his career was in the 20th century. Nothing of his style was typical of the painting of the 18th century. It’s a bit of a nonsensical comment
Each artist is a perfect expression of separate but parallel life-worlds of Edwardian London. Both are great in their own way, but let's just say it's Waldemar who wins the round!
I'm surprised/puzzled, that in the wrap up, Waldemar twice says "18th century" when his subject has been of the late 19th and early 20th century.
I think it was deliberated, Sargent indeed is closer to the optimism of Reynolds and Gainsborough. Sickert on the other hand is pure XX century bleakness.
It is a trait of much spoken speakers to sometimes misspeak without realizing that at the time. Good catch on your part, thank you for your comment.
@@petrolillos Your comment is most interesting and may be correct, thank you for sharing.
@@fleur7891 The 18th century was said deliberately, I think. If it had been a mistake, they would have shot the section of the presentation again
WHEN ARE WE GOING TG O SEE VALDEMAR AS A LEADING ROLL IN A MASTER THRILLER
LOL
"...and I forced my own poor daughters to sing it." That's what I like about Waldemar: he's not just knowledgable and eager to spread his knowledge, he also has a great sense of humor. Thank you for uploading these series.
Was that a joke?
I would recommend your viewers to listen to Kehinde Wiley’s assessment of JSS by going to the youtube film by the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts “Kehinde Wiley: John Singer Sargent” August 1, 2016. Unfortunately, I think our host is bringing his “Woke” politics to draw his conclusions here.
Where's the 'woke' here, you total coulo? 1) Why do you think WJ is woke? 2) What does 'woke' mean to you, other than something to frighten the upstairs maids with? 3) Why drag in some bore on a blue-chip borefest of an Art Museum site here?
Sargent was almost to good for his own good, painting with deft, confident bravado from the start, creating technical but not artistically profound masterpieces, like Velasquez without the depth. His watercolors, not shown here, are most impressive, painting with facile directness and precision that I haven't seen matched by anyone in art history(I expect thumbs down on this last statement), but I'll hold to it! Sickert reminds me somewhat of having the morose sensibility and psychological depressive personality of Edvard Munch, but Sickert being an altogether more meaty and interesting interpreter of human subjects than Sargent.
Nice observations I really like Sargents drawings not to familiar with Sickert it that’s why I’m here.
Sickert wasn't just limited to gloomy paintings. There are amazingly beautiful and serene works too. And Sargent did way more than portraits. I generally find portrait paintings boring. Sargent is the exception. I emphatically disagree with the idea that he lacked artistic profundity.
So the conclusion is that Sickert was the more important artist. Did I miss something? Was that established in this documentary? Why was he more important?
I did enjoy this overall, though.
🧑🏽🎨 I'm watching the video right now..
Let me find out....than get back to you🤔
All art is subjective so another art historian may very well come to the opposite conclusion. How many paintings in the Paris Salons were rejected then later considered masterpieces? I think that is what makes art history so much fun, we all get to decide for ourselves what is art.
@@fleur7891 Agreed. It's just that he uses the word "important" at the end, which suggests to me influence on subsequent artists. I'm thinking maybe I don't know enough about 20th century British art... Just searched Sickert's name, and Wikipedia says 'He was an important influence on distinctively British styles of avant-garde art in the mid- and late 20th century." So I guess that's my answer!
@@artomatt Wikipedia gave one opionion, another source could give a differnt one, who is able to make a difinative answer in a subject of subjectivity ? If you get my drift. Art history is full of artists thought hacks at the time they created their art, only to be granted masterpiece status posthumously.
If you look at skill and technique- Sargent - hands down - have u ever seen a Sargent watercolor? He is a Master artist- important artist- Sargent body of work and skill level makes him eclipse Sickert -whom nobody ever heard of- 10 fold
As a portrait artist,I have studied & copied Sargent's works & they always amaze me
i was just looking for this yesterday after hearing it in waldemar's top 3 on this channel!
Love this show, commentary and analysis is a refreshing difference from the usual. Sickert considered as Jack the Ripper by author Patricia Cornwell, some compelling evidence though not all. Anyway another theory to add to the pool of suspects. From his awful dark and malevolent artwork makes a person wonder. I've seen some and it is creepy. These two artist are opposites, one light, one dark giving a picture of life as it always operates.
