Sargent and the sea

0

Dear Artist,

A good friend, Ron Longstaffe, now passed away, was an off-and-on fishing companion. A significant collector of what we amusingly called low- and medium-skilled art, he and I frequently whiled away boat hours discussing the virtues of his multi-million dollar collection. As he didn’t care for my work and didn’t have any to speak of, we always felt we could be quite straightforward with each other. Finely art-literate for a capitalist, he surprised me one day when he told me he didn’t know John Singer Sargent painted landscapes. “I thought he was just a society portrait painter,” he said.

102709_sargent-artwork3

“The Chess Game”
— pretty hard to beat Sargent for pure opulent brushwork. The flash and dash belies the labour he put into it.

Needless to say, I tried to set him straight. I told him Sargent was an idealist whose heart was often in the mountains or out at sea. I mentioned that he quit portraiture — with dozens of commissions in his calendar — so he could paint commonplace motifs that simply appealed to him, often en plein air.

I’m laptopping you from the Corcoran Gallery in Washington, DC. Right now there’s a terrific retrospective here called “Sargent and the Sea.” It’s loaded with fresh watercolours and oils, including beach scenes with children and nudes, derelict boats, and frightening storms from some of his ocean crossings. Sargent was an obsessive sketcher, and the show is enriched with 80 drawings and scrapbook sketches.

102709_sargent-artwork4

“Self-portrait”
John Singer Sargent Perhaps a quiet, fussy guy who measured success by the odd piece he considered barely passable.

John Singer Sargent (1856-1925), while often batted about by current trends and the expectations of his fans, was also a self-motivated individualist of considerable character and lofty personal standards. As a young man freshly emerged from the school of Carolus-Duran in Paris, critics said he had nothing more to learn. Indeed, it seems he could plop himself down pretty well anywhere and turn out a creditable work. As all good retrospectives do, this one at the Corcoran gives us a few off-the-cuff losers as well as a feast of winners. Perhaps a private conceit, Sargent’s goal was always to make work look effortless, and in those odd times when he didn’t quite make it, there’s a little flash of hope for mortals like us.

My friend Ron was a lover of all cursory remarks. I’m wishing he were here with me now.

102709_sargent-artwork5

Paul Hellue sketching with his wife, 1889
The last of the belle epoch. Such taste, such decency, such idealism. What have we lost?

Best regards,

Robert

PS: “Sketch everything and keep your curiosity fresh.” (John Singer Sargent)

Esoterica: There are three creative sources in this show. The first is the obviously contrived salon pieces that were carefully built up and monumentalized from previous sketches. Then there are other, also contrived, pieces where he attempts to make a casual effect, as in a snapshot. The third are cropped slices of what was presented before him — exercises in light, design, pattern, and line — in the service of understanding the nature of things. “Make the best of an emergency,” said Sargent. These small emergencies are a joy to behold.

 

Sargent and the Sea

102309_sargent-sea-artwork

Calculated salon piece composed by assembling prior sketches.

102309_sargent-sea-artwork4

Painting contrived from other sketches to look ‘casual.’

102309_sargent-sea-artwork10

A page from one of the scrapbooks with postcard-size images.

102309_sargent-sea-artwork12

Ambitious studio-based shipboard action dramatized after the fact.

 

 

 

 

 

102309_sargent-sea-artwork5

Preparatory sketch for ‘casual’ painting.

102309_sargent-sea-artwork6

Natural location sketch with haphazard elements.

102309_sargent-sea-artwork7

Hard to tell. Contrived or not?

102309_sargent-sea-artwork8

Obviously something that just appealed to him

 

 

 

 

 

102309_sargent-sea-artwork11

Typical shipboard composition with strong graphic pattern.

102309_sargent-sea-artwork3

Another preparatory oil sketch for salon piece.

102309_sargent-sea-artwork10

Typical annotated graphite sketches from the scrapbooks.

102309_sargent-sea-artwork2

Preparatory oil sketch for larger salon piece.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘Haphazard elements’
by Dana Rungay

102309_sargent-sea-artwork6

Natural location sketch with haphazard elements

I hesitate to write and ask this, but in today’s clickback on Sargent you refer to one painting as “natural location sketch with haphazard elements” and I am wondering… gee it looks quite an abstract, attractive composition to me… what is haphazard?

