Portrait Artist Forum - View Single Post

Marvin Mattelson · 02-09-2003, 02:16 PM

Tim,

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but I really don't see any evidence that you have presented here that encourages me to change mine.

I express my views here not to try to change your mind but to offer the possibility of the existence of an alternate view to those perusing this Forum on a lazy Sunday afternoon. I still feel to interpret and not copy nature is the hallmark of all great art.

Sargent was a great artist but produced works, in my opinion, of uneven quality. Perhaps if Sargent had been able to first determine the hue, then mix the value and lastly adjust the chroma he may have avoided having to start so many paintings over and over. One sitter alone had documented being required to show up for 80 sittings. Sargent was, from what I can tell, a very instinctive painter.

William Paxton, on the other hand was a far more cerebral painter whose output was far more consistent, quality wise. Sargent at his best (Lady Agnew), is one of the most brilliant paintings I've ever seen (up close and personal) but I've seen many others that were real dogs.

If you are posting examples of your own work to make a point here, I hope your realize that you are inviting the possibility of having your work and not just your point of view questioned. If you want this type of interaction, perhaps posting in the critique section would be a more appropriate venue.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I believe that the great painters were keen observers of the world around them. I equated them to scientists since they were looking to uncover the mechanics of visual phenomena. Identifying a color by virtue of its hue, value and chroma is the basis of scientific color identification and by adopting this method of objective analysis artists can only enhance their own attempts to understand the world that appears before them. A nice side effect of this approach is that you begin to see the interrelationships between all mixes on your canvas, a very useful tool indeed.

I would encourage those who agree with your opinion, or those who are interested in pursuing the possibility of its authenticity, to sign up for one of your workshops and explore your methods first hand.

02-09-2003, 02:16 PM	#8
Marvin Mattelson SOG Member FT Professional '04 Merit Award PSA '04 Best Portfolio PSA '03 Honors Artists Magazine '01 Second Prize ASOPA Perm. Collection- Ntl. Portrait Gallery Perm. Collection- Met Leads Workshops Joined: May 2002 Location: Great Neck, NY Posts: 1,093	Truth or consequences? Tim, You are certainly entitled to your opinion but I really don't see any evidence that you have presented here that encourages me to change mine. I express my views here not to try to change your mind but to offer the possibility of the existence of an alternate view to those perusing this Forum on a lazy Sunday afternoon. I still feel to interpret and not copy nature is the hallmark of all great art. Sargent was a great artist but produced works, in my opinion, of uneven quality. Perhaps if Sargent had been able to first determine the hue, then mix the value and lastly adjust the chroma he may have avoided having to start so many paintings over and over. One sitter alone had documented being required to show up for 80 sittings. Sargent was, from what I can tell, a very instinctive painter. William Paxton, on the other hand was a far more cerebral painter whose output was far more consistent, quality wise. Sargent at his best (Lady Agnew), is one of the most brilliant paintings I've ever seen (up close and personal) but I've seen many others that were real dogs. If you are posting examples of your own work to make a point here, I hope your realize that you are inviting the possibility of having your work and not just your point of view questioned. If you want this type of interaction, perhaps posting in the critique section would be a more appropriate venue. As I mentioned in my previous post, I believe that the great painters were keen observers of the world around them. I equated them to scientists since they were looking to uncover the mechanics of visual phenomena. Identifying a color by virtue of its hue, value and chroma is the basis of scientific color identification and by adopting this method of objective analysis artists can only enhance their own attempts to understand the world that appears before them. A nice side effect of this approach is that you begin to see the interrelationships between all mixes on your canvas, a very useful tool indeed. I would encourage those who agree with your opinion, or those who are interested in pursuing the possibility of its authenticity, to sign up for one of your workshops and explore your methods first hand. __________________ Marvin Mattelson http://www.fineartportrait.com [email protected]