Virgil is a wealth of knowledge. He is the godfather of archival oil painting. When I saw episode 50 was Virgil, I immediately turned off my Audible book and tuned in to this!
Your guest mentioned Claude Lorrain; however, failed to mention that Lorrain used an optical device for drawing... the "Claude Glass" or "black mirror". This device became popular for nearly a century. One can observe a similar effect by looking at the image reflected by a smart phone with the screen turned "off".
Why can't I find the channel of Mr Elliott?? I used to watch his podcasts during the lockdown. Helped me through a tough time. But I can not find his podcasts on RUclips now. What happened to his channel??
Another great episode with the godfather of traditional oil painting. Just realized that The Creative Endeavor was live and kicking in its own channel. Awesome!
Thanks for all of your wonderful videos and podcasts. Regarding Vermeer and the possibility that he used a camera obscura type of device, I bought and tried out the Camera Lucida, based on that principle. Though I am not a master draftsman, I am a good draftsman, just not in your league. The outline from the Camera Obscura was less accurate than a sketch by eye. Regarding learning by copying old masters, I have copied both Turner's Fighting Temeraire and Velasquez' Las Hilanderas and both turned out very well. I'm doing a larger copy of the Fighting Temeraire for my son and I'm learning even more from doing it at a similar size as the original. I have learned a great deal from doing those copies. I generally work on several paintings at a time and am quite committed to always be working on an old master copy in addition to doing original work. I can't recommend it highly enough.
A ton of great information here...would have liked to know how modern varnish protects the more unstable paints like the umbers. About 90% of art ends up in a dump so hopefully when I am dead for a hundred years there is someone who has to bring my painting to be restored! LOL
Andrew, can’t find the Patreon page. Not sure if I already contributed but if not I would love to. I don’t see the description page. (Prob right in front of my nose!🤪). Thanx for your help
I love my Mars colours, yellow, red, crimson, brown, black. I have a rule now, whatever my painting needs are, if I can achieve the colours I need using Mars colours alone then I will use them instead of other colours. Even ultramarine blue and quinacridone magenta, I use them for glazings only, for that is how they retain their lightfastness best. Also, give chromium oxide green a try!
Regarding old masters' reference sources, in several of the art history videos/lectures I watched, when the artists won the Prix de Rome, they spent years doing sketches of Greek and Roman statues and saved them. In some of the art guilds or studios, the artists were expected to donate their sketches and drawings to the guild. They used those especially for figures. A few months ago, I was discussing this with another artist, and she laughed and told me that she had been closely examining some old masters paintings, and most of them used the same hand positions. I haven't researched that myself, but it certainly adds credibility.
@@zarathustracave5732 Thanks! Do you have any reference where I can learn more about the symbolic meanings of the various hand gestures? I look forward to hearing from you on this.
The camera obscura predates Vermeer by centuries.Vermeer certainly used an optical device for viewing and executing some of his paintings. His paintings have a photo-optic quality to them that one can clearly see without "science" involved. This doesn't detract from Vermeer's genius in the slightest. Can anyone name another painter, prior to the discovery of photography, that also has this photo-optic quality in their work ? Most of the drawings one sees, that have been created with the camera obscura or camera lucida, may be quite accurate in rendering; however, they are typically quite bland and sterile; not so with Vermeer. This points to how masterful Vermeer is with his use of the optical device and his sensitivity as a Painter.
In regards to Sergeant . what he did worked ! and I think use what works ! I’m not looking for a new way I’m not trying to be an innovator. I use the tools from the great master painters as much as I can
If optical devices were ever used I think it would be just to get a rough cartoon where there may not have been the opportunity for consistent sittings. nothing more- and much like taking a photo. Even with modern projectors it can only give a starter for ten- just to very quickly say eyes go there, hand is here. Once paint goes down things begin to drift and drawing skills are required. I think it might have been a useful tool to take a snap shot. I’m not convinced anyone used these techniques slavishly, particularly with camera obscura which is far from projecting a well proportioned image.
