Sargent's and J.C.'S Methodology

[andymania]

As I go deeper into the world of painting, I wanted to find out more details as to how Sargent painted. I did read that he did have multiple sittings for a lot of his portraits (so the first layers must have dried some) and was really curious as to how did he intergrate wet paint layers onto the dry ones so well. Did he ever glaze? Anyone with any insight, please share. I was also curious about J.C. Leyendecker. To acheive such a smooth look, did he build up the first layers thickly then smooth them out with a soft brush and followed by glazed layers?

[Noah Bradley]

Not sure about J.C., but there's a PDF of some notes on Sargent's theory and methodology. (http://www.goodbrush.com/misc/painting_lessons/lessons.htm)

[Chris Bennett]

andymania: The 'smooth look' of Leyendecker has virtually nothing to do with the mechanical techniques he used but everything to do with his organisation of shapes working together as a totality on the surface.

[Noah Bradley]

You could also check out Greg Manchess's videos. His work has a similarly thick, creamy feeling to them as Leyendecker's.

[Elwell]

I was also curious about J.C. Leyendecker. To acheive such a smooth look, did he build up the first layers thickly then smooth them out with a soft brush and followed by glazed layers?

Leyendecker is just straight direct painting, every brushstroke in its place and doing its job. According to Norman Rockwell, he used a very slippery painting medium. There's a thread of Leyendecker sketches here (http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=84561) (ignore the link in the first post), his technique is pretty easy to figure out. Which is very different than easy to do ;).

[andymania]

Noah,

I have that PDF and it still has me asking questions since there is some vagueness in it. I also have the Manchess demo which is great.

Chris,

Can you elborate on that?

Elwell,

With the direct painting, does he do small tiles of color to create form? How would one go about that? Use a big brush first and paint details on later when dry?(Then it wouldnt be direct anymore) Or use a small brush and do every little HVC spot as you go in one shot? If the latter, it must be a very slow time consuming process.

I have the Leyendecker book. Doesnt mention much on technique (The new one.)

[Chris Bennett]

Yes, Elwell described the same thing later but in a different way. The smooth thing is really a product of everything being the right shape in the right place with the right value - it gives an image of completeness that is often confused with surface finish. Have a close look at the drapery folds of any one of his paintings. They are a play of abstracted shapes that lock together to draw the 3D impression of form, making us believe that we are looking at rendered cloth - but we are not. Look at the heads of most of the paintings - exactly the same thing is going on but with the values brought closer together.
Smoothnes or blending cannot draw anything and when served up with insecure drawing produces a nasty 'embalmed' look - even in some well draw stuff. Form produced by shapes working together convinces one immediately of solidity - and with it, by default, the sense of continuous surfaces.

[Elwell]

Leyendecker has one of the most transparent techniques I can imagine. It's all there on the surface. Every shape is a brushstroke. The secret to it is meticulous planning (hence all the gridded studies). He would carefully rehearse every element of a picture until he knew exactly how each should be painted, so when it came to the final piece he could just do it.

[Chris Bennett]

Yes.
In fact Sargent was doing exactly the same thing but in an impirical way. Each brush mark on a Sargent is thought of as a shape albeit one that is responding to the moment.
Brushmarks thought of as wrought shapes in a dance that produces the halucination or mirage of form. But put there by two markedly different temperaments.
Two very different trees, but growing from the same soil.

[Elwell]

Yes.
In fact Sargent was doing exactly the same thing but in an impirical way. Each brush mark on a Sargent is thought of as a shape albeit one that is responding to the moment.
Brushmarks thought of as wrought shapes in a dance that produces the halucination or mirage of form. But put there by two markedly different temperaments.
Sargent also "rehearsed" his brush strokes, just not on separate canvases. There are stories of him repeatedly knifing out and repainting a single stroke until it was perfect.

[andymania]

Gentlemen, thank you. I understand now. It is still very different and difficult for me to lay down one stroke at a time instead of just going the indirect route where I work in layers, etc. Getting the hue/value/chroma in one shot and one small stroke at a time is very hard. I will try again in these next few days to try some studies where I attempt to stay away from the temptation of using a big soft blender brush and going over everything.

