Maxfield Parrish

[Victor B]

I can't belive there's not a Maxfield parrish Thread, so I decided to start one. I was also thinking it would be nice if some of these art History Threads talked a bit more about the artists. I'll type up some info on Maxfield later for now I will Copy and paste his bio from bpid.com.
------images follow text -------- go down for images--------
This one image in Coy Ludwig's indispensable 1973 book, Maxfield Parrish@, told me a great deal about Parrish. I'll explain why it is so fascinating in a moment.

Masfield Parrish pistonFrederick Parrish (he would adopt the name Maxfield later) was born in Philadelphia in 1870 - of the generation of Orson Lowell, C.D. Gibson, Elizabeth Shippen Green, W.T. Benda, Franklin Booth, Howard Chandler Christy and F.R. Gruger. That made him almost 14 when he decorated the letter below - so take heart all you young doodlers. He illuminated many such letters that he wrote from London and Paris during 1884-86. John Goodspeed Stuart has collected many of them in his fascinating book, Young Maxfield Parrish (1992). As much as the letters show the pure "boy" in Parrish (don't you just love the weeping eyeball and "DUDE"?), other images from the book show a precocious talent for design and rendering. The piston at left is from the same time period, if not slightly earlier.

Masfield Parrish letter art

His artistic talents were encouraged by his parents and though it was initially architecture that beckoned him, it was quite obvious that he would be an artist. His college work was remarkably sophisticated. In 1893 he approached Howard Pyle in hopes of getting instruction, but he was told that Pyle had nothing to teach him. Parrish audited a few of Pyle's classes at the Drexel Institute and came to the same conclusion. It was time to start a long and respected career.

Maxfield Parrish - Walls of JasperMaxfield Parrish - Golden AgeHe is best known for his color (people speak of "Parrish blue"), but his earliest work was b&w. In 1897, he illustrated Kenneth Grahame's "The Walls Were As of Jasper" (one image at left) for the August 1897 issue of Scribners Magazine. He would revisit Grahame's work in two books, Dream Days and The Golden Age in 1899 & 1900. Though both of these and his other 19th century books, Mother Goose in Prose and Knickerbocker's History of New York@, were b&w, they all displayed the attention to detail, composition and texture that would make his color work so instantly recognizable. At right is one of the illustrations from The Golden Age, taken from the 1904 photogravure edition. All of this early work was reprinted in The Black and White Parrish from Thumb Tack Books in 1982.

Maxfield Parrish - L'AllegroSome of Parrish's earliest color paintings can be found in the pages of The Century magazine. At left is an image from the December 1901 issue illustrating "Milton's L'Allegro." While quite striking, it appears rather murky and not at all like his work only a couple of years later. There were earlier color Parrish illustrations, but most were black & white drawings with color oil glazes added to prints of the originals.

I've mentioned before in these essays that the techniques of color reproduction were quite varied during the period around 1900-1910. It was still an art and individual printers varied widely in their skills. The invention of "process" color, wherein a painting was photographically "separated" into three colors (cyan, magenta, and yellow) plus black, paved the way for more consistent methodology. Parrish, like many other artists experimented with the best painting techniques to accommodate these new methods. (Edmund Dulac always tried to maintain a soft edge to his images to allow for errors in registration.) What Parrish (alone!) did was a result of the printers' methods and was directly responsible for the unique 'feel' and luminosity of his art.

Maxfield Parrish blue treeLet's get back to that first picture. Here's another look at it. It was a finished piece titled 'Dreaming' (or 'October') painted in 1928. There was originally a nude young woman seated on the large root of the left tree. After publication, Parrish decided to change it and never completed the job. This one canvas demonstrates his very unique and remarkable technique. What you're looking at in the upper right quadrant is Parrish painting the cyan printing plate - every color that contains some tint of blue! That's blue, green, brown, purple - in all shades and tones. Parrish mentally assessed the blue component and painted it directly onto a base of white (paper, gesso, etc.) in a thin, transparent glaze. When light was shined on the painting, it would penetrate the transparent glazes, reflect off the white base and mix the final colors in a brilliant manner impossible to achieve with mixed pigments.

sidenote: We perceive color in objects by the spectrum of light not absorbed by the pigment. The darker the color, the less light gets reflected. The less light reaching our eyes, the murkier the color becomes. We perceive color in light in just the opposite manner. Shining a light through a color causes that portion of the spectrum to be absorbed. The purer the color, the more light is available to our eyes and the brighter the color appears. Parrish explained his technique at length in Ludwig's Maxfield Parrish. I've transcribed and annotated his explanation in a page I call Color & Light. If this aspect of his work fascinates you, please check it out.

