I had a good chuckle at "Dotted all the T's and crossed all the I's" (20:50). After watching the five part 'Boston School' Vermeer, Velasques, Chardin, Monet, and Sargent lectures (amongst several others), I've decided to work through every video systematically. I'm very grateful to the unknown person who mentioned this youtube channel on a blog, at a time when I was searching for deeper understanding of light and it's effects. I have questions, but will see if they get answered as I watch. Thank you Paul for all the time and effort invested in this valuable and exciting quest for visual truth.
Thanks Paul for taking the time to answer my questions. Your answers seem to confirm my suspicions regarding sight size. I think you did a pretty good job of explaining things. I think from now on I’ll focus on studying the relationships before me rather than trying to apply some rigid method of drawing that will probably just get in the way of what I am trying to accomplish in the first place. Anyway, thanks again for these videos. They are very helpful as well as insightful. Love listening to these discussions!
Thank you for a sharing this. It's refreshing to listen to an informed presentation about the aesthetics of painting. It is easy to be consumed by the technical difficulties of painting and forget the music.
What I love most about the Boston School is how it sometimes indulges a very sophisticated sense of humor. Benson’s portrayal of his three daughters sitting on the ground, for instance, uses an occluded focal point, roughly behind the nearest sitter’s head, begging the question, what’s he hiding? Only if you know they’re playing cards-something well-bred ladies didn’t do-does Benson reveal he’s “concealing their hand,” a wonderful insider joke in common with a lot of music and theater of the same time, for instance in Alban Berg’s Lyric Suite, or comedies by George Bernard Shaw. That tradition goes back a long way, including hidden political messages in works by Mozart, for example.
There Will be a chance to ask more questions? I would love to hear Paul talking about how Gamell school and later Lack atelier relates to the work Frank Reilly did on teaching and Ted seth jacobs
Trying to talk about this in No. 6. Between the way I work, vs Gammell or Lack and then add in the Reilly method and Jacobs....That's a mouthful but we can do some enlightening. I was at the Art Students League but chose not to work with Jacobs.
@@nh-stateofmind Thanks! it would be very enlightening to hear your anwser. Im trying to make sense as to how the atelier system survived, its interesting to see the little divergence points that happened. It seems as if Reilly students and Gamell/Lack where from totally diferent timelines yet they try to respect the painter´s craft as much as they can.
Yes, so true... glazings over verdaccios or grisailles have killed the vibrancy of color in paintings! I was able to confirmed this when I saw Boticellis work in Italy! The color is gone! And.. the underpainting dominate the painting with just values but...not color! Monet is chroma. And the Boston School is the leader of form and color! No other school can accomplish this magic!
Why not copy a photograph? Mr. Lack taught that the camera distorts the subject, which I think is true to some degree, although an effort can be made to minimize that distortion. I agree that in doing creative work, strict sight-size is limiting, but it is more true to the way your eye seems things than using a camera.
And keep in mind I am trying to direct this to the novice so for them, put aside the camera. (Sad how it has become the measure of all things, rather) The reason for the avoidance of sight size as a method is the extent to which it develops trust in rulers rather than relationships. No one in our field long sticks to sight size as described in some books these days without injury. Seeing is the thing and any objective correctives to ones bad relationships is actually good...but not the belief in the actual value, angle, etc. Did Richard Lack discuss light effects with you, as part of your training Eric?
@@PaulIngbretson I think I wasn't there long enough. I was only there for year one. I regret leavening when I did, although I did meet my wife as a result... ; ) But I didn't work in color with him, only in black and white, both with drawing and cast painting. I recognize the limitations of sight size as the be-all and end-all. But I think it is also a useful tool when used with larger goals in mind.
By the drawing not fully facing the artist, you mean to say that he is not in a spot where he could put directly in front of him and draw it as if he were tracing it looking through the canvas/paper/whatever is the thing he happens to be drawing on…..which is why he is always relating anyway, as opposed to measuring. I have a HUGE issue with the going back and forth measuring that the bargue/intensive measuring causes me to do. It really kills the drawing for me a lot of the time, and in the end, I find that I waste SO much time in the end when I have to, still, near the end of the drawing, fix (with relationships of the shapes on the page) AFTER I’ve spent so much time measuring already. I think a little measuring is good, BUT, to rely on it, is silly and really unproductive.
I had a good chuckle at "Dotted all the T's and crossed all the I's" (20:50).
After watching the five part 'Boston School' Vermeer, Velasques, Chardin, Monet, and Sargent lectures (amongst several others), I've decided to work through every video systematically. I'm very grateful to the unknown person who mentioned this youtube channel on a blog, at a time when I was searching for deeper understanding of light and it's effects. I have questions, but will see if they get answered as I watch. Thank you Paul for all the time and effort invested in this valuable and exciting quest for visual truth.
