Even the masters were not perfect

[the_jos]

I've seen a lot of people thinking they ain't good enough for art.
And I've seen several people surgest to learn from the masters.
What we mainly see/know from those great masters is finished work. Those look amazing and we feel that we should be as good as them. But those masters didn't draw and paint right all the time.
That's what this topic is about. Learning from the great masters' mistakes and corrections.
Additions from others are very welcome.

I'm going to kick off with a sketch by Rembrandt.
What's wrong with it? Well, he made a correction and now his beloved wife Saskia is a three-handed mutant.

[Arshes Nei]

...all this time I thought they were Robots in disguise...

1. The Masters were human. Humans make mistakes
2. Other books really do cover this well. I can't remember the title but it was put out by a Museum similar to Hale's kind of lectures on oil paintings. Many of these guys only had a high point in their career of "masterhood" for a few years. Art & Fear is another book that addresses it too.

[Baron Impossible]

"Master" is a subjective title. It's all "IMO". For example, I couldn't presume to identify even the slightest flaw in Bouguereau's work whereas if I were asked to point to van Gogh's howlers I'd simply link to every image he ever painted. IMO, of course.

[Noah Bradley]

if I were asked to point to van Gogh's howlers I'd simply link to every image he ever painted. IMO, of course.

Ouch.

[Jonas Heirwegh]

That sketch by Rembrandt isnt wrong.. You have to understand that they used sketches to figure out compositions, etc. It was part of a process, Rembrandt was just changing his mind about how he was going to paint it. It's not like he did make a mistake by accident, he knew perfectly what he was doing when drawing that sketch.

[Grief]

http://art-quarter.com/beck/joe/aj/1/3/ingres-odalisque98.jpg

ingres check ur anatomy noob.

ps: this thread is a joke right?

[Ashtonw]

No, seriously, Grief for president.

[velderia]

I think that's also more of a perspective issue too. It seems like he tried too hard making the torso look distant.

[Nickillus]

According to an art hsitory tutor at the college I attended about 111 years ago, Ingres' piece used deliberate anatomical dostortion to emphasise the grace and flow of the female form. The fact that he elongated her spine and placed it off the centre line of her body was a conscious decision.
Apparently, one of his big selling points at the time was the meticulous brush work, by which he rendered a totally smooth surface - which was unusal at the time.
He was following the neo-classical examples of the likes of Jaques Louis David, who was slightly older than he.

'Old masters' (Si is right - very subjective)- The great thing about looking at both their finished works and their sketches ('cartoons' for the older ones) if available, is that you get an insight into their mental machinations and should begin to understand, that they had to work at it just like everyone else.
Sketches are for working things out, and tend to be the private process never intended for public display. There is also the factor that over time we all develop shorthand strokes for certain things to speed our process up as well - And in the same way our signature changes over time, so do those shorthand marks. It all contirbutes to the idiosynchrosies we see.
All that said - Yep - sometimes they just plain got it wrong. but when they got it right . . . . .Oh boy!

[Leonor]

We might evaluate art by different standards, but those standards are objective. Anatomy is not good according to IMO. You can't say "IMO that arm looks anatomically correct." It does or it doesn't.

[Kagemusha22]

Sigh... (http://www.koopfilms.com/hockney/articles.html) :rolleyes:

[George Abraham]

dude's.. They beat you to it, and without a forum.

[the_jos]

ps: this thread is a joke right?

Well, since life shouldn't be taken too serious this thread also shouldn't.
Still I think it's a nice alternative way to look at artworks.

For example, we could have a look at the works of a great artist who
- Did not finish a commissioned work in his early career
- Used the wrong medium on a work so it started to flake after a couple of years
- Took years to work on a portrait and might even be working on it today if he hadn't died centuries ago (the 'some paintings are just never finished syndrome')
- Made a drawing of a vehicle that could never move the way he drew it (did he do that on purpose or not?)

Even your Ingres got a nice reaction from Nickillus giving some explaination about it. You might know that Ingres was deliberately distrorting this painting but you should not assume anyone does.

[Grief]

there are no mistakes only happy accidents. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ninjau1/grief3.gif

[whitepython]

Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it.
Salvador Dali

[new epoch]

The entire premise of this discussion is questionable. Perfection is a goal of craft, not of art. The concept of perfection involves a preset absolute target (formula, specification, plan etc), dictated by the utilitarian purpose of the work.

In the art process, utilitarian purpose is always secondary to aesthetic concerns so perfection is not possible in any art project. There is no right or wrong way to resolve a work of art.

In the case of figure drawing, the aesthetic and conceptual agenda of the artist has always overridden anatomical accuracy. An examination of contemporary anatomical illustration will demonstrate that 'observable reality' is always distorted to highlight specific anatomical features.

In the case of the Rembrandt sketch, a few things must be kept in mind. First, the subject is domestic and so the artist probably asked to model to go about her business as she would if he were not there, so it is a simulated cameo scene. Second, it is a five minute conceptual sketch and not a finished work of art. And third, paper was a very expensive commodity at that time. No artist could afford to toss it away and start again.

