Paul Ingbretson Talks About Brush Strokes - No. 17
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 окт 2024
- Follow up discussion based on the thinking of Ted Seth Jacobs (via a student) regarding impressionist brushstrokes versus the real look of nature.
In response to Keith
The quality of these lectures is incredible.
Kind of you to say it, Mikey. Thank youl
Hi Paul,
I discovered your channel after watching a Doc about Georgia O'keefe. She mentioned the "Composition" book by Arthur Dow and I found your talk about the book and then your wonderful library of talks about art. I'm watching each video in order ( at no 18) and finding that impressionism and the seeking of beauty and music in the visual from the natural world, RINGS MY BELL!
I have been close to nature all my life and have struggled to paint it because of the realism rut I self-taught myself into in the 90s. The last couple years I've wanted to unlearn this unexpressive manner and have made slow progress, but the more I grasp what you are talking about, the more possible this will become - what you share speaks to me deeply.
I am grateful you are making are making these videos and if I lived in Vermont I would hope to be a student of yours, but I live in British Columbia, Canada.
Expect some questions in the future,
thanks again, Mairi
Thank you and I am very glad to be of some aid. Love BC
You have a new fan. Thanks for helping us get educated.
i remember early on henshe saying we are not copyist we are composers, and one is to compose the subject as it is seen, and what we see are colour relationships unified in the light effect, the light key, and that as the light changes the drawing changes because all the shapes are moving, so the idea of being a copyist is a chimera from the get go, realism is another form of interpretation, as are all other approaches, as sir alfed east said copying a thing has little to do with the art of painting,
Ted Jacobs has written at least three books and may or may not still teach. He is highly realistic in his approach but in his technique he teaches the effect, the big look, painting what you see from nature. He does not paint every detail, painting effect of light on form, keeping the whole painting surface in mind, the relationships of the whole. He has a beautiful sense of color. His brush strokes are his own style, unique to him. He shapes the light with the brush stroke in a triangular manner. Very beautiful. Difficult to copy or grasp. Certainly well thought out, not just done for surface effect. But I wonder why his name would come up in a teaching video on the Boston School. And as a former student of his from many years ago, I do not like to see his name mentioned in an off-hand slightly dismissive manner, first incorrectly associating him with the Reilly method, then implying he over models, even putting down his brush strokes. Come on! The brush stroke is the signature of an artist, individual to him. Ted is a good draftsman, color always beautiful, brush strokes likewise. The Boston School has a lot more in common with The Reilly method than Ted's teachings. Atelier Lack students likewise with brown underpainting and similar palette. Good work can be done by all methods. The vital thing is to find a good teacher. And there are very, very few. Ted is one. Richard Lack was another. And you are also highly respected and well known. But teachers should not comment on each others methods unless they themselves have studied with the person. Period,
Just want to add. Ted Jacobs would mention, correctly, that Impressionists were NOT painting the accurate hue, value and chroma of whatever they were painting. Impressionists would paint the shadow quite a bit lighter than it should be, that you can get a more accurate representation if you painted the color darker in the shadows than Impressionists did. And Impressionists painted in a narrower range in the light as well.
So much nonsense philosophical talk. Get to the point.
:) comes with the territory, B.