Sargent's lessons
 

I'm re-reading this description of Sargent's methods, and wondering how many of you have read it, and what you have taken from it.

http://www.goodbrush.com/misc/painti...gent_notes.pdf

Sadly, Sargent did not document his process, but one of his students did. Some of the lessons in it seem like they could be engraved and hung on a studio wall.

He had no qualms about ditching an unsatisfactory painting and starting over. I think some of his work that looks spontaneous is because it really is. After spending weeks on a painting, he might set it aside, and start over. The final painting is completed in a very short period, but all the problems had already been worked out on the earlier version.

Another lesson is his method of painting a featureless face, adding the eyes and mouth near the end of the process. He's not just leaving the details out, he's leaving out everything except major masses. I've really got to try this. It's kind of like Bill Whitaker's loaf of bread (something else I need to try).

If anyone knows of more resources for Sargent's methods, please share.

Jeff,
What a great commentary. I normally paint from dark to light, but Sargent's method of painting from the midtone to the dark and the light makes great sense to me.

Thanks for sharing this with all of us.

I searched for an example of his work that would show signs of the featureless method. Naturally, it was hard to find one, because the features were added masterfully, and look like they were there from the start. But here's an example that shows it very well.

http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/databa...e.asp?id=27638

Sargent said that one could benefit from painting blank heads for a week. In my case it would take a month, partly due to the limited time I have to paint. Still, it's time well spent.

Scott Burdick paints without features in his early stages, but the narrative gives me the impression that Sargent took it farther, and completed the planes of the face before addressing features.

Sargent
 

Jeff, thank you for sharing this in regards to Sargent. I too, admire his works very much and would appreciate any hints to his teachings or works. I have some of his drawings that I would gladly share. I post one of my favorite drawings, favorite only because I have drawn this statue many times while in Florence.

mischa

I just picked this off of a web site dedicated to Sargent, and I have already posted it in this section of SOG. However, I thought it might do well in this subject, so if the moderator chooses, she may delete one of these.

The following comments tell some interesting things about Sargeng, in general, and how he worked while doing one of his famous charcoal sketches.

--------------

(Mrs. Claude Beddington) The first time I ever saw Sargent was in the [1900s] at a big dinner-party given at their Bryanston Square house by Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Wagg, a hospitable couple generally reputed to have one of the best chefs in London.

I confided in the gentleman who took me in to dinner. . .

Great topic! Thanks Jeff.

Hmmm--- the working from middle tones is a great idea.

His figures seme to emanate from the space they are in instead of having a background filled in around them.

When I have a model, I am sometimes struck by some new color, some subtle shade, some new mannerism I have not seen before.

Thank you, Jeff! This is a fascinating document. I didn't know anything like this existed!

I read the description of Sargent's method when I was in school. I also happen to be lucky enough to have had a huge show of Sargent work right across the street from the American Academy Of Art at the Art Institute Of Chicago. The third bit of luck that I had was that Richard Schmid had moved back to Chicago a short while before. Between some great teachers at the academy, seeing hundreds of Sargent's pieces for months on end, and having Schmid around to guide me through his opinion of Sargent method I realized I had drawn the right straw in my artistic life. Each time I think about those days I look back and wonder how did I get so lucky. Somebody else in this topic discussion has mentioned Scott Burdick. He too was there in Chicago for all of that.

Working with Sargent's method, from the middle tones out makes perfect sense. By working from the middle tones out you never paint your self into a corner as far as values or edges. You always have that extra punch in reserve of lightest light, darkest dark, and sharpest edge to help pull an area out. Add to that the idea of intensity of color and you really gain a great deal of control over where your viewer's eyes are moving around the composition. By working from the middle tones out the head has a tendency to look as though it is skinned draped over a featureless skull. Sargent understood that much of the likeness was in these large features within the massive areas of the skull. To test this theory take one of you were photographs of a model and continually blur it in an image manipulation program to the point where you lose the likeness. You will find that you will have to blur it an awful lot to get the likeness to disappear. This is the proof that the likeness is not in the individual features but exists in the masses. Sargent understood this very well.

There are advantages and disadvantages to Sargent's method, you will have to work them out for yourself. My advice is to work with is method for at least a few hundred studies to get a great feel for it. I believe you will find the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages in most cases.

This portrait of Eleanor Duse, which was printed in Ratcliff's book on Sargent in black and white, was the key for me to understanding Sargent's method. It is reported that she stood up after less than an hour and left. This is what Sargent accomplished at the very beginning of his sittings. A likenesses absolutely nailed and it appears that he has barely begun.

Clayton:

Thanks for your commennts on Sargent's approach to painting, which I have heard before. I was wondering, though, if you might be able to clear up something for me regarding his "painting from the middle out."

Since I have not seen more info than what you have written, I have always made the assumption that Sargent must have "lumped" the shadow side as one shape, a middle section as one shape, and lights as one shape -- BUT, always keeping these major masses "in the middle," so to speak.

In other words, in his shadows, he would leave room for a little lighter and a little darker valus so as to be able to model that major mass, and the same with the middles and lights. They, too, being painted in the middle values of middles and the middle vallues of the lights so that these, too, could modeled in both darker and lighter values.

Or, am I wrong . . . have I assumed myself into the wrong idea?

I would appreciate hearing what you know of this.

Hello Richard

Sargent worked with two values in the beginning that three. The two values represented the separation of light and shadow. The light value was represented with the darkest part of the light. The shadow was represented with the lightest part of the shadow.

