Unlocking The Secret To 'Sargent's Effect' || Mastering Unconventional Edges

[@rg3412]

Definitely agree with your last. We need to not be manipulated by the word “genius”. The more you read about geniuses, the more you realize these were not special people, but merely humans with a passion for something at an early age that work enormously in dedication to their craft. Whether it was mathematics or painting or anything else.

[@WayneSmith-z1l]

I just watch this again. You provide great insight on the brush work!!

[@jadygordon7153]

Definitely correct about the edge aspect. There are other factors that contributes to the Sargent effect. Sargent wanted his work to appeared as if it was painted fast and free and expressive and bold yet perfectly accurate. If you check his blocking layers of his painting, some of which is still visible, you will see they were painted as loose and expressive as possible, because he knew that a few modelling in some of the top layers, accents, highlights, occlusions strokes, detail suggestion marks and edge variety will resolve and counterbalance this looseness in the initial layers. This looseness in the bottom layer blended with the top suggestion of refinement creates this happy accident overall effect that we enjoy. The accuracy comes from modelling and putting in the final touches in the correct area with drawing in mind as the guide. The drawing in mind as a guide serves as the organized word in the phrase organized chaos. Sargent works sometimes can be viewed as blurry interconnected masses with only a few sharp edges, highlights, occlusion strokes or accents that indicate a little clarity or sharpness for our brains to fill in the rest. Because we have to fill in the rest with our minds, it creates this appeal and we enjoy filling in the blanks as well as how he designs the elements. One of the most undermined one is economy of means. This approach takes some strategic thinking as well and planning. The way he tones his canvas with the predominant mid value color of his painting, or its complements, will already have much of his work cut covered were he will just go in and carve out areas that are not in the range of the Tone color. If you look at his drawings for example you see were the background and the hair or cloth of the figure shares the same shadow block in with just a few strokes to suggest separation of the two. His pieces can be broken down into a blur layer and a detail textural layer that is superimposed on top fitting visually like a missing piece that resonates when completing a puzzle. People who do skin retouch in photoshop may understand this concept of blur (Sfumato) and detail layer on top. His approach has to do with the balance of massing in his larger shapes or planes in smoky or hazy sfumato blocking layer ,then model smaller plain with more color variety within each shadow or light plane shape, then adding highlights, accents and finishing touches at the end. This is a balance between Sfumato and graphic abstraction which depends on the lighting condition or design (Graphic appeal that he wants)appeal. Knowing where the accent (Graphic areas of contrast or vibrant color) will read appropriately has to do with knowing how shadows and colors interacts with the type of light whether direct or ambient. He will get away more with a contrasting strong accent in the light areas maybe with one dark vibrant stroke that describe the nostril or one stroke only that could read as the occlusion shadow of a finger crevice just with one stroke because those would have been hard vibrant shadows on the hand and will read appropriate. You are 100% right that he also blended his paints but he knows where he can get away having them from slightly loose to very accented and that has to do with the edge quality based on light condition. His works take a lot of strategy but he uses his abstraction and graphic accents, highlights, occlusion strokes and sharp edges to balance his blending (Sfumato) giving the illusion that everything is painted loose. But I would say he does not blend aggressively but slightly with not much effort sometimes, because he keeps the values compressed in order to keep his mass shapes classified and not looking spotty, but read easily as one shape. If you look at his portrait figures done in ambient light you will realize that he still gets away with abstraction but he doesn't not try to over contrasting graphics strokes as it wouldn't fit the light condition based on the low contrast of value and color base don ambient light hence he keeps them close in value and it will read soft and rendered so not much room for graphic accents but loose abstract strokes with his