(RG note) Thanks, Dana. So many asked me about this and the item below that I thought I’d better be clearer. If you half close your eyes you’ll see the overall pattern of this particular painting — especially the spotty darks — are all over the place and not positioned in accordance with standard compositional ideals. Jumpy and decentralized, the eye is confused by these factors, as well as the significant amount of clear space, and this, to me, makes it an interesting work. Haphazard is okay.

 

‘Contrived salon pieces’
by Janice Robinson-Delaney, Ellenwood, GA, USA

102309_sargent-sea-artwork

Calculated salon piece composed by assembling prior sketches

I don’t quite understand what you mean by “contrived salon pieces.” Could you please explain?

(RG note) Thanks, Janice. In my books “contrived” is not a bad word. It means elements are assembled into a composition that may or may not adhere to standard formulae. The Sargent painting, generally known as Oyster Gatherers of Cancale, was painted to enter into a specific show or “salon.” Elements—the attractive women, the older woman, the young boys, were derived from prior sketches and placed into a picturesque juxtaposition designed for maximum appeal. This was in contrast to other works where the composition was “contrived” to be more informal and casual.


There is 1 comment for ‘Contrived salon pieces’ by Janice Robinson-Delaney

From: Mark Lovett — Oct 27, 2009

Is it possible that this scene is not contrived?

Since we know Sargent is an avid photographer, could Sargent have simply taken a series of photographs back to the studio, created studies, then created the final painting in the studio from the photos, studies, and memory of the scene?

 

Composed or contrived?
by Laurel McBrine, Toronto, ON, Canada

102709_sargent-artwork

“Mrs Hugh Hammersley”
oil painting by
John Singer Sargent

I would use the word “composed” rather than “contrived” (which to me has somewhat negative connotations) to describe Sargent’s work. Sargent’s paintings were never slapdash. He could portray things with a single stroke, but those finishing brushstrokes were planned and placed carefully on top of layers of struggle in paint. He often scraped out and repainted the head many, many times. For instance, he repainted the head of Mrs. Hammersley no less than 16 times. I find it encouraging, that even the great John Singer Sargent had to work hard to achieve his vision.

Mary Newbold Patterson Hale, one of Sargent’s Boston cousins wrote, ‘On one occasion, when the subject set for a composition was a portrait, the criticism was: “not one of them seriously considered.” Many we had thought quite good, as an indication of what might be tried while a portrait was in progress. That would not do for Sargent. A sketch must be seriously planned, tried and tried again, turned about until it satisfies every requirement, and a perfect visualization is attained. A sketch must not be merely a pattern of pleasant shapes, just pleasing to the eyes, just merely a fancy. It must be a very possible thing, a definite arrangement — everything fitting in a plan and in true relationship frankly standing upon a horizontal plane coinciding in their place with a prearranged line. As a plan is to a building, so must the sketch be to the picture.”


There is 1 comment for Composed or contrived? by Laurel McBrine

From: Kathleen J — Oct 27, 2009

I agree. the dictionary defines contrived as “obviously planned or forced; artificial; strained: a contrived story” – this doesn’t match what we see in the painting. While he may have planned it to be more appealing, it doesn’t feel forced, artificial or strained.

 

Sargent as guide
by Ed Pointer, Afghanistan

102709_ed-pointer-artwork

“Buffalo Moon”
acrylic 14 x 18 inches
by Ed Pointer

I guess we are all admirers of Sargent’s work and what better painter to use as a guide in our challenging profession! In any case I’ve studied his work but paint nothing like him and certainly not as well. I’ve always thought both his sketch and completed painting Oyster Gatherers of Cancale to be a masterful work. Early in my painting career I found myself staring for hours at various reproductions of that painting but I have never had the good fortune to look at the original; someday that will happen. Meantime thanks so much for your continued good info and thoughts. I am in wonder at how you manage to finish all the things you do and still have time to paint.