Maxfield Parrish - Bill SachsEnough of this technical stuff! It's the magic of his images that I really want to discuss. By 1900, Parrish was an established, successful artist with membership in the Society of American Artists, a new wife, a custom built studio on the New Hampshire/Vermont border. His art was in magazines, books and was receiving recognition in the exhibits and expositions when he submitted to them. Most significantly, the public was enamored with his images. A trip to Arizona in early 1902 resulted in a suite of seven color plates that seem to have been crafted with the earliests versions of the new "varnish" technique above and capture the colors and light of the desert. Compare "Bill Sachs - The Flying Dutchman" (Century - November 1902) at left with the image only a year earlier from "Milton". The brilliance is blinding and the sky is the essence of pure "Parrish Blue." (Even more telling are the four images by Howard Pyle that I scanned for his page. They are from the same magazine, the following month!)

Maxfield Parrish - Errant PanMagazine covers were a perfect showcase for his luminous paintings. Colliers especially took major advantage of his art and those issues (from 1904 through 1913) are prized by collectors. Magazines like Scribners and Century often featured Parrish in the lead spot with a color frontispiece in addition to the occasional cover. "The Errant Pan" (right) is the frontispiece from Scribners, August 1910. Other magazines that used Parrish art included Harpers Weekly, Hearst's, Ladies' Home Journal, Life, McClures, and yet many more.

Maxfield Parrish - Arabian NightsBook illustrations were equally in demand. His post-1900 color output included: Italian Villas and Their Gardens@ and Poems of Childhood (1904), The Arabian Nights@ (1909) (an image at left), A Wonder Book and Tanglewood Tales (1910) and The Knave of Hearts@ (1925).

Unless you've seen the originals, one aspect of his printed work may not be obvious. That is that there are no book reproductions that can really do them justice. The reason for this is that in photographing one of his paintings for reproduction, the camera must be at right angles, directly in front of the picture to avoid distortion. That means the light sources aimed at the picture to illuminate it are usually located on either side at 30 to 45 degree angles. While this works admirably for most images, Parrish's paintings demand a light source closer to the position of the viewer in order for the reflected light to best mix the colors for our eyes.

The web, with its pixel-based light source (behind the image) is more capable than print, but too many scans I found on the web don't seem to take advantage of this. I wish I could reproduce everything, but it just isn't possible. I'll give you links later that will let you see more. Please note that all the images above (except for the first two and the unfinished piece from the Ludwig book) were taken from their original magazine or book appearances.

While book and magazines provided him with an enormous public following, it was his prints and calendars that gave him the widest exposure. Hundreds of thousands of images were printed and distributed. It started in 1904 with reproductions of 'Air Castles' (a Ladies' Home Journal cover) and continued through 1920 with prints from previously published sources (advertisements, covers, candy boxes, etc.). In 1920 he abandoned advertising for prints and calendars. His prints of images created for candy box lids had fueled the public interest and Parrish wanted to create paintings for reproduction unfettered by commercial considerations. The first such image was 'Daybreak.' It was his masterpiece.

Maxfield Parrish - Daybreak (blue)

This is what 'Daybreak' looks like in Ludwig's book, Maxfield Parrish@. But I was privileged to view the original about twenty years ago, and what you see above isn't really what it looks like. I was mesmerized when I saw the painting in Alma Gilbert's original gallery in San Mateo. She had it set up with a strong light on a rheostat directed from behind and slightly above the viewer. When the rheostat was turned up to shine more light, it was really and truly like day was breaking. Instead of a noun, the title was a verb! The painting is not nearly so blue as most reproductions make it seem. I think this is one drawback of the reputation of "Parrish Blue" - paintings that are not prime examples of the term are shoehorned into the mode during reproduction. 'Daybreak' is pinks and lavenders and dark greens and, with sufficient light, golden. It is only peripherally blue.

If my memory serves, in low light it looks more like the image below. Click it to see how the painting changed with additional light.

Maxfield Parrish - Daybreak

Maxfield Parrish - landscape'Daybreak' was an immediate and staggering success. More lissome, lightly clothed lasses in mock-classical settings followed. The public couldn't get enough. With the exception of his justly famous Knave of Hearts book in 1925, the remainder of Parrish's career was mainly spent painting these popular images and a series of sumptuous landscapes for Brown & Bigelow calendars published from 1937 through 1962. Each calendar had one Parrish print and Ludwig reproduces many of them - unfortunately only a couple in color - like the one from 1950 at right. He created several murals, some of which still adorn famous hotels and bars from coast to coast.

He lived his entire life at his New Hampshire home/studio at The Oaks with his wife, who died in 1953, and his mistress and model, Sue Lewin, who survived his death in 1966 at age 95. He was by all accounts a charming and intelligent man whose writings add a great deal to the text in Ludwig's book. His flaunting of social mores seems to be of a piece with the 'exceptions' granted the rich and talented. He certainly qualified.

---------images follow---------------
I couldnt really find any decent sized images I'll try to scan some from a book at a later date also many of