Bouguereau and the Boston School
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 жов 2024
- Apart from being representational painters Bouguereau and the Boston School have little in common. We focus here on showing some of the key differences between the academic and the impressionist approach; the imaginative painter and the painter of the world immediately before him, the impressionist.
In response to Sagi
bouguereau is amazing painter we miss him since August 1905, life is too short
This is such a good video. I find the comparing of Bouguereau to the impressionist, being able to see images and break them down, to be very insightful. My vision and understanding is changed. Thank you!
Thank you for the great video on the differences between academic and the Boston School. It is clearer all the time.
I saw “a young woman defending herself from love” in a museum when I was in middle school and to this day it’s stayed with me. I have never really been interested in classical art but I just remember staring at it for so long just captivated by the woman’s expression and the dynamic image of the painting
Curious to know what museum that was?
@@PaulIngbretson I saw a small version of it at the LA County Museum of Art many years ago.
@@PaulIngbretson I lived near Los Angeles. They have it at the Getty Art Museum off the 405 freeway. They also have Van Gogh's Irises. You can't get near the Irises because everyone is taking a picture of themselves in front of it. But no one is paying attention to that Bouguereau except for me.
The Professor's favorite phrases :
"By The Way"
"Boston School"
"Ingres"
:)
A few comments. First, yes. The upper little girls are in Denver, the lower two, "The Nut Gatherers" is in Detroit. The Peasant family with the Vatican in the distance is in Cleveland.
A note about Bouguereau's working method. He didn't make the figures up out of whole cloth, of course. He started by making little thumbnails of his compositions, then would bring models in and pose them according to his sketches. He would do a pencil drawing of the whole figure, and often paint the head and hands from life. Then he would produce a cartoon--a full scale drawing of the figures in outline, which was traced onto the canvas. He also brought models back into the studio for the finished painting. There's a photo of him working from a nude model while executing his painting "Day", though it's clear that he does a fair amount of idealization. But he wasn't just using formulas. He did paint the figure from life. But it was part of the process, and he did place them in largely artificial backgrounds (though he did also do drawings of leaves, etc.).
There were certainly others who did color studies from nature to inform the backgrounds of their paintings, including Leighton, and, of course, Gerome, who uses very vibrantly and naturalistically colored backgrounds.
Yes, all true. Thanks for the outline of the typical approach to imaginative painting from way back, with variations. All this is well known. The PICTURES are imaginative, not from life, even though models are used in its production. I did it with Gammell. The method is entirely other for the impressionist even though impressionists could also produce imaginative work. When they did they would have used basically the same approach.
@@PaulIngbretson Starts with an idea imagination then composition and use of models where needed . Without idea IMAGINATION there is a quotation by Einstein !
Harold Speed mentions something about this in his book on painting I believe. He tells us not to bring in a model until we have the pose already worked out in our head.
So over a 100 years later, impressionist are still tearing down this great artist? Bouguereau, was way more skilled than the impressionist of his time or those of today.
He has great stuff, most of the skills of the master academic. His contemporary, Monet, changed painting by his experiments in color and light.
Bouguereau was one of the most skilled artist of ALL time in terms of ability of drawings, but he lived in a era where avanguards took control of the attention of the critics (not istantly). At that time the academic style was seen as a bad thing. But now things are different and we have the responsability to express our respect to this genius
When you soar as high as Bouguereau you will always seem small to those who can't fly. I am rephrasing Nietsches quote here.
the impressionist doesnt know how to draw properly
@@PaulIngbretson Monet was his student and Bouguereau told him that he doesn`t know proportions and Monet dropped his classes. Monet doesn`t come close to Bouguereau !
31:00 Bouguereau demeans the form? The arrogance of that statement is shocking.
I think that this might have been an informative video, but I really struggled to make out what the presenter was saying. I found his words were jumbled into each other and I lost the thread of his line of enquiry. Also it was hard to sew the cursor on the screen to know which painting was being referenced.
Paul, many thanks for another great talk. This one left me wondering what your thoughts are concerning Velazquez painting such a complex work as “les Meninas” or “The Spinners”. Would you say he had the entire “ensemble” in front of him each time he worked on the painting, or would be it be necessary only for the start? Could he then complete the painting with parts missing relying on memory of the whole and perhaps a final shot with the entire cast in place to pull it together?