 

Effortless work
by Kate Lackman, Cincinnati, OH, USA

102709_kate-lackman-artwork

Untitled
oil painting by Kate Lackman

I, too, love the spontaneity of his brush strokes and the ability that he had to “make his work look effortless.” It is amazing to see his work and I wish I could go to Washington and view the show. I was in an antique mall once and found a Sargent print beautifully framed of the Oyster Gatherers of Cancale for $19.00. I thought that it would be great inspiration in my studio. I also thought that one of my daughters would like it for her apartment. They did not like the print at all. I was really surprised and realized that they did not appreciate the beauty that I saw in this work. After studying this print, I painted my interpretation of it from a day at the beach with my daughters. This was such a good exercise and I know lots of artist today and throughout history have copied the masters to learn from them.

 

Joaquin Sorolla
by Karen R. Phinney, Halifax, NS, Canada

102709_sorolla-artwork

“The Wounded Foot”
oil painting by
Joaquin Sorolla

Another favourite of mine is Joaquin Sorolla, the impressionist artist who lived from 1863 to 1923. He also painted boys and girls in the water, portraits and local scenes of all descriptions. He, too, was prolific and very versatile and skilled. I loved his work the first time I saw it in his house museum in Madrid. I was absolutely blown away by the passion in his paintings, the brilliant sunny colours and the brushstrokes, so confident and strong.

 

 

 

 

Eye doesn’t need exact details
by Gary Lanthrum, Manassas, VA, USA

There are a couple of other museums in DC that have paintings by Sargent. The Freer Gallery adjacent to the Smithsonian castle, and the National Gallery of Art. I frequently visit those museums just to see the Sargent paintings. He manages to slap paint on the canvas in what appears to be a haphazard way when viewed from up close. As you move away from the paintings those haphazard dashes of paint coalesce into powerful and coherent images. In one case the bold swipes of paint become a luminous satin gown with light and shade seemingly rendered with perfect fidelity. I tend to be obsessed with trying to recreate the details in my reference material when I paint. That obsession tends to produce some pretty nasty results. Sargent reminds me that the eye doesn’t need exact details to produce a very convincing image. In Sargent’s best paintings he separated what the mind knows from what the eye sees and that is a goal we could all aspire to.

 

Ups and downs of Sargent
by Paul deMarrais, TN, USA

102709_sargent-artwork

“Lady Agnew”
oil painting by
John Singer Sargent

Sargent was an odd duck. There is no record of any romantic relationships he had or even much evidence of a strong personality. He was well traveled but lacked any national identity. He was more Brit than American. I remember one photo of him painting on a boat with a full suit, a rope securing his pant leg to the ship. Landscape doesn’t suit Sargent to me. His landscape paintings lack the emotion you feel with a painter like Millet, or Sisley or Pissarro. He’s like a tourist in the countryside but hasn’t ever ripped his clothing on a barbed wire fence or turned over a log or landed a fish in a trout stream. He’s a camera-like observer with a great eye but what he sees just doesn’t move me. The same feeling I get looking at his ‘beach’ pictures. They pale next to a Sorolla or a Potthast. The Sargent painting that dazzles me is his portrait of Lady Agnew. He’s captured that moment of supreme feminine beauty and luxury. Her look is vaguely seductive, but unattainable. His portrait of ‘Madam X” also gets the elusive beauty of another sort of femme fatale. Sargent’s talent responds to these gorgeous creatures. He uses his great skill to capture them, but he’s not willing to stick his neck out to court them. I’d still take Whistler’s ‘White Girl’ any day. You see his total love of his model tenderly expressed. Sargent is a wonderful painter, but he’s sort of a tin man. It makes me wonder what he would have done if he had unleashed his full passion.


There are 3 comments for Ups and downs of Sargent by Paul deMarrais

From: Susan Vaughn — Oct 27, 2009

Wow Paul, you hit the nail on the head. You have expressed what I found puzzling all these years.

From: Anna — Oct 28, 2009

Yes indeed – Wow – I am a huge fan of Sargent but find your view of Sargent’s work to be very insightful.

From: tatjana — Oct 29, 2009

This is very interesting. I think that different people get moved by different emotions. Some go for intimate and human but others go for totally different stuff. For example, some collectors like empowering scenes, luxurious still lives and richly adorned portraits. What they get from art might be the feeling of bounty, power and success. I think that the artists simply give what they understand best – they give what they have.