brush treatment. He understood that contour (Outer border) of any object is also implied psychologically based on the gestalt principle of closure so he bump a hard edge under the chin area for example and let that hard edge modulate into softer edge to completely lost ones in other part of the head silhouette, because our mind will fill in the rest of the head border. In other words he only paints as much as necessary for us to fill in (Economy of means). He creates balance between rough and patchy to smooth paint application. He also create balance between transparent dark masses to opaque areas that are in light. This adds an extra dimension of realism that color and value cannot imply. He doesn't make any two shapes the same, even the shapes of brush strokes has some variety in shape, length ,width, color and value and these shapes are amorphous and natural. He does minimal to extreme design cooking within his pieces than a regular realism piece does .Brush mark shapes are also important to use natural shape bristles such as rounds, filbert, mop, maybe dagger and regular flat (not over bright). Each brush stroke should describe one plane and a small round brush only useful for specular highlights in pupil for example. Brushes with exotic mechanical looking fancy strokes takes away from this naturalistic effect. How you juxtapose your lights and darks beside or on top of each other plays a role too. We see a underlying simplicity and value grouping of the skin tone because shadows are painted adjacent to mid tones then lights on top of mid tone then highlights on top of lights. Its more accurate to judge the colors as we tile them in this way rather than tiling lights next to mid tone and see how it looks. Saturated transition half tones can be smacked right between shadows and mid tones. The gestural, flowy lifelike appeal of his works does not only echoed by his model's pose, curtains or trees but the modulation of the hard crispy edges to soft and completely lost edges all over. His brush treatment and lighting of his subject gives a psychological appeal of his subjects and add to its interpretation. You will see more elegant calligraphic shape strokes brushed in gracefully and thick and thin with upper class subjects done in traditionally flattering lighting, but scumbly textural patchy brushwork with unflattering backlighting for the lower class of people or unconventional subjects in some of his pieces. Although he paints dark passages at least a bit more transparent, he may paint them a bit opaque if the local color is black for example but is in direct light. He also uses strokes that are more opaque for his dark accents like a nostril or finger crevice but keep larger masses of darks relatively transparent. He classified his shadow areas and light areas irrespective of the contrast ratio but he adds warm to cool complements in his skin tone in the light and dark areas as well which enrich the overall naturalism and vibrancy of color. He creates this beat around the bushes playful suggesting of clarity of his form basically in a way that we enjoy our participation in filling in the blanks of this play. Areas are painted from the contexts of larger shape impact so that it reads essentially at a distance as he would when quickly mapping out the essence of a head without features like a "wig makers block" as he would say in his book. He uses a variety of color notes for each color to have them read as one color at a distant by optical blending so that when you go close up you can see colors that even seems to be pushed too far maybe in chroma for example but when you step back it makes sense based on how it averages out with the other strokes base don accurate color notes selection. getting this color note effect for free without overthinking of color relationship can be accomplished by not mixing out each color to flat. For example in Sargent pieces you will see some streaks of color passes looking very vibrant but streaky as if he didn't mix it out completely to the flat color that it would average to at a distance (Optical blending), but this is great for areas that you want to appear interesting with color notes like when you are painting rocks in reality that me be of boring grey color. Simplification and editing of shapes is easier on the eyes to read which adds a level of elegance and design appeal. Some of the golden age illustrators overly push this simplicity of shape and value compression to a point were it reads less realistic and more interestingly graphic and illustrative but this composition can technique be traced back to Sargent which is usually done in a more subtle way that doesn't digress much from naturalism.

