Painterly work

[Steven Sweeney]

I'm confused. Okay, now that the obvious has been stated, let's move on.

I'm sure I've run across 50 posts (those who are itching for effortless retribution can do the search and correct me) in which the term "painterly" was used, and I'm now sure that it means at least 25 different things. How did this word come into usage and what in the world does it mean?

An architect works "architecturally" and it's no big deal. A mechanic works "mechanically" and it's the least we expect. But if a painter paints "painterly", it's some kind of sect, or secret, or genre or accomplishment. But what kind? (The "kind" isn't really important, but is it possible to decide on a definition, so that we're all talking about the same qualities?)

I used to assume from context that folks said "painterly" when they meant "loose" or "impressionistically" or -- now that "blended" has already become a suspect methodology (so much for the resurgence of classical realism) -- "highly finished." (I confess to not being able to understand why one methodology or technique is "painterly" and another not. We're all just smearing paint around, right?)

But now some are referring to "painterly" as those highly finished, detailed pieces, as opposed to the one-hour alla prima emotional gushes. (I gush once in a while myself, not that there's anything wrong with that.)

Maybe those who are about to type "painterly" could help the slower ones amongst us by opting out of that first impulse and looking instead for the next best description, so that we're all able to appreciate with appropriate respect what's being described.

-- A Friend.

[Mike McCarty]

I used to assume from context that folks said "painterly" when they meant "loose" or "impressionistically" or -- now that "blended" has already become a suspect methodology (so much for the resurgence of classical realism) -- "highly finished." (I confess to not being able to understand why one methodology or technique is "painterly" and another not. We're all just smearing paint around, right?)

I have always understood the term to mean "in a loose or impressionistic fashion" leaving brush strokes as a bonus and not a flaw. This would seem to rule out the "highly blended" works as painterly... Where I received this understanding I have no idea. I always thought it was just part of the code, the art speak code. I don't think, however, that it would be fair to suggest that a painterly manner was not a highly finished manner. As to the origins of the word "painterly" I don't have a clue.

[Leopoldo Benavidez]

Steven,

Because it has more of a positive connotation than a negative one, we see it being utilized more in describing art, whether everyone is on the same page or not is a matter of question!

To me it is like "au premier coup" which means with exact colors and tones. No muddling with glazes, grisailles and other examples of indecisiveness but applying the right color and value in the right spot. What the artists like Sargent, Velazquez, Hals and the like did, is the most difficult way to paint and it cannot be duplicated with indecisive strokes laid over a carefully drawn underpainting with painfully built up layers of paint that we hope will eventually arrive at the right tone and color.

When I look at these artist this is how I would describe their work,painterly, beautifully left brush strokes that unify and say it all from a viewing distance.

Painterly work also leaves a unique signature of that artist, that would be decipherable from other artists who over work their brush strokes...L

[Steven Sweeney]

I'm sure I understand your takes on this terminology, and it is as I had interpreted it, but only from context -- the only definition I've found -- and I wrote simply because I'm sure there are others who wondered what folks meant by the term. "Painterly" seems just to have begun to appear -- seemingly in differentiation from some other style -- and depending on who said or wrote it, meant anything from a loose, brush-stroke style to a "polished" finish. As a viewer, I happen to favour the more impressionistic interpretation, as I've long since said here, but alas, as a novice painter I'm not sufficiently adept at judging and mixing the correct colours in the correct values on the first effort, and so I must work toward what I'm trying to portray. I have to do a values study, and correct my drawing, and try all kinds of colour mixes before I'm satisfied. That's the best I can do right now. My only training is in the "toward" methodology, which is both frustrating at times, and forgiving, because I don't have to be "right" every time I put a brush stroke down, and I don't have to be "wrong" every time I correct an error in perception, rather than just accept it because it was my first emotional impulse.

I began this thread very late at night in, admittedly, a bit of a pique, because I've scrounged around in other forums, including a major archive of classical work, where there was a "with us or against us" mentality, and where if you don't work in their style, you're at the very least not worth viewing. I've now recently begun to hear elsewhere that highly refined work isn't as artistically worthy as "painterly" work.

Sometimes when I visit the websites of proponents of "painterly" style, I see incredibly detailed and exact renderings that could not possibly have been done without lots of pre-planning, sketches, initial lay-ins, and serial returns to the piece to refine it. I don't think any less of those works because of that attention or because of the commensurate delay in capturing the essence of the subject.

If we were all working in the same medium and by the same methodology, this would become pretty boring pretty fast, wouldn't it?

My purpose was just to wonder out loud what people meant by a term I'm seeing fairly often without confidently understanding what is being held up as a standard.

[Michael Fournier]

Painterly and highly detailed are not contradictions.

Sargent had a painterly style but many of his commissions were very detailed and had a high degree of finish. It is just that he achieved that finish with a very direct method of painting but to say that all his work was alla prima (or premier coup) would be a misnomer. Although his approach to painting could be described as alla prima the technical definition can

[Nathaniel Miller]

This is an interesting discussion. To me, it seems that most people at this site share a similar definition of "painterly". It seems the problem occurs when many people who are less educated/experienced in the field (like me) start using the term frequently. They've heard it a few times, produce a definition or connotation from context, and then start using it freely, causing there to be hundreds of different definitions at a given time.

This can be irritating as it can make communication difficult. Personally, I like Michael and Steven's definition............it seems the most sensible and educated I've heard.

Thanks for the clarification,

Nathan

[Steven Sweeney]

[The wisdom that comes with the morning after -- well 3 a.m. anyway -- counsels me to delete the post I made at this location earlier. I found upon re-reading it that it contributed nothing useful to the discussion and was unnecessarily provocative. Sometimes you have those nights. -- Steven]

[Morris Darby]

To all...

I have made many public speaking engagements where I was to expound my research on different subjects. During these speaches it was my choice to select terms for use. However, I would describe the definition of my "terms" prior to the discussion so all could keep with the same mind during the presentation.

My sugestion, then, is not to present a definition of the term "painterly", but that in our posts we would describe "our" definition of any term we intend to use prior to discussion. That way all are understood up front.

[Timothy C. Tyler]

Painterly is like "tone". It's a word that is either unclear or so widely misunderstood that we would do better to find a different word to say more precisely what we mean.