 

Look to the light tones
by Alfonso Tejada, Vancouver, BC, Canada

102709_alfonso-tejada-artwork

“Spanish Court, Lisbon”
watercolour by Alfonso Tejada

As many artists are interested in the watercolour media and working en plein air, the inspiration of J.S. Sargent’s work is a continuous challenge to measure and learn on the effortless simplicity of the forms and the use of colour in his works. It is in the outdoors where his approach to vistas and sketches have made an impact on every artist that I know. There is something unique in the use of light against shadows and the composition is always a spontaneous and casual recollection of time, people and places. Places in cities of the world are so inspiring that hardly can be said which one is the best of all.

But in my own bias, Italy, Spain and Florida hold his unique works .The winner for me is the series of works in Italy, his country of birth (Florence) and Venice is by far the most romantic series because the light captured as reflected from the canal in this labyrinth city were the sun shines on a mirror and breaks into an array of colours. His colours of an old city are transformed into white light and the shadows are rendered in gently blue-sienna light tones (Zattere, Rio Eremite, Venice 1904). Simplicity and awareness of the sense of place. Once the artist has absorbed the feeling of a place, the hand and the mind disconnect and it is the spirit of the location that leads the brush.

 

Sargent notes come to light
by David Sharpe, Stratford, ON, Canada

Seeing his sketches makes me realize what an amazing master of value he was. I’ve attached a file from another website of transcriptions of his notes on his painting technique and methods set down by two of his former students. He talks about how he worked hard at getting that painterly look of spontaneity.

When Mr. John Collier was writing his book The Art of Portrait Painting, he asked John Singer Sargent for an account of his methods. Sargent replied:

“As to describing my procedure, I find the greatest difficulty in making it clear to pupils, even with the palette and brushes in hand and with the model before me; to serve it up in the abstract seems to me hopeless.”

With the assistance, however, of two of his former pupils, Miss Heyneman and Mr. Henry Haley, it is possible to obtain some idea of his methods. When he first undertook to criticize Miss Heyneman’s work, he insisted that she should draw from models and not from friends.

“If you paint your friends, they and you are chiefly concerned about the likeness. You can’t discard a canvas when you please and begin anew — you can’t go on indefinitely until you have solved a problem.”

He disapproved (Miss Heyneman continues) of my palette and brushes. On the palette the paints had not been put out with any system.

“You do not want dabs of color, you want plenty of paint to paint with.”

Then the brushes came in for derision. “No wonder your painting is like feathers if you use these.”

Having scraped the palette clean he put out enough paint so it seemed for a dozen pictures.

“Painting is quite hard enough without adding to your difficulties by keeping your tools in bad condition. You want good thick brushes that will hold the paint and that will resist in a sense the stroke on the canvas.”

He then, with a bit of charcoal, placed the head with no more than a few careful lines over which he passed a rag, so that is was a perfectly clean grayish colored canvas (which he preferred), faintly showing where the lines had been. Then he began to paint. At the start he used sparingly a little turpentine to rub in a general tone over the background and to outline the head (the real outline where the light and shadow meet, not the place where the head meets the background), to indicate the mass of the hair and the tone of the dress. The features were not even suggested. This was a matter of a few moments. For the rest he used his color without a medium of any kind, neither oil, turpentine or any other mixture.

“The thicker you paint, the more color flows.”

He had put in this general outline very rapidly, hardly more than smudges, but from the moment that he began really to paint, he worked with a kind of concentrated deliberation, a slow haste so to speak, holding his brush poised in the air for an instant and then putting it just where and how he intended it to fall. To watch the head develop from the start was like the sudden lifting of a blind in a dark room. Every stage was a revelation. For one thing he often moved his easel next to the sitter so that when he walked back from it he saw the canvas and the original in the same light, at the same distance, at the same angle of vision. He aimed at once for the true general tone of the background, of the hair, and for the transition tone between the two. He showed me how the light flowed over the surface of the cheek into the background itself. At first he worked only for the middle tones, to model in large planes, as he would have done had the head been an apple. In short, he painted as a sculpture models, for the great masses first, but with this difference that the sculptor can roughly lump in his head and cut it down afterwards, while the painter, by the limitations of his material, is bound to work instantly for an absolute precision of mass, in the color and outline he intends to preserve. Economy of effort in every way, he preached, the sharpest self-control, the fewest strokes possible to express a fact, the least slapping about of purposeless paint. He believed, with Carolus Duran, that painting was a science which it was necessary to acquire in order to make of it an art.