[@NGheta222]

Wow... thanks for this reply. This is by far the most sophisticated description I have read to date of Sargent's artistic ability. Honestly, after reading your analyses above, I get a sense that creating a Sargent-like piece of art is as complicated as bulding an Airbus A350 XWB aircraft single-handedly! Crucial observations on compressed values as well as juxtaposing dark transparent and light opaque masses.

[@cjacobsart]

Love this

[@MFDOOOOM]

Amazing video and amazing comment, you should make video essays on Sargent too !

[@esarchiart]

Wow. Please write more, it's a pleasure to read you. Do you think between the abstract layer and the details he dried the painting? Or wet on wet on wet?

[@jadygordon7153]

@@esarchiart Well the top layer can be wet which can have slightly softer transition with the bottom layer than when its crispy dry although a top crispy dry layer on top of a bottom one can be perceived soft if the values are close enough. I tink Jacob did a video on his observation of Sargent using both wet on wet and wet and dry method :)

[@WayneSmith-z1l]

I love how you empower other artist to understand that massive progress isn't synonymous to time it also depends on how effort and drive.

[@sharonjack8582]

Very helpful info on one of my favorite artists. I saw some of his originals in Seattle a few years ago. Amazing to look at up close. I just LOVE it when another artist speaks the language of PAINT. My eyes translate most of what I see to paint, pure and simple, lol. Your paintings are wonderful!😊

[@pogonomyrmex]

This video was very helpful- thank you for making it.

[@ArtofHOPE_Podcast]

Thank you for the insight

[@rammisalami]

4:25 that just connected some pathways I’ve been trying to figure out for so long. Seeing the way someone would almost fade into the background and not being able to convert that to art.

[@PsychologyAcademia]

I think its important you mention the scale of his paintings. Most were done on huge canvasses that allowed for the paintings to be less detailed as you had to back up several feet to view them. And its much easier to have edge control on larger paintings as their is way less fiddling around.

[@Tocqueville2023]

Very well explained, thank you. Clear and understandable for a difficult topic to grasp.

[@jamlane]

I always appreciate a video where someone is trying to unlock how someone like Sargent actually executed his paintings. Thank you for taking the time to make this video!

[@ValQuinn]

Bro, amazing content, straight to the point, no fluff. This is everything I want in a channel. Instant sub.

[@deborahgonzalezknight168]

Thank you for this.

[@tomtensecretlanguage9273]

Excellent video! Thank you for you taking the time and making it!

[@nickb863]

I have a slightly different take. I don't think Sargent paid the least bit attention to edge control. We can absolutely glean very nice edges in his work - but these edges simply emerge - organically from putting paint on top of paint - in a rough, bristly manner. What this means is that Sargent painted ugly and roughly. I often hear painters say that to blend a hard edge, you apply transition color in- between the two colors with a very soft brush so as to not disturb the overall sense of drawing. In Sargent's case he did the opposite he was constantly destroying his drawing because he could bring it back at any point (his sense of draftsmanship was just that good.) With big bristle brushes, he ewas jamming paint onto paint. He would absolutely would disturb what's underneath. Essentially, Sargent did not treat his painting as precious. He could smash a bunch of midtone colors onto the canvas, - in a stream of consciousness. But because his eye is so honed in, his sense of draftsmanship so strong, he can, while being very rough, bring back the general shape, the general, most basic design, which he will towards the end. And then in the very last final moments of the painting, he can go in and sharpen when needed, darkening the darkest areas, lightening the lightest areas, which simultaneously probably hardens a couple edges. Also worth noting is that this style of work is simply volatile - and even Sargent constantly got it wrong - constantly had to start over. Or would sometimes glaze and scumble in follow up session. This is why a lot of trained painters say to learn a linear stye before the painterly one. The key is drawing, drawing, drawing, drawing. The sense of relaxation in his work is really a product of immense power as a linear painter. Its like a kung fu master who can still bludgeon his opponents with his hands tied behind his back.

[@beverlykandraceffinger3764]

A very thorough and useful comment. Thanks. I still have the feeling that much of Sargent's technique with colour comes from the teaching style of Carlous-Duran, although Sargent had turned the simple approach into something entirely his own...learning how to mix colour for every transition in a form, yet still keep the large areas unified. As you'd mentioned: drawing, drawing, drawing will lead to a relaxed bravura approach to form

[@jamesleecartel]

This was a stellar comment and one I found myself nodding along too as I read

[@ignaciohernandez8901]

These are good points! After I read the Evan Charteris book on Sargent, I felt like I was in his head a little more. You are correct in stating that he did fail quite often, but so did Michael Jordan. There were three main things that I learned about Sargent in that book: 1. There is no question that he was greatly influenced by Carolus-Duran his first teacher. At that time, painting wet on wet was a radical thing. 2. Sargent focused on the shape first, like a head, for example, before he would put in the eyes, etc. The shape of the head was everything. 3. He was always focused on the highlights within the shadows. I think that this is why his work seems so luminous. I myself started to look at things differently after reading that - and it's true. There are very interesting highlights happening in shadows.