Painting painterly actually isn't one style, it's very wrong to assume that you don't want to paint painterly because Sargent and others had already done that. The quality and impressions and styles are different in painterly painting style
A projector is a tool. Why shouldn't I use it? Why is this a kind of taboo? Do you rely on you skill to ride horses or just drive a car? Do you also harvest and make your own painting pigments, frames and canvas fabric? If you want to follow the logic "an artist should be doing it all by his own hand and no extra tools", please go all the way down that road if you're not going all the way you are just trying to prove something. Are you also invalidating digital painting and sculpting as to tell these artists they have no skills? It's time to accept tools for what they are, just tools. All the talk about proving that using a tool is wrong is just some kind of ego inflating talk. There is merit to draw freehand but claiming that it's the right and the only true way that an artist should create art it's very a disturbing mindset.
None of your examples about using "tools" are similar to using a projector for painting. are you comparing a car ride with ART? Drawing is not just a simple "tool" for completing a painting, it is a skill that is as important as other skills used in a painting process. If painting is just a hobby for you, then you can use whatever tool you like, but if you are selling your art for a good amount of money, you better inform your customers that just half of those paintings are a result of your personal skills and the other half is accomplished by using "tools" instead of skills.
I agree with you. If I use a camera, which is my tool to take a picture that I took that then I edited to create the composition I wanted with that camera, which is a tool, and then went and used a projector, which is another tool to project the photo that I took, and edited to my liking to project onto my canvas then trace that photo I still have to paint and varnish and frame to say that this is not valid ? Virgil is very very old No Doubt. . Here’s another tool that I use. I hope that this is acceptable are use a proportional divider probably 99% of the time I hope that’s acceptable and valid when I get into my artwork. There are no rules to our art ! we should take advantage of all the tools that we can, and everybody can do whatever they want ! whenever they want ! To say someone’s work isn’t valid if they traced it is total bullshit
Yeah I worry when ppl get too puritanical about things like tracing. I was once told I should never paint from a photo and instead to only paint from life. The thing is, if you’re doing figurative art there simply isn’t always the opportunity to get a bunch of sitters, or to have the space, to paint from life. Advice like this comes from a position of privilege- most of us don’t have the resources to meet these demands. The same is true for optical devices. We might not have 70 years of practise behind us or the time to freehand or use measuring tools to do preliminary drawings of complex subjects. If you do have the experience and/or the time, then good for you. The only thing they’re good for is establishing proportions and perspective faster than most of us can by eye. It’s not much different to drawing from sight size and using a measuring tool- projectors just mean we don’t do the measuring. Also the finished picture will differ from the reference. We choose to change edges, leave things out, whack up and turn down contrast etc- all of which requires a lot of skill which a projector won’t help with. If I stage a photo and project it, all I’m concerned with is getting in main proportion and perspective. This doesn’t mean I don’t practise drawing or take it seriously. It just means, in the early stages of a painting I’m saving myself the bother of measuring everything out fully aware that it’s just a guide subject to change. I agree with Virgil that we should develop our minds so constant drawing practise is key. But I don’t think use of optical devices devalues anything as long as the artist is responsible for the composition, the overall vision and does something with photo references that photos cannot do. I think if you’re going to trace it’s best to do it mindfully and minimally. Too much detail etc will lock us into a paint by numbers type thing. Literally just proportions and main shapes- all the rest needs to be drawn. Art is about getting the image in the mind into the outside world. How we choose to do that is a matter of choice.
I would say use what works for you. Don't let one person's opinions influence you or make you feel guilty or not. You are the artist, and you are under no obligation to disclose the methods you use to make a piece of art to anyone.
Virgil is a wealth of knowledge. He is the godfather of archival oil painting. When I saw episode 50 was Virgil, I immediately turned off my Audible book and tuned in to this!
