What is beauty? Read:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/luna...rks/puskin.htm

"When we speak of the beauty of a work of art, we always mean the strength of its influence, the captivating nature of the work, its ability to hold our interest, to make us happy, to illuminate our consciousness.

All "beauty" has specifically this intent. In uttering the word "beauty" one strives to indicate the objective quality in nature or in a work of art which he believes to be the reason for his elated mood, his emotional uplift.

From a narrow point of view, beauty reduces itself to those elements in nature or in art which are pleasant to the senses, or into correct, i.e. easily-grasped, combination (design, melody, harmony, rhythm, etc.), or into pleasing presentations of physical perfection, vital strength, health, intellectual brilliance, moral fascination, etc.

On the other hand, we know well enough that art does not reduce itself merely to this type of beauty. Art can include elements which from this narrow viewpoint are unbeautiful or downright ugly. Art, as Aristotle pointed out in his day, deals also with ashes, with pain, with unusually accurate reproductions of repelling phases of life (Flaubert). And all this the artist can nevertheless surmount. Whether they depict the stripped carcass of a bull or a brutal scuffle of warriors, Rembrandt or Leonardo da Vinci attain heights of beauty and compel us to exclaim--"excellent !" A powerful sensation, which overcomes the reader, compels him to see the world in a new light, makes him think differently of the world and thus moulds his world-outlook, this essentially is beauty. The more subtle it is, the more novel it is, the further it departs from elementary prettiness--the more we delight in it, for its influence operates in the most difficult realms.

Now for shortcomings. A shortcoming is that which repels us, that which reveals the artist's weakness, betrays his inability to cope with his task, shows that due to his impotence, or in order to be clever, he falsifies reality, or tells us things which are extraneous to us and therefore bore us".


And study beauty from Sargent. There are some patterns of design elements in Sargent's group portraits.
Sargent did not tell what is his scheme. Maybe he thinks that a painting should not be accompanied by words that explain everything.

I have not seen any paintings "accompanied by words" but wonder why it would be in appropriate. Do titles add or detract in any way? What is the point?

Dear Jim:
It might be an unclear verbage. English is my third language after Russian.
I just noticed a sculpture with words.
Many photographers in China tell in what way they shoot.
Some portrait painters rarely reveal the detail of their design, technique, etc. Fechin, an inventor, didn't answer a question by a fellow Russian artist who was busy in painting all over the world.

"Cecilia Beaux vs. J S sargent" is listed #1 in this Google search.

"The information we do have has come from examination of his pictures and direct analysis of his paint. The same commonly available range of pigments is seen in virtually all of the Tate's later portraits and on existing palettes. The range is quite wide but does not include every pigment available at that time. He regularly used Mars yellow (a synthetic iron oxide) and cadmium yellow; viridian and emerald green, sometimes mixed; vermilion and Mars red, both alone and mixed; madder; synthetic ultramarine or cobalt blue; and ivory black, sienna, and Mars brown. The dark backgrounds of many portraits include a mixture of ivory black, Mars brown,and a generous quantity of paint medium: a combination that produces a color similar to the traditional Van Dyke brown. A pale shade of chrome yellow, cerulean blue, red lead, cadmium red, and cobalt violet were found on occasion, but not in every portrait examined. There is a more limited selection of blue and yellow pigments in the later portraits than in the earlier ones. This narrow range of blues,yellows, and greens in his palette went some way to create a color harmony and to fix a cool or a warm overall tone to each painting.
Sargent mixed lighter colors such as flesh tones by adding to lead white, vermilion, and a selection of other pigments including bone black, on occasion rose madder, and even green viridian. Mixing them together roughly on the palette, he then worked them into and onto adjacent brush strokes on the canvas to give more subtle variations in tone."

(Jacqueline Ridge and Joyce Townsend; "How Sargent Made it Look Easy"; American Artist magazine; August, 1999, page 29)

Search Wikimedia
Find out some analyzing of portraits.

http://www.jssgallery.org/Paintings/...arley_Boit.htm

John Singer Sargent's Daughters of Edward Darley Boit

By: Natasha Wallace

Thanks for posting this, SB. I'm always interested in reading what makes other artists paint the way they do.

Thank you!
View:
http://www.brynmawr.edu/library/exhi...portrait2.html

A secret---Why Sargent feels he is like a rabbit?

Powerful statement
 

What a powerful and inspirational sentence. Thank you SB for posting all this info on Sargent.

I recenlty saw this painting in the Boston Museum and what was so interesting to me was that the two vases, which were right there next to the painting, were so much more complex than the vases in the painting. At first I wasn't even sure they were the same vases. Sargent had painted only the essence of the vases, not every single little tiny detail. Something worthwhile for me to remember!

Joan

Joan: I had a same thought as you. I suspected that the flower/pattern inspired Sargent's brush strokes, which is not true.
I'd like to know the differences between his predecessors and him: Is he the first one to develop that kind of brush stroke,or he refined?