[Kagemusha22]

Why'd you want to be perfect, it'd be so boring.

[fersteger]

Sure the masters made 'mistakes' They just kept at it until it was 'perfect'. The first brushstroke isn't perfect but it's continually adjusted until it looks right. They brought their work to the point where there's nothing wrong with it anymore, which is how most artists work. Just continually moving through the picture fixing what is off and bringing everything up to the next level. I think the only 'unperfect' paintings by the masters will be those that are still unfinished, but if they did finish em, you can bet they'd be amazing.

Though you can certainly look at artist's earlier stuff and say it sucks compared to later stuff.

http://stapletonkearns.blogspot.com/2009/04/lets-look-at-some-preparatory-drawings.html
This is a cool link, it's Bouguereau's sketches to final. You can see in the earlier stuff the anatomy and all isn't worked out yet, but by the time the final is ready to be painted he hasn't left any room for mistakes and it is 'perfect'

Also that blog is an amazing wealth of knowledge about painting.

[Nickillus]

Nice link Fersteger - fanks.

[Flake]

Bumping this to say that the blog Fersteger posted is well worth a look, lots of good stuff.

[Ministry of drawing]

That sketch by Rembrandt isnt wrong.. You have to understand that they used sketches to figure out compositions, etc. It was part of a process, Rembrandt was just changing his mind about how he was going to paint it. It's not like he did make a mistake by accident, he knew perfectly what he was doing when drawing that sketch.

Another reason is that Rembrandt used white paint to cover the drawn inked lines that he wasn't satisfied with. In the 17th century paint contained lead, especially in the white. Over the centuries past the lead oxydated so the spot he covered originally becomes transparant and therefore in many drawings you see the original lines underneath.

For me I'm happy with this because over the years I could study the way he drew in this way. You can see in this way he used various thickness in lines to suggest light and emotion.

Sorry if my English isn't correct.

[M-Kaibigan]

http://xs.to/image-ECF7_4BD9609F.jpg

Nya~~~~

[Ministry of drawing]

First: I don't understand why you say I'm necroposting on this issue. Big deal if my reply comes a year later. I'm from Holland. We always are a year behind on everything.

If someone like the topicstarter writes that Rembrandt didn't drew well and we should learn from their mistakes then you better get your facts together about why and how he worked. It's a well known fact that he never gave up on a drawing even when he felt unsatisfied about it. That means he really knew what he was doing: inventing emotions on a small piece of paper. The fact we nowadays see several corrections is because of what I've said before.

Second: The topicstarter brought up an issue of a drawing made by Rembrandt in the 17th century so who's actually necroposting here?

Third: I am 39 years old and I have spend almost three decades studying all there is to know about 17th century drawings and especially Rembrandt and his school of pupils. So if someone says something about Rembrandt in this way, I feel obligated to respond because studying Rembrandt shaped my life with purpose and quality.

Concluding: I'm not a moron! but you can say whatever you want of course.

[Black Spot]

I don't mind necro'd threads, at least it's not a new one with everyone screaming and pointing at links to old ones.

Back on topic. In the National Gallery is this Titian. He must have been a really bad day as Diana's right leg is not attached properly and saying her head is somewhat small, is a big understatement.

965688

[RyerOrdStar]

It seems like he REALLY wanted the woman beside her to be leaning over her knee, and also for the foot to be pointed towards the big man. I think it was one of those times when an artist is very stubborn about his vision and logic be damned. "But I REALLY want it to look this way! If I fudge it nobody will really notice, anyway...*fudge fudge*"

[Elwell]

Another reason is that Rembrandt used white paint to cover the drawn inked lines that he wasn't satisfied with. In the 17th century paint contained lead, especially in the white. Over the centuries past the lead oxydated so the spot he covered originally becomes transparant and therefore in many drawings you see the original lines underneath.

I don't think there's any evidence of white being used in this way in this particular drawing. Lead white only turns more transparent with time when it's ground with oil (the lead reacts with the fatty acids in the oils and saponifies, turning from an opaque to a more transparent form.) This is indeed the cause of pentimenti, when previously covered underlayers of a painting become more visible with time. But, when white was used for works on paper, whether for corrections or for highlighting, it would have been bound with egg, glue, or gum, not oil. The effect of age is different in this case, because if lead white isn't completely locked up in a medium (as it often isn't when used as a watercolor) it can react with sulfur in the air and turn black. Although not particularly common in old drawings, it's obvious when it does happen. In the case of Rembrandt, and other old master ink drawings that show this sort of visible correction, the most obvious answer is probably the correct one: that they changed their minds and redrew the element, no whiteout necessary.

[Flake]

In completely unrelated info, that Titian is doing a tour of our country and I'll be worrying museum staff with that weird "looking up REALLY close student" thing.

Wish it was "Bacchus and Ariadne" instead though..Ho hum, mustn't grumble.."Diana" is still better than a poke in the eye with a stick.