Your guest mentioned Claude Lorrain; however, failed to mention that Lorrain used an optical device for drawing... the "Claude Glass" or "black mirror". This device became popular for nearly a century. One can observe a similar effect by looking at the image reflected by a smart phone with the screen turned "off".
Why can't I find the channel of Mr Elliott??
I used to watch his podcasts during the lockdown. Helped me through a tough time.
But I can not find his podcasts on RUclips now.
What happened to his channel??
Another great episode with the godfather of traditional oil painting. Just realized that The Creative Endeavor was live and kicking in its own channel. Awesome!
Thanks for all of your wonderful videos and podcasts.
Regarding Vermeer and the possibility that he used a camera obscura type of device, I bought and tried out the Camera Lucida, based on that principle. Though I am not a master draftsman, I am a good draftsman, just not in your league. The outline from the Camera Obscura was less accurate than a sketch by eye.
Regarding learning by copying old masters, I have copied both Turner's Fighting Temeraire and Velasquez' Las Hilanderas and both turned out very well. I'm doing a larger copy of the Fighting Temeraire for my son and I'm learning even more from doing it at a similar size as the original. I have learned a great deal from doing those copies. I generally work on several paintings at a time and am quite committed to always be working on an old master copy in addition to doing original work. I can't recommend it highly enough.
Not to mention the panels that one chooses to use. That to me is one of the most important things to consider !
A ton of great information here...would have liked to know how modern varnish protects the more unstable paints like the umbers. About 90% of art ends up in a dump so hopefully when I am dead for a hundred years there is someone who has to bring my painting to be restored! LOL
Andrew, can’t find the Patreon page. Not sure if I already contributed but if not I would love to. I don’t see the description page. (Prob right in front of my nose!🤪). Thanx for your help
Great episode. Such knowledge and information!! Thank you.
I love my Mars colours, yellow, red, crimson, brown, black. I have a rule now, whatever my painting needs are, if I can achieve the colours I need using Mars colours alone then I will use them instead of other colours. Even ultramarine blue and quinacridone magenta, I use them for glazings only, for that is how they retain their lightfastness best. Also, give chromium oxide green a try!
Regarding old masters' reference sources, in several of the art history videos/lectures I watched, when the artists won the Prix de Rome, they spent years doing sketches of Greek and Roman statues and saved them. In some of the art guilds or studios, the artists were expected to donate their sketches and drawings to the guild. They used those especially for figures. A few months ago, I was discussing this with another artist, and she laughed and told me that she had been closely examining some old masters paintings, and most of them used the same hand positions. I haven't researched that myself, but it certainly adds credibility.
The hand gestures had special symbolic meanings in the late medieval and renaissance periods. That’s why they’re so similar to each other.
@@zarathustracave5732 Thanks! Do you have any reference where I can learn more about the symbolic meanings of the various hand gestures? I look forward to hearing from you on this.
The camera obscura predates Vermeer by centuries.Vermeer certainly used an optical device for viewing and executing some of his paintings. His paintings have a photo-optic quality to them that one can clearly see without "science" involved. This doesn't detract from Vermeer's genius in the slightest.
Can anyone name another painter, prior to the discovery of photography, that also has this photo-optic quality in their work ? Most of the drawings one sees, that have been created with the camera obscura or camera lucida, may be quite accurate in rendering; however, they are typically quite bland and sterile; not so with Vermeer. This points to how masterful Vermeer is with his use of the optical device and his sensitivity as a Painter.
I dont see any link??
In regards to Sergeant . what he did worked ! and I think use what works ! I’m not looking for a new way I’m not trying to be an innovator. I use the tools from the great master painters as much as I can
If optical devices were ever used I think it would be just to get a rough cartoon where there may not have been the opportunity for consistent sittings. nothing more- and much like taking a photo. Even with modern projectors it can only give a starter for ten- just to very quickly say eyes go there, hand is here. Once paint goes down things begin to drift and drawing skills are required. I think it might have been a useful tool to take a snap shot. I’m not convinced anyone used these techniques slavishly, particularly with camera obscura which is far from projecting a well proportioned image.