[@Michael-hb8nq]

“The paradox of effortlessness” Is how he did it.

[@ZuDav-o2f]

Audio is too much varies in loudness use audio Compressors (vst/plugins) to make audio more even in loudness levels. If after compression you hear background noises (like white noise or pink noise) use Denoiser plugins (like "Brusfri")

[@electrojones]

Go to a doctor for your ears and then another for your head.

[@nickrodis6862]

Salamat po

[@starrbowie8649]

You fail to see that the means of achieving certain effects is integrally connected to the expressiveness of any piece. One's expressiveness is enhanced by having a range of technical options. Artists of all ages and varieties of global cultures have options that they have been taught as traditions or have developed as innovations, so they are always making choices even when in the "zone" of intuitive production. Performing artists and athletes don't think about every single movement in the act of performance, but in training they study and hone various skills with conscious attention to detail, so their knowledge can be drawn on almost unconsciously in a given moment....

[@cjacobsart]

Agree with everything! Very important point when realizing that masters work is attainable if broken down into fundamentals and studied, then intuitively ingrained.

[@seangelarden9543]

Verbose

[@willsheffield2000]

sorta like the first time you tried to drive a stick shift and how you drive it 5 years later.... tuning the radio, talking to the other 4 people in the car, watching the traffic and not once consciously thinking about gas, clutch, shifting.... it's when stick shift gets to be fun in a sports car driving thru the mountains, pure joy.

[@amaraezeoke8312]

Wth this video is awesome; subscribed

[@ningjing1113]

the value has to be correct, and the shape needs to be accurate enough, then it will blend when you back up, otherwise it will still fall apart. people often talk about 'techniques' but overlook the basic drawing skill, the ability to see and render value and shape accurately. this is why the classical training spent years having students drawing casts in charcoal. if you can't draw well, there is no technique can help you make a good painting.

[@rg3412]

Leave the text label longer on screen. We don’t have enough time to read them!

[@kozy15x]

Pause.

[@tiagodagostini]

Sargent was simple the best. I do not think anyone can say they mastered Sargent style otherwise they would be making their own paintings on same style and be famous for it.

[@KEP1983]

Edges are huge, but IMO the difference between Sargent and his admirers today is mostly an issue of draftsmanship. Ateliers tend to teach an extremely naturalistic approach to drawing and painting. It's overly specific in details and shapes. But people without ateliet training, just trying to figure it out on their own or with typical art school teachers (where they study figure drawing once per week, mostly quick poses, for a few semesters) dont learn how to be specific enough. Their shapes are generic. Sargent didnt copy exactly what he saw like an atelier artist of today. He also didnt paint overly generalized shapes. He took what he saw in nature and simplified it, with an eye to make the shapes more simple and elegant than he saw in nature.

[@LittleMew133]

Ooohh yeaahh, like how people paint apples like they are made of blocky clays. It's the habit from atelier?? 😮

[@kbcaterpillar]

Yes, one of Sargent's students said, 'I paint what I see,' and Sargent replied, 'Wait till you see what you paint.' To create the illusion of 3D on a 2D surface, you must translate form into geometric shapes. Master artists deliberately designed everything they drew; none of them simply drew what they saw. However, that doesn't mean you should neglect your ability to observe objectively - you need both skills.

[@KEP1983]

@@kbcaterpillar totally agree! I studied at a few ateliers where the total objective was absolute accuracy and objectivity. But I think the ateliers are only getting half the battle won. You have to first learn to observe the exact shape, but then learn to idealize the shapes you see.

[@KEP1983]

@@LittleMew133 depends upon the atelier, but no, most ateliers teach a more rendered and smooth approach. But plenty of highly rendered paintings will start off more simple and blocky. What I'm talking about isn't so much about whether or not something is drawn/painted blocky. You can draw something very blocky and refine it to the exact shape you see. I'm talking about learning to see the exact shape, but then learning to change it and idealize it. The art schools (meaning, degree program art schools, where you take English , math, and philosophy courses alongside your once per week figure drawing class for two semesters and then call that "training") typically don't teach enough specificity. Frankly, you can't teach that in the little bit of studio/life drawing time that you get in most degree programs. They teach a ton of quick sketch and gesture drawings, which teach people to draw generic shapes, instead of the exact shape they see. So the degree programs typically have drawings that are far too generic. The ateliers have drawings that are far too specific. But the Old Masters were specific but idealized.