Yes, and don't we like Whistler? More on him, please. Also, painters named Bonnard.
So enjoy your work
🧑🏽🎨 always do ❤️
I’d rather look at a Sergeant than a Sickert any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
I love you
Sargent, though I appreciate what Sickert is trying to say.
..."there's no question he [Sickert] was the more important artist"... Januszczak's thesis seems to be that Sickert "saw it all", the surrounding reality, that is, while Sargent dwelled in a makeshift world, doing no more than perpetuating a bunch of obsolete pictorial conventions... I incline to agree, but strictly from the art historian point of view. However, the general public (of which I am part of) doesn't care too much about all this; they have preferences, likes and dislikes... Sargent was largely a commission painter, who eventually got disenchanted by it, therefore the striking feeling of inauthenticity in many of his portraits. But when at his best, he can make the viewer forget everything outside the work. I know many of artists who agree he has the magic touch...
...Sargent (as well as Velazquez), is what they call a "painters' painter". The opposite might be represented by someone like Dali, who merely satisfies the viewer's need for the narrative, the anecdotal...
I'm completely baffled by this comparison. I would have understood it had he looked at 2 different portrait artists - but Sargent vs Sickert - what the? I adore Waldemar - he's my go to guy when I want to learn about art - he's informative, but also funny and entertaining. I'd love it if he did a whole episode just on Sargent - now that would be great.
and I "forced" my own poor daughter to sing it. lol. I bet she was happy to do it for dad. Thanks for another wonderful, educational and insightful presentation.
Mr Waldemar it has a wonderful way of talking and an admiring knowledge about the subjects that he choose in every video. I love his style, and I think that it has an enormous potential toward the way of telling about arts.
Well that explains my grandmother love of Sargent, born in 1900
Ahhh... my favorite art critic/historan! Truly a pleasure to watch as Waldemar makes storytelling its own art form. Also, Seargent wins this bout in my opinion. His portraiture is absolutely stunning, and I wish that type of painting was more popular today.
When I grow up I want to be like Waldemar! :)
Well, though I love most of your programs, I thought this an odd juxtapose. They are very different artists except they lived at the same time. JSS is one of the best painters to ever exist. I wasn't a fan of Sickert's much. I DO love his drab view and unpretentiousness, but I wasn't a fan of his brush strokes. Something I've never said of an artist before. They would've been better had they been More detailed or Less detailed and you'd have to discern what you were looking at. He was good at giving the impression of detail when there wasn't much but other than that- I'm not a fan, lol.
Was expecting a pro Sickert conclusion. Mr. Januszczak seemed, by his tone, to have a bit of a chip on his shoulder in his attitude towards Sargent. If I look at the paintings themselves, there is no comparison; Sargent's colors, brush strokes, light and composition are heads above Sickert , whose predominant use of muddy colors, leave one feeling very underwhelmed.
Brilliant documentary and I’ve got the book and read it , an interesting read with interesting theories about the Ripper, as you say totally unrealistic as are other books about the identity of the Ripper
That forensic work w the stationary quite possibly would've convicted him.
I take great exception to your appraisal of Sargent and his work. From childhood he was a passionate and fairly capable draughtsman developing early in his teens to professional level. His teacher, Duroc, was a distant disciple of Velasquez it stamps his both their portraiture. You’ve omitted Sargent’s heartbreaking and heroic giant library paintings of gassed youth from WW1 or ferocious portrayal of the commanding generals. It is as ferocious as Goya’s royal family portrait, they permitted Goya to remain court painter but to never depict them again to give you some sense of the dark passion Sargent was capable of. You’ve also left out some of the watercolors Sargent painted including hard times and brooding scenes. The Jaleo if you examine the dancer closely is far more passionate and explosive more a bulerios rhythm.This other side of him is as critical part of his work as the rest, at least. To me Sichert represents a considerable amount of good social realists, in the genre of early Van Gogh or Daumier heading toward Lucien Freud
Sickert was not a murderer but don't you think he had an unhealthy interest in Jack the Ripper? Have you seen the Sickert painting of Lady Macbeth housed at the Royal Shakespeare Theatre? She is walking down the narrow stairway of a castle and truly, it gives you the creeps. Nearly all of Sickerts work is, for me, more than sinister, I find so many of them disturbing to the point I can hardly look at them without a feeling of seeing into the mind of a frightening man. Thanks for this documentary, it is so good and thought-provoking.