By starting this way he was able to map of the whole head. Within this was the direction, size, placement, likeness, temperature of the light source, and the beginnings of facial expression. Within the light area, since she is already painted the darkest part of the light, the only worked lighter. In the shadow area, since see as already painted the lightest part of the shadow, the only worked darker. This is quite readily apparent when viewing original paintings.

I hope this helps and good luck in your studies, Clayton

Here is an example of a painting demonstration I did using Sargent's method. If you notice the thickest parts of the painting are the darkest darks and the lightest lights. If you 'dig' the down to the thinnest layers you will find that this is the beginning of the painting and it is the separation of light and shadow.

I spent my Christmas break wandering about bookstores looking for anything I could get my hands on related to Sargeant's methods. I came up empty handed, and then I get home and, woo hoo! This post is on the forum. Thank you, everyone who has contributed to this post and please, if you have any reccomendations for books to buy online directly related to Sargeant's methods, I would be grateful should you list them here.

Happy New Year!

Mara -- I fear you will look in vain for more info on Sargent. Unless someone knows of a long lost,, and just found repository of info on his methods, about all we can do is work from the little knowledge that is already available. I have a pdf file I downloaded a year or so ago about Sargent. It is a compilation of reports, mostly from various sitters, who talk about some of the things he said and did, but that's about it. Clayton Beck (see above) has fairly well summarized what is known about Sargent's working methods.

Also, if you will check this site (http://jssgallery.org/) you may find more information, as well a ton of reproductions of his work.

I find myself wondering about his teacher, Carlos Durand (sp) who taught Sargent the very effective method of starting with the middles, and working out from there. I have done a few googles, but find little info on Durand.

Richard--I have seen a few of Carolus Duran works over the years and I agree with Sargent's assessment that he taught it well but didn't practice it with the great of abilities. On the other hand many of his time consider him the most popular portraitist on the continent in the 1860's-70s.

If one wishes to understand Duran's teaching, there is a half finished work (accepted as a Sargent student work) in the Des Moines Art Center which has been a delight to study when I am passing that way. It is a study of an old man, nude, half-length, leaning on a staff and life size. It is completely finished at the head a shoulders and gets progressively simpler as one moves down until at the last six to twelve inches of the work we are able to see the first two value block in. That is the separation of light and shadow.

The best Sargents to study are the small figures in his landscapes. They show an abbreviated but complete version of his portrait method in a very decipherable way. If you know how to study brushwork, then these are the best way to study his method.

I agree, alas, there will probably be no more insight into his working method from written sources than we already have. It's a shame. I still dream of a long lost film of the great master. Maybe someday.

I used to visit an art web site (www.studioprocucts.com) (I believe this is corrrect) where the guy who runs the place promoted the following method for painting a portrait . . .

He positioned a slide projector behind a transluscent sheet on which he projected the image he wanted to paint. He set up a canvas immediately to the right of his rear projected image. He purposely threw out of focus the image he was projecting so that about all you could make out were masses. In a sight-size sort of way, he copied these very blurry masses onto his canvas. When finished with this stage, he would sharpen the image a bit, and start over, laying in some of the detail that now showed through the soft focus. He repeated this procudure until the image was sharp, and so were the detail he was adding.

I believe he had a video of this somewhere on the web site.

I mention this since it is, in a way, similar to mapping out the masses first, a la Sargent, and then working toward the specific.

I doubt that you'll be able to see this on that site nowadays since, for some weird reason, he suddenly decided (a couple of years ago) to make it a pay-site and, to my knowledge, most of his following found other sites to go to.

I think I will never understand the lengths to which people who wish to learn to paint what they see will remove themselves from what they are seeing with technology. All one needs to do is squint. It costs nothing and does the job so much better. I have investigated all of the devices I can find and have found them all to be quite inferior to just seeing and painting. I'm not selling anything so I have nothing to gain by writing this. Beware of those who are selling some device to get between you and your subject(i.e. colored gels, photography, projectors, magical pieces of glass). See, analyze, paint. Nothing more is necessary.

Sorry if it sounded like I was promoting this guy. I mentioned it because it is his way of seeing and putting down the masses as abstract shapes, albeit abstracted mechanically. I agree . . . squinting works, and it's free.

I agree also: there is no greater JOY than painting something from life. I can remember when I was a little kid, realizing that the secret to drawing was to be able to move back and forth in your mind between seeing things as abstract shapes and seeing things as actual things (to check if you were on the right track). It was very exciting! I thought it was sad that some people didn't seem able to do it. I wished they could see things the way I did. I still feel his excitement when I'm painting or drawing.

It's interesting to have Sargent's methods analyzed. never gave it a lot of conscious thought, yet I've been painting that way for years and, by some strange coincidence, Sargent was one of the artists who had an early and constant influence on me.

I really enjoy Sargent's watercolors. You can learn a lot about what he was seeing by looking at those quick doodles in water color.

Sargent was very inventive, and didn't like to be restricted by little details, he was more concerned with composition and capturing something more powerful. I've seen a few of his paintings up-close and they have effects and textures that are poetic and relate to the overall image.

I think something also interesting about Sargent is his way of making dark paintings seem cheerful or something other then dark and shadowy.

here's some good vids I watched the other day on Sargent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3krxe_QkXDk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPWEy78BURs

Yes.
And he is a musician and a linguist comparatively.