“You must draw with your brush as readily, as unconsciously almost as you draw with your pencil.”

He advised doing a head for a portrait slightly under life-size, to counteract the tendency to paint larger than life. Even so he laid in a head slightly larger than he intended to leave it, so that he could model the edges with and into the background. The hills of paint vanished from the palette, yet there was no heaviness on the canvass: although the shadow was painted as heavily as the light, it retained its transparency.

“If you see a thing transparent, paint it transparent; don’t get the effect by a thin strain showing the canvas through. That’s a mere trick. The more delicate the transition, the more you must study it for the exact tone.”

The lightness and certainly of his touch was marvelous to behold. Never was there any painter who could indicate a mouth with more subtlety, with more mobility, or with keener differentiation. As he painted it, the mouth bloomed out of the face, an integral part of it, not, as in the great majority of portraits, painted on it, a separate thing. He showed how much could be expressed in painting the form of the brow, the cheekbones, and the moving muscles around the eyes and mouth, where the character betrayed itself most readily: and under his hands, a head would be an amazing likeness long before he had so much as indicated the features themselves. In fact, it seemed to me the mouth and nose just happened with the modeling of the cheeks, and one eye, living luminous, had been placed in the socket so carefully prepared for it (like a poached egg dropped on a plate, he described the process), when a clock in the neighborhood struck and Mr. Sargent was suddenly reminded that he had a late appointment with a sitter. In his absorption he had quite forgotten it. He hated to leave the canvas.

“If only one had oneself under perfect control, one could always paint a thing, finally in one sitting. Not that you are to attempt this. If you work on a head for a week without indicating the features you will have learnt something about the modeling of the head.”

Every brush stroke while he painted had modeled the head or further simplified it. He was careful to insist that there were many roads to Rome, that beautiful painting would be the result of any method or no method, but he was convinced that by the method he advocated, and followed all his life, a freedom could be acquired, a technical mastery that left the mind at liberty to concentrate on a deeper or more subtle expression. I had previously been taught to paint a head in three separate stages, each one repeating – in charcoal, in thin color-wash and in paint — the same things. By Sargent’s method the head developed by one process. Until almost at the end there were no features or accents, simply a solid shape growing out of and into a background with which it was one. When at last he did put them in, each accent was studied with an intensity that kept his brush poised in mid-air until eye and hand had steadied to one purpose, an then…bling! The stroke resounded almost like a note of music. It annoyed him very much if the accents were carelessly indicated, without accurate consideration of their comparative importance. They were, in a way, the nails upon which the whole structure depended for solidity. Miss Heyneman subsequently left a study she had made, at Sargent’s studio with a note begging him to write, “yes” or “no,” according to whether he approved or not. He wrote the next day:

“I think your study shows great progress — much better values and consequently greater breathe of effect with less monotony in the detail. I still think you ought to paint thicker — paint all the half tones and general passages quite thick — and always paint one thing into another and not side by side until they touch. There are a few hard and small places where you have not followed this rule sternly enough.”

A few days later he called. Miss Heyneman’s usual model had failed, and she persuaded her charwoman to sit in instead; Sargent offered to paint the head of the model. This old head was perhaps easier to indicate with its prominent forms, but the painting was more subtle. I recall my astonishment when he went into the background with a most brilliant pure blue where I had seen only unrevealed darkness.

“Don’t you see it? The way the light quivers across it?”