Thanks Paul for taking the time to answer my questions. Your answers seem to confirm my suspicions regarding sight size. I think you did a pretty good job of explaining things. I think from now on I’ll focus on studying the relationships before me rather than trying to apply some rigid method of drawing that will probably just get in the way of what I am trying to accomplish in the first place. Anyway, thanks again for these videos. They are very helpful as well as insightful. Love listening to these discussions!
Amazing how much richer it gets over time, too, when you find the right track. Thanks for following.
Thank you for a sharing this. It's refreshing to listen to an informed presentation about the aesthetics of painting. It is easy to be consumed by the technical difficulties of painting and forget the music.
💖Thank you for sharing .I have enjoyed your videos very much..
What I love most about the Boston School is how it sometimes indulges a very sophisticated sense of humor. Benson’s portrayal of his three daughters sitting on the ground, for instance, uses an occluded focal point, roughly behind the nearest sitter’s head, begging the question, what’s he hiding? Only if you know they’re playing cards-something well-bred ladies didn’t do-does Benson reveal he’s “concealing their hand,” a wonderful insider joke in common with a lot of music and theater of the same time, for instance in Alban Berg’s Lyric Suite, or comedies by George Bernard Shaw. That tradition goes back a long way, including hidden political messages in works by Mozart, for example.
“Paintings are never finished, they are just abandoned.” I like to trot that one out on occasion. Thanks again Paul.
Yes, how true, Ross. Even God only made sure his work was "very good"
Monet was still simply breathtaking when I was in Paris last year 😍
Amen!
Haha "Stop wasting time" You might as well trace a photo. Couldn't agree more about sight-size.
There Will be a chance to ask more questions? I would love to hear Paul talking about how Gamell school and later Lack atelier relates to the work Frank Reilly did on teaching and Ted seth jacobs
Trying to talk about this in No. 6. Between the way I work, vs Gammell or Lack and then add in the Reilly method and Jacobs....That's a mouthful but we can do some enlightening. I was at the Art Students League but chose not to work with Jacobs.
@@nh-stateofmind Thanks! it would be very enlightening to hear your anwser. Im trying to make sense as to how the atelier system survived, its interesting to see the little divergence points that happened. It seems as if Reilly students and Gamell/Lack where from totally diferent timelines yet they try to respect the painter´s craft as much as they can.
Paul, you are a very wise man :)
:)
Yes, so true... glazings over verdaccios or grisailles have killed the vibrancy of color in paintings! I was able to confirmed this when I saw Boticellis work in Italy! The color is gone! And.. the underpainting dominate the painting with just values but...not color! Monet is chroma. And the Boston School is the leader of form and color! No other school can accomplish this magic!
Why not copy a photograph? Mr. Lack taught that the camera distorts the subject, which I think is true to some degree, although an effort can be made to minimize that distortion. I agree that in doing creative work, strict sight-size is limiting, but it is more true to the way your eye seems things than using a camera.
And keep in mind I am trying to direct this to the novice so for them, put aside the camera. (Sad how it has become the measure of all things, rather) The reason for the avoidance of sight size as a method is the extent to which it develops trust in rulers rather than relationships. No one in our field long sticks to sight size as described in some books these days without injury. Seeing is the thing and any objective correctives to ones bad relationships is actually good...but not the belief in the actual value, angle, etc. Did Richard Lack discuss light effects with you, as part of your training Eric?
@@PaulIngbretson I think I wasn't there long enough. I was only there for year one. I regret leavening when I did, although I did meet my wife as a result... ; ) But I didn't work in color with him, only in black and white, both with drawing and cast painting.
I recognize the limitations of sight size as the be-all and end-all. But I think it is also a useful tool when used with larger goals in mind.
By the drawing not fully facing the artist, you mean to say that he is not in a spot where he could put directly in front of him and draw it as if he were tracing it looking through the canvas/paper/whatever is the thing he happens to be drawing on…..which is why he is always relating anyway, as opposed to measuring. I have a HUGE issue with the going back and forth measuring that the bargue/intensive measuring causes me to do. It really kills the drawing for me a lot of the time, and in the end, I find that I waste SO much time in the end when I have to, still, near the end of the drawing, fix (with relationships of the shapes on the page) AFTER I’ve spent so much time measuring already. I think a little measuring is good, BUT, to rely on it, is silly and really unproductive.
Thanks for sharing your experience, Jacob.
“Noodling until you lost your aesthetic point and literally became a literalist “ , wow.
Dotted all the T's and crossed all the I's 😆