[@Mario-zo1uj]

Yes. 😂❤😢😮😅😊

[@axleochidae2853]

Great try here man. Am afraid you are wrong about how “anyone” can reach his level though. This is simply not the case as there have been countless focused artists over the centuries and no one else has even got close to his ability. You should read his life story and it will give you a deeper understanding of how he reached this level. He was an expat all over Europe and began doing watercolour ++ from an early age. This was a key issue in his development. Watercolour requires a certain confidence/ directness that was fundamental to his accurate yet flowing style. He then went to the Ecole Des Baux Arts in Paris (super strict traditional drawing program). Then at the same time he joined Carolus Duran’s painting studio (taught Velazquez style). He did all this before he was 21 years old. How to learn the Sargent style?….Watercolour! This is the masters medium and was Sargent’s true passion - if you want insight on Sargent’s fresh and free style you must take up watercolour. It will teach you how to be decisive and to choose your strokes carefully. Watercolour forces you to assess your edges - at every stage. Oil painting is easy after battling watercolour for 10 years. Give it a try and you will see.

[@AFAskygoddess]

I agree with most of your comment. However, I am not so pessimistic. You saying that he is wrong about how anyone can achieve this level is presumptuous. Granted, Sargent was painting before he was potty trained, so his experience alone gave him an outstanding advantage. Sargent's style was innovative. That's what sets him apart. But, a thorough understanding of his technique and disciplined practice could allow dedicated artists to rise to his level of competence.

[@nickb863]

@@AFAskygoddess Not quite. The way he paints a watercolor is inherently different because watercolor is a negative medium. Oil paint is an additive medium. That said medium is superficial. The core of realism is form - which is draftsmanship. He could approach both from a position of relaxation and fluidity because he had complete mastery a sense of control over draftsmanship. Its draftsmanship that is key.

[@kbcaterpillar]

I agree, you can only paint as well as you can draw.

[@conman7644]

With Lady Agnew its more a question of composition. The face is the focus point of the whole painting. If that part is not high contrast and tack sharp, the painting looses much of its appeal. The rest is of less importance, other than framing the portrait.

[@MFDOOOOM]

Please recommend some resources for painting beginner, coz you clearly know your shit :)

[@mrcohiba1662]

I don’t understand what you have said that is a better explanation than what others have said. You call everyone a mimic, but you yourself can’t actually explain what is going on other than ‘edges make it round’. Did I miss something here?

[@93hothead]

Guys i know sargent, he simply did it because he doesnt have photoshop to zoom in 200% lol

[@joshwand]

Please try to edit your audio better, removing your swallow/mouth noises--they were very distracting from your actually very very good content! Use a pop screen, add some compression, normalize the output levels, and be ruthless about re-recording bits where you stumble/swallow.

[@Eizengoldt]

Oh shut up man

[@Icimaintenant9]

💯🎯… frustrating and difficult to listen to from the start

[@Ahmed-co9fm]

Wet on wet technique, blended strokes and soft edges, these were all used by thousands of artists in the world before and during Sargent time. It is only when art critic want to make a name for someone, they will do it. Sargent never meant to do what all these lectures are saying. These genius artists are born only in specific countries, hh..

[@kbcaterpillar]

Sargent is overrated, and his watercolors are his best work.

[@andrewlillo8618]

You are lost my friend

[@kbcaterpillar]

@@andrewlillo8618 Sargent was an excellent portrait painter and artist. The problem is that people act like he is the be all and end all, when there are countless other great artists to study and learn from. And I really do think that his watercolors are his best work.

[@vidaverde5047]

I don't think he is overrated, but yes, his watercolors are incredible. I don't much about him, but by looking at his work I have the impression that watercolor was his favorite medium.