I had not perceived it: just as, until each stroke emphasized his intention. I did not see how he managed to convey the thin hair stretched tightly back over the skull without actually painting it. He painted light or shadow, a four-cornered object with the corners worn smooth, as definite in form as it was indefinite in color, and inexpressibly delicate in its transitions. He concentrated his whole attention upon the middle tone that carried the light into the shadow. He kept up a running commentary of explanation as he went, appraising each stroke, often condemning it and saying:

“That is how not to do it! Keep the planes free and simple.”

He drew a full, large brush down the whole contour of a cheek, obliterating apparently all the modeling underneath, but it was always further to simplify that he took these really dreadful risks, smiling at my ill concealed perturbation and quite sympathizing with it. The second painting taught me that the whole values of a portrait depends upon its first painting, and that no tinkering can ever rectify an initial failure. Provided every stage is correct, a painter of Mr. Sargent’s caliber could paint for a week on one head and never retrace his steps — but he never attempted to correct one. He held that it was as impossible for a painter to try to repaint a head where the understructure was wrong, as for a sculptor to remodel the features of a head that has not been understood in the mass. That is why Mr. Sargent often repainted the head a dozen times, he told me that he had done no less than sixteen of Mrs. Hammersley. When he was dissatisfied he never hesitated to destroy what he had done. He spent three weeks, for instance, painting Lady D’ Abernon in a white dress. One morning, after a few minutes of what was to be the final setting, he suddenly set to work to scraped out what he had painted. The present portrait in a black dress, was done in three sittings. He did the same with the portrait of Mrs. Wedgwood, and many others. Miss Eliza Wedgewood relates that in 1896 he consented, at the insistence of Alfred Parsons, to paint her mother. She sat for him twelve times, but after the twelfth sitting he said they would both be the better for a rest. He then wrote to Miss Wedgwood that he was humiliated by his failure to catch the variable and fleeting charm of her mother’s personality — that looked like the end of the portrait. Some weeks later he saw Mrs. Wedgwood at Broadway, and struck with a new aspect he said:

“If you will come up next week we will finish that portrait.”

She came to Tite Street, a new canvas was produced, and in six sittings he completed the picture which was shown at the Memorial Exhibition.

“Paint a hundred studies: keep any number of clean canvases ready, of all shapes and sizes so that you are never held back by the sudden need of one. You can’t do sketches enough. Sketch everything and keep your curiosity fresh.”

He thought it was excellent practice to paint flowers, for the precision necessary in the study of their forms and the pure brilliancy of their color. It refreshed the tone of one’s indoor portraits, he insisted, to paint landscapes or figures out of doors, as well as to change one’s medium now and then. He disliked pastel, it seemed to him too artificial, or else it was made to look like oil or watercolor, and in that case why not use oil or water color? Upon one occasion, after painting for me, he saw one hard edge, and drew a brush across it, very lightly, saying at the same time:

“This is a disgraceful thing to do, and means slovenly painting. Don’t ever let me see you do it….”

I have also seen the assertion that he painted a head always in one sitting. He painted a head always in one process, but that could be carried over several sittings. He never attempted to repaint one eye or to raise or lower it, for he held that the construction of a head prepared the place for the eye, and if it was wrongly placed, the understructure was wrong, and he ruthlessly scraped and repainted the head from the beginning. That is one reason why his brushwork looks so fluent and easy; he took more trouble to keep the unworried look of a fresh sketch than many a painter puts upon his whole canvas.


There are 7 comments for Sargent notes come to light by David Sharpe

From: Kathy — Oct 27, 2009

Thank you for this!

From: Anonymous — Oct 27, 2009

Thankyou for posting this wonderful information about Sargent, is there somewhere I can read more?Sally

From: Ralph Legros — Oct 27, 2009

One of your best and most helpful letters Robert! Thank you.

From: Sarah — Oct 27, 2009

Again big thank you for this. Good to hear he’d struggled too…Huge comfort.

Sarah

www.sarahmadsen.com

From: Barbara Andolsek — Oct 27, 2009

I ran to pick-up one of my most prized possessions, a book of Sargent’s work to “look and see” it all again. Each time, of course, seeing something new. Thank you for this informatiion.

From: L.Lemay — Oct 27, 2009

re: Sargent

Thank you for a priceless art class from a master.

From: Celeste Gober — Oct 27, 2009

Yes, many thanks to you for this wonderful information, that gives me hope and inspiration and where can we read more?