Thanks again....
It seems highly unlikely a court painter would have the whole ensemble together to paint from. Frequently there would be several live sessions to get the portrait sketch then painted each sitter in the composition was often painted separately. The drapery and the background scene was painted on manikins and setup in the studio.
@@jeffhreid Thanks for the reply. Your answer makes perfect sense...
Impressionists are actually overrated escapists , who ridicule realistic work as a defence mechanism against their inability to paint well !
The impressionist are ok Manet very good. Renoir is total crap. Can’t stand how they the impressionist are forced down the public throats.
exactly!!!
Yes it’s so stupid that people are still acting like anything that is semi realistic is somehow bad because it’s too formulaic or photographic somehow like that’s a negative thing.
In my opinion it’s the impressionist paintings that look bland and photographic, they often simply copied what was in front of them albeit in a messy fast paced lazy manner in contrast to the classical painters. The colors they used are too bright and garish for my taste, it lacks the subtlety and emotion of more subdued color tones.
Most of the impressionist painters bore me to death, their paintings tend to lack both skill and soul, something Bougereau’s paintings have in abundance.
You don’t even know how vision works
My people lol.😂
Some of the comparisons I think were unfair, and of course that was based on opinion (the opinion of someone inside the view os the Boston School), not precisely impartial. Some of it I understand, and is true, in other parts I was really lost.
For example, Bouguereau had his daughter to pose for him many times, so yes, the faces are very similar. And he probably had some formula to paint, or "a way", and that is what makes it look like a Bouguereau and not only classical. And I think all the biggest painters had a language, a visual aspect that distinguished them. But to say that he painted one painting the whole life is what I don't understand.
The approach that became relevant at the end of 19th and begining of the 20th century is a new thing, specially the impressionistic way, but Bouguereau was not on that "wave", he was before that.
So, it is hard to compare, but I don't think he is behind in light, form, composition, or even color, just in another time and style.
You make good points. What I am trying to compare is the way both Velasquez and Rembrandt, even Chardin, evolved their seeing, not just continuing a good thing as all, including Bouguereau, had early on. Each of them became more interested in mastering afresh the look of nature over maintaining a product. This, too, is meant as an observation, not a judgement. Thanks for contributing.
Awesome! Tyvm! gonna devour all ur content cuz the way I paint is more the Boston school. I didn't know it was a thing
Have fun!
Well explained !
Good stuff Paul
awesome, magnificent point sir! wow, can you do Nelson Shank's portrait paintings? thanks
i will try to search for what we did on him earlier
@@PaulIngbretson thanks a lot! I appreciate it a lot, I been sharing your videos with most of my artist friends, although most of my drawings and pastels are "realistic" because it's for me to pay my bills, most of my commissions work from client wants that style, but for me personally I want to focus on impressionistic approach, like one of your student Henry Wingate.
also have you've heard a filipino old master Juan Luna? his works are like "Sargent" bravura style,
He won the gold medal in the 1884 Madrid Exposition of Fine Arts, along with the silver win of fellow Filipino painter Félix Resurrección Hidalgo. His art work "Spoliarium". Hope you can do another segment on him. Thank you and keep safe!
I went to an exhibition at The Royal Academy UK called Art at the crossroads 1900, they had paintings by Bouguereau and the Impressionists. What i noticed was that although all the different painters had different styles, you could tell they were all painters from that time. Bouguereau did use some impressionist colouring , especially in his whites. I know you are a champion of the Boston school, but what makes art interesting is different approaches, what is better is a matter of taste. Bougerueau painted mythological themes unlike the Boston School. I agree they had different approaches, but that is not a bad thing. Bouguereau is not my favourite artist, but he is in a different league to that horrible new classical realism they do in America. What do you think of Matisse Paul?, i think he is overrated and very shallow.
Nobody likes classical realists 🤣
I keep wanting to affirm that I am not taking a position on these painters who are all notably good painters. My ambition in these videos is to suggest a more comprehensive approach to visual education, promoting one that includes enabling mastery of truth in all areas from 'line' to 'values' to 'color' at its base. The Boston School attempted to enable that. Matisse has always seemed 'noticeably' irrelevant to me in the pursuit of great painting. Likewise Cezanne, both of whom have their moments.