11:33 “…on January the 12th, which is my birthday, too.”
That makes three of us. Not what I expected watching this video.
Comparing Walter Sickert to John Singer Sargent is like comparing mud to Marvels!
Carnation Lily, Lily Rose 🌹 by John Singer Sargent, beautiful painting.
Sorry Waldemar. I disagree utterly. Sargent is clearly the best of those two. Even if he's not European.
I love Sargent's work. He caught the "good" and the "optimistic" and the "godly."
The host is pretty racist with his condescending attitude towards a black apartment border. And his description of a black youth riding the metro, who might up and kill him if he asked to turn his “rap” music down.
Wonderful, thank you Waldemar from a Canadian Gautreau who has always studied John Singer Sargent with interest
Well done , great singing in behalf of your daughter🙏🏼❤️
There is no proof that Sargeant painted fast. Its just an assumption based on how his works look. Love his paintings.
I just watched your Michelangelo Sistine Chapel Secret documentary today on Sky Arts, 2+ hours beautifully spent. Love the art, the buildings and your story telling is amazing - Thank you so much!
As time goes by, Sargent becomes more and more popular. He is all over the place in Pinterest and RUclips. A genius artist who made beautiful portraits of the elite. He is inspirational. Who doesn't want to be paid thousands to paint Barack Obama and Angeline Jolie? I found out about Sickert from an art teacher. He struggled to develop his craft. The paintings are too dark and frankly too ugly. But they stick with me. They make me care. I see the skill of Marvel movies, but, honestly, the shabby indie movie is usually the one that sticks.
your comments about Sargent are unfair- when seen up close his strokes- he in my mind is equivalent to Van Gogh- mastery of brushwork so bravura never is the cliche you describe
The fact that Patricia Cornwell destroyed one of Sickert’s paintings trying to find evidence to support her theory is disgusting.
Excellent program as always. However, let's not be confused by modern artistic relevance and forget that Sargent was one of the greatest painters of all time. Comparable only to Van Dyck and Velazquez. Sickert vs. Sargent is interesting to discuss but, frankly, Sickert was and will remain a historical footnote when it comes to his painting. But he will be remembered instead for his brilliant criticisms and writing!
"...and I've forced my own poor daughters to sing it". 6:19 Much of the charm of this series comes from the editing in of related materials and I was just thinking how damn charming it was to have these two girls playing and singing this song, especially with their dresses and braces. At that moment, I discovered that these are the daughters of Waldemar. Wow. I love this guy and I love this art series. It's informative and entertaining.
Sargent is better
It's interesting to think of Sargent and Sickert as sort of opposites on the artistic spectrum and where Lucien Freud fits in:
Sargent: swiftness, bravura, technical brilliance, classical composition, taste, refinery, wealth, light and color, color, color, but at times shallow and superficial.
Sickert: slow, plodding, technically awkward at times, dirty, mundane, grimy, the impoverished, the overlooked and darkness, darkness, darkness and always seems to swim in the depths of the human condition.
And then there's Freud, who sits right smack in between them and staddles both worlds.
The best!
I just think J.S. Sargent is the *ne plus ultra*. Him and Joaquín Sorolla. You could literally spend your whole life just studying those two, learning what they knew, and that would be your course in Art.
I love this series as all of Waldy's are so interesting. I've learned so much. Sickert & Sargent need to meet Bellows!
Great as always but Sargent's best paintings are not portraits.
What a surprise! Who would ever guess which artist would be considered the better by Januszczak. Sargent couldn't possibly be the one, after all he was successful in his day and (even worse) American! Naturally Sickert's morbid muddy postage stamp size daubs are preferable! These ridiculous ego-theatrics of Januszczak's (the boxing ring sequence is particularly annoying!) are not in the least enlightening, but without doubt, condescending in their manufactured Art-For-The-People pretense! Waldemar's blather is everything that is false in Art Scholarship today! Oh for the days of Kenneth Clark!