 

 

World of Art Featured artist Bonnie Tomlinson, Victoria, BC, Canada

 

102309_bonnie-tomlinson-artwork

Dance of blues

mixed media
Bonnie Tomlinson, Victoria, BC, Canada

 

You may be interested to know that artists from every state in the USA, every province in Canada, and at least 115 countries worldwide have visited these pages since January 1, 2013.

That includes Brett Busang of Washington, DC, USA, who wrote, “We were very possibly at the museum together. I was there today to finish up a review I’d started. It’ll be posted on Examiner.com in a day or two.”

And also Donna Howell of Arlington, VA, USA, who wrote, “My second visit to the Sargent show at the Corcoran was with a docent led tour which I highly recommend to anyone. The woman who led our tour was highly knowledgeable and told us information that we would never have known unless we had read and studied intensely about Sargent. It is a wonderful exhibit and even has a place set up where museum goers may sit and sketch in sketchbooks that are provided for that purpose. I hope to see the exhibit again and again before it leaves the area.”

 

Archived Comments

Enjoy the past comments below for Sargent and the sea

 

 

From: Tom Semmes — Oct 23, 2009

Robert Thanks for telling me about a show that I wasn’t aware of and is right in my backyard! When I was in art school many years ago, Sargent was consider something of a hack that created pretty pictures that flattered his wealthy collectors. In this way he was no different than Andy Warhol in my mind. But he seems to have come back in fashion again, as people begin to re-recognize his prodigious talent and skill. As well as the hard work he put into developing these. Thanks again for the report on the show. Tom

From: Richard N. Evans — Oct 23, 2009

I too was at the Sargent Show at the Corcoran at about the same time you were. It was jammed. It seems to me that thoughtful, skillful art is popular again. People seem to be seeking quality and degrees of mastery that have not been so evident in the last few decades. While there are many painters who currently paint just as well as Sargent, many of them among your subscribers, it is heartwarming to see this deserving historical figure so honored and widely appreciated.

From: Kathy Hirsh — Oct 23, 2009

I just wanted to say thanks- i’ll be in dc for thanksgiving and will probably pitch a tent at the Corcoran. Not a lot of Sargents here in China.

From: Jim Gray — Oct 23, 2009

My grandson, Daniel Gray, is a student at the Corcoran School of Art & Design. It was interesting that he was in class while you were seeing the Sargent exhibit there. Dan is a fine young artist, making it his living and has been a subscriber to your letter for a long time. I am 77 and have been a painter/sculptor most of my life. I really enjoy your letters and recommend them to young and old, beginner or pro. Here’s what Daniel wrote to me this morning:

Good morning to you too. Ya I read his post late last night. That is pretty cool. I was in class while he was upstairs. The Sargent show is really fine. Like Genn says, half of the pieces are quicker sketches in either paint or pencil but are none the less amazing.

From: Michael Parsons — Oct 24, 2009

Although John Singer Sargent made it all look so easy..that his paintings were sort of flashed off with confidence if one reads of his methods it becomes apparent that he was ,in fact, a very careful and methodical painter.Each mark slow and considered.

From: John R. Struck — Oct 24, 2009

My father picked up a landscape by him in a small shop on the high street in Edinburgh, many years ago. I became familiar with him through reading an Art Mystery book by John Malcolm, one of the Tim Simpson series. He is an incredibly interesting Mystery writer who uses Art and, particularly the personalities of artists and their, somewhat peculiar relationships as the glue that binds his stories together. For me, his writing put faces, and gave humanity to many of the great artists such as Sargent, Rodin. Absorbed by their work, the technique, the colour, the mood, we don’t often see these artists as, “People”. struggling, as do we all, with the chaos of living and relating with those around us.

From: Grant Larsen — Oct 25, 2009

Gallery goers are not now the mindless sheep they previously were. As individual seekers, they seem to be more interested in mastery, technique and noble ideals. At least some of the credit for this change goes to powerful websites such as The Painter’s Keys and The Art Renewal Center.