One is making paintings from Nature, the other is capturing Nature, the classical realist copies Nature, Leonardo reinvents Nature🙂 and Picasso is inspired by it.
Mr. Ingbretson , I wonder if WB was just too good ! I try my darndest sometimes to paint it like a photograph and then it turns out awesome and Impressionistic. lol 😅 hey whatever works . Ultimately I have Great respect for him, he was the one that got women into the school system of learning to paint . The Impressionist made fun of him , I believe because of their jealousy ,his work was impossible for them to do I imagine. even if they tried I bet . 🎃
Also the 'string' had run out on paintings of that ilk. Change was all around especially with the revival of the Velasquez idea.
Wondering. Paxton taught Gammel, who taught you and Lack. Did Paxton teach Gammel the Method of the Boston School? And then Gammel disregarded it entirely and teach you and Lack his own method? Did you have to learn the Boston School method elsewhere on your own? Regarding Paxton's pallet I heard he used Vermillion and Naples Yellow. Atelier Lack used Cadmium Scarlet because genuine Vermilllion hard to get plus very expensive.
Gammell said to us at one point that all he wanted to do was paint one like Tarbell but admitted he never achieved it. What he taught us was filled with Boston School aphorisms but our training was academic all the way through but with accurate color relations and not formulae. (And, of course, his example was a version of the academic he had evolved). This is reinforced by his own statement that you can't teach what you can't do. More than any critique of Paxton Gammell was looking from him for the academic ways of making imaginative pictures, not becoming an impressionist. Do keep watching as I explain in a number of places about my search for best practices for painting what was in front of me with the greatest possible truth and beauty of that impression leading me to attempt things only heard of in the conversation or literature and studying Boston School and other starts to help make sense of it. Our palette with Gammell included several earth tones specifically for the portrait and yes we were using cad scarlet for that reason and that vermillion is a noticeably weaker color.
I think Bouguereau had it right. Pure Impressionism becomes nearly impossible on larger scales without some sort of drawing to work off of. You really need to draw everything in where it needs to go or your gonna waste a ton of paint and time fixing things. You can still paint alla prima over that. The underpainting is just there to get you in the right place.
That being said, my taste has grown towards impressionism as it's just refreshing to see the mistakes actually. You can make a painting too perfect, if that makes sense.
That's a real issue, scale and the impressionist vision. Even a painter like Bouguereau or Leighton worked up small color studies among other things where it's easier to see the big impression
Hello Paul. These comparisons you make between Bouguereau and the Boston painters are very interesting to me. What I notice about the Boston painter's manner of working and Bouguereau is that painters like Tarbell seem to focus more on the large effects of light, preferably outdoor sunlight, on the figure, whereas Bouguereau seems more interested in the light effect on a figure as it might be seen under an overcast sky. A rather gray value range. Put another way, Bouguereau doesn't seem too interested in catching the effects of strong outdoor sunlight (bright colors) but delights more in a "primitive" or "classical" approach similar to that of Leonardo da Vinci and Raphael, but with a higher degree of realism. In the Boston painter's I see a certain poetic visual quality that probably results from their manner of suggesting detail rather than literally painting detail. I personally love Bouguereau's work but feel more inclined to paint in the style you are teaching.
Thanks for the subtitles, can't understand the way this guy talks LOL
He demeans one of the world’s all time great figure painters because it is not his taste. Ridiculous.
Yes impressionists, modernists, contemporary ‘artists’ or whatever you want to call them tend to be extremely arrogant and pretentious types. They have to demean classical painters because of their own lack of skill and their devotion to their false god of originality.
Classical painters did not aim to create extremely unique works, they aimed to perfect a tried and true method in order to create something as beautiful as possible for their patrons. Bougeureaus ability in this regard is second to none. It is pointless to compare him to later ‘artists’ who believed in Kant’s “art for arts sake” and the idea that originality is the supreme quality, because that is not what Bougeureaus goal was.
@@zarahchristensen1147bouguereau is hardly a classicist. Compare him to Bellini, Raphael, Tintoretto and Manet comes closer.
Money was a failed student of Buogeureau
Funny word, 'failed.' :)
Traductor al e español gracias
What tosh
>>>>>>>BOUGUEREAU'S IF YOUVE SEEN ONE, YOUVE SEEN THEM ALL !