Polyester canvas will probably not be good - not for oil paint. Oil and heat (even room temperature) destroy plastic. Polyester is plastic.
Painting painterly actually isn't one style, it's very wrong to assume that you don't want to paint painterly because Sargent and others had already done that. The quality and impressions and styles are different in painterly painting style
Can’t get video.
You'll need to subscribe to Andrew's Patreon to get it, this is audio only.
A projector is a tool. Why shouldn't I use it? Why is this a kind of taboo? Do you rely on you skill to ride horses or just drive a car? Do you also harvest and make your own painting pigments, frames and canvas fabric? If you want to follow the logic "an artist should be doing it all by his own hand and no extra tools", please go all the way down that road if you're not going all the way you are just trying to prove something. Are you also invalidating digital painting and sculpting as to tell these artists they have no skills? It's time to accept tools for what they are, just tools. All the talk about proving that using a tool is wrong is just some kind of ego inflating talk. There is merit to draw freehand but claiming that it's the right and the only true way that an artist should create art it's very a disturbing mindset.
None of your examples about using "tools" are similar to using a projector for painting. are you comparing a car ride with ART? Drawing is not just a simple "tool" for completing a painting, it is a skill that is as important as other skills used in a painting process. If painting is just a hobby for you, then you can use whatever tool you like, but if you are selling your art for a good amount of money, you better inform your customers that just half of those paintings are a result of your personal skills and the other half is accomplished by using "tools" instead of skills.
I agree with you. If I use a camera, which is my tool to take a picture that I took that then I edited to create the composition I wanted with that camera, which is a tool, and then went and used a projector, which is another tool to project the photo that I took, and edited to my liking to project onto my canvas then trace that photo I still have to paint and varnish and frame to say that this is not valid ? Virgil is very very old No Doubt. . Here’s another tool that I use. I hope that this is acceptable are use a proportional divider probably 99% of the time I hope that’s acceptable and valid when I get into my artwork. There are no rules to our art ! we should take advantage of all the tools that we can, and everybody can do whatever they want ! whenever they want ! To say someone’s work isn’t valid if they traced it is total bullshit
Yeah I worry when ppl get too puritanical about things like tracing. I was once told I should never paint from a photo and instead to only paint from life. The thing is, if you’re doing figurative art there simply isn’t always the opportunity to get a bunch of sitters, or to have the space, to paint from life. Advice like this comes from a position of privilege- most of us don’t have the resources to meet these demands.
The same is true for optical devices. We might not have 70 years of practise behind us or the time to freehand or use measuring tools to do preliminary drawings of complex subjects. If you do have the experience and/or the time, then good for you. The only thing they’re good for is establishing proportions and perspective faster than most of us can by eye. It’s not much different to drawing from sight size and using a measuring tool- projectors just mean we don’t do the measuring. Also the finished picture will differ from the reference. We choose to change edges, leave things out, whack up and turn down contrast etc- all of which requires a lot of skill which a projector won’t help with. If I stage a photo and project it, all I’m concerned with is getting in main proportion and perspective. This doesn’t mean I don’t practise drawing or take it seriously. It just means, in the early stages of a painting I’m saving myself the bother of measuring everything out fully aware that it’s just a guide subject to change. I agree with Virgil that we should develop our minds so constant drawing practise is key. But I don’t think use of optical devices devalues anything as long as the artist is responsible for the composition, the overall vision and does something with photo references that photos cannot do.
I think if you’re going to trace it’s best to do it mindfully and minimally. Too much detail etc will lock us into a paint by numbers type thing. Literally just proportions and main shapes- all the rest needs to be drawn. Art is about getting the image in the mind into the outside world. How we choose to do that is a matter of choice.
I would say use what works for you. Don't let one person's opinions influence you or make you feel guilty or not. You are the artist, and you are under no obligation to disclose the methods you use to make a piece of art to anyone.