From: Bruce Griffiths — Oct 26, 2009

Having just attended the MET Exhibition at the Brisbane Art Gallery, (Australia) in my humble opinion Sargent’s works offered the most and connected the best with this artist in training. As with all great artists, if I could just remember a fraction of what they have “forgotten”.

From: Christina Body — Oct 26, 2009

I was in DC as well and was pleasantly surprised to find out this show was at the Corcoran. I was blown away. An incredible exhibition!

From: John P Washington — Oct 26, 2009

I’ve read biographies of Sargent as well as the many picture books, catalogs and transcripts and nobody really nailed him. It’s difficult to know a person who essentially stuck to himself and contented himself with writing to his sister practically every day. I suspect a dull and conservative person whose only way of swinging out was through rambunctious brushwork within the confines of good taste and decorum.

From: Gail Harper,NY — Oct 27, 2009

been LUCKY to visit there several times…..its like taking a rich course in painting

From: Gail Harper,NY — Oct 27, 2009

My comment was in regard to WYETH…..heh heh typical NY minute

From: sue wheeler, lasqueti island, bc — Oct 27, 2009

“The last of the belle epoch. Such taste, such decency, such idealism. What have we lost?” –It’s certainly easy to think this, looking at the images we see of leisure and comfort from that era. But the whole thing was supported by untold numbers of very poor people working very hard at tasks most of us today would avoid whenever possible. Polished rooms and clean clothes, time to read and stroll and sketch, tea graciously served? Somebody else did it for the people in these scenes and portraits. We can compare many things about those days and these, and not in every case prefer these– but ask that army of toilers and servants which they’d choose!

From: Suzanne — Oct 27, 2009

If anyone loves portrait painting, you should look up the work of Philip de Laszlo, a little known Hungarian/British painter who is considered to be Sargent’s successor in the society portrait painting stakes. Google www.delaszloarchivetrust.com. His portraits are simply dazzling. There also is an essay comparing him with Sargeant.

From: Maya — Oct 27, 2009

Good point by Sue Wheeler. The bourgeoisie lost the race, got caught up by the working class and melted into the middle class pot – which gets to do their own house chores. Frolicking in the meadows is nowadays reserved for truly rich which are a small breeding ground for really good artists.

From: JUdith Dodington judydod@gmail.com — Oct 28, 2009

Dear Bob, Thanksfor your insights. I appreciate them very much. Sincerely, Judith Dodington

From: Marilynn Brandenburger — Oct 28, 2009

Thank you, John Struck, for telling us about John Malcolm and the Tim Simpson series. I rushed right to my library’s website and ordered up “Whistler in the Dark.” Sounds like great fun!

From: Gregg Ha — Oct 30, 2009

I have only seen the Sargeant paintings at the Met, and it strikes me that a the cream always rises to the top. I agree with Grant ( above ) that the emperors new clothes is a metaphor for the nonsense that the art ( experts ) have been feeding the western world since the communist party influenced picasso to paint like a person who just got out of kindergarten. His own words, not mine. The art world needs a new renaissance so that quality art may be back to the high standards it once held. If you are a bad drawer in Chicago, you are in the galleries. If you paint disgusting imagery here in Chicago, you are hanging here as well. What happened to uplifting and inspiring art work? Why all the gimmicks? I had a friend in Hiigh School who went to the Art Institute ( Chicago ) and he was a great artist in high school. They ruined him. He had a show at his house and I was profoundly astonished at the direction of his art. In the name of doing something new they washed all his imagination away. They discouraged any form of realism and I guess the peer pressure was too much for him. I have not seen a painting from him since that day. I think the reaction killed his artistic creativity and was a catalyst to stop him altogether. We realistic artists do not wish to be photorealistic. What is the point? But the bad drawing movement here in Chicago I hope comes to a speedy demise. In the future, when our culture is measured by our art, I am sure it will be judged as a shallow untrained culture.

I am happy i am self taught. Here here Grant!

http://www.ghangebrauck.com/

 

 

Share.

Leave A Reply

No Featured Workshop
No Featured Workshop
Share.

Robert and Sara Genn Twice-Weekly Letters

Subscribe and receive the Twice-Weekly letter on art. You’ll be joining a worldwide community of artists.
Subscription is free.