[Chris Bennett]

Sargent also "rehearsed" his brush strokes, just not on separate canvases. There are stories of him repeatedly knifing out and repainting a single stroke until it was perfect.

Yes, that's true. However, I would say that the rehearsal in his case was like a gymnast having many runs at the bar until the whole performance flowed together. J.C. on the other hand seemed to be making sure that his choreography was perfect step by step.

[andymania]

Ok Elwell. Here is a hi-res J.C. study from the link you gave me. You mean to tell me this arm was painted on small stroke at a time rather than just laying down a burnt siennaish color all over and modifying it?

[bhanu]

in that last post I can see too many single brushstrokes than the carefully edged strokes.
The hand is a perfect example.
actually if you look at the edges you will realise that they give of an illusion of reality and completion than reality and completion themselves.

[andymania]

hmmm. interesting. Ill look closer. the arm looks like it was washed in with a big dose of burnt sienna and a big brush. but ill try to find these small brushstrokes

[Elwell]

Who said they had to all be small strokes? Small forms are made with small strokes, big forms are made with big strokes. The big shape of the arm was laid in, then the smaller shapes built on top of it.

[andymania]

okay E. Now when those smaller shapes are laid down on the big shapes, should that layer be dried? I tried building on top of wet big shapes but I pick up whats underneath.

[Uli]

I second what Elwell and Chris said-

Here's an example of Leyendeckers techique. At another illustrator forum, someone posted the photos he did at the Leyendecker exhibition. I believe this is a painting, not a study. It shows clearly the very thin layer of paint that he used, also the glossy medium (above the head, the white).
He is working more like a graphic artist than like a painter- the technique looks almost like using markers, if you forgive my blasphemy ;-)

You also have to remember that his paintings were reproduced at a small size and with old reproduction technique that levels out a lot of the uneven parts.
I recently saw some German 1920s magazine cover illustration that looks super glossy on the magazine, but the original is insanely uneven, with mixed media and irregular colour areas. Same with original Gruaud illustrations.
The Sargents I saw at an exhibition last year were almost impressionistic, in that they fell apart into blocks of colour when you got closer. He used very thick colour, smooth and glossy, and painted alla prima. He was also a sucker for water colour and believed it to be almost superior to oils. Do some watercolours and you understand his technique better.
Opposed to that, Leyendecker seems to have used thin colour, but both "block" in their shapes (can't express this in english). And both seem to have painted very quickly- the hand never shakes, so to speak. This can only be achieved by knowing your subect very well (and by having lots of customers who demand a constant churning out of paintings, one might add)

I add a "scrapy" study of Vernon Lee by Sargent, where he was aiming for the highest degree of likeness without a need for commercial refinement- Lee was a close friend of his.
(if someone knows who did the amazing close ups of the Leyendeckers in that other forum- I would like to give credit but have lost the link).

[Uli]

here's another one from the same source. It shows the glossy medium, the layering of separate blocks of colour (ear) and the extreme certainty of his line (collar).
from the cleanliness of the strokes I would think that he either worked alla prima/wet on wet (the finger) or wet on dry. certainly not on half dry ;-) that always causes a tacky line. he is setting one stroke line beside the other without ever retouching the same area. he has 100% control over his layering and builts up his values from blocks of colour. He is doing the exact opposite of blending colours by putting them one beside the other. Also his hatching techique in the shadows adds to the fresh easy look. Like pointilism, only it's strokilism ;-)

(I'm only a beginner with painting mediums- do you guys think that it is possible to have such a glossy medium that dries very quickly nevertheless? I'm very interested in super thin, glossy mediums)

[Uli]

and to even this out here's an example for Sargent's exellent water colour skills (all Sargents can be found at the http://jssgallery.org/ )

[bloodless]

wow awesome thread guys! im seriously enjoying the comments u guys make on their teqniques and paintings! :D

The water colour Sargents painting is astonishing! he really knows how to keep the colours rich!

[Uli]

Now I remember where I have seen that thin medium before- in Whistler's nocturnes! *lightbulb*

[Serpian]

Uli: are you sure you can't find that link to the Leyendecker close-ups? They are rather amazing!

[Uli]

I kow, I know *looks unhappy*. I have been searching but can't find it. It was a professional US illustrator's forum-- somewhere--