Oh shut up. We love him.
it interests me that many in the comments mention that they knew sargent but this was their introduction to sickert, and this is true for me as well. we have been more exposed to the upper class paintings of sargent, while sickerts mood evoking depictions of working class life dont receive the same promotion. it might be that his paintings make people uncomfortable, and of course its easy and completely justified to appreciate sargents skill, but still interesting.
Why is the Sargent painting hiding behind that out of place statue? I really don't know. Anyone?
Bardzo dziękuję za kolejną fascynującą podróż do świata sztuki. Z niecierpliwością czekam na każdą kolejną wyprawę. Pozdrowienia z Krakowa!
Exactly!
Waldemar has that special Pied Piper mercurial something that can entice, even someone like myself, who is not a fan of Edwardian Period painting in particular, to not only enjoy, but also whet ones appetite for the next delightful tidbit, of curio shop background historical information (mixed in with a smattering of gritty gutter gore, just for color). Most likely, I will never be an impassioned patron of Edwardian painting, neither by Sergeant nor his arch rival Sickert, but Waldemar has opened yet again another door, from behind which, one may glimpse a fleeting moment into that mysterious undiscovered country, of art. Brilliant production.
PS: Would someone please let me know what that famous guitar melody playing at 20:04 is?
Thank you Perspective and Waldemar J.
According to Shazam, it’s
Albéniz: Tango, Op.165, No.2 by Eduardo Fernandez
@@lordofthemound3890 Thank you so much.😁
@@lordofthemound3890 Thank you so much. Love Albeniz!
WTF was that unnecessary prejudiced bordering close to racist comment bit at the end Waldemar?! (57.48) You're better than that Sir.
I did not hear race mentioned. I hear he was nervous of someone loudly blaring aggressive music on the tube. Your assumption of race seems the racist thing.
Waldemar Januszczak is a great Teacher, Presenter, and Communicator! I will not miss a single one of his videos.
So good, so good.
To call Sickert the more important artist reveals more about the presenter himself than it does about either artist.
Pf. He's just stating facts here. Getting angry about it reveals more about you than it does about the presenter. (see, it works this way too.)
@@karlkarlos3545 A fact and an opinion. A fact is objective and an opinion is subjective. Know the difference. When a person states a fact, he is not necessarily revealing anything about himself. Stating an opinion always does. When the presenter stated that Sickert was the more important he was making an opinion. Others, perhaps the majority, would have the opinion that Sargent was the more important. Both are opinions-not facts. I suspect by your response that you resent Sargent glorifying the upper classes. But that is just my opinion.
@@charlesfenwick6554But facts can also be opinions and vice versa. Like it's a fact that in the opinion of the majority of art critics, Walter Sickert is the more important artist of Edwardian England. Deal with it.
Also, why do you attack the presenter for having an opinion, when all opinions are subjective? Is it because your opinion is different? A little hypocritical, don't you think?
@@karlkarlos3545 not a fact-you deal with it.
@@charlesfenwick6554 It's a fact. Deal with it. Nobody gives two fucks about portraits of bland rich people, regardless how professionell crafted.
Aww yiss. Been waiting for this since it was announced. I actually forgot about it at some point, so this was a nice surprise.
Also Waldemar is pro-child labor? Who knew?
I am sure he is showing how skillful his daughters are .
@@luzluz2980 lol i kno, it was a joke.
Sickert paints his own perverse view of the world.
I did not know Sickert but what a gorgeous painter he is too. For me both these painters are really interesting and to me they illustrated very clearly that art is not really a battle to find a winner and a looser. Its much more about experiential qualities of unique moments - its about uniqueness of each moment of life and yet at the same time being part of life - they both express beauty but from very different perspectives 🎶🖤🎵
I really enjoyed this! Can you do a biography of Anders Zorn please! 🙂
Yes, Anders Zorn seems to be so inspired by Sargent. We can clearly see by his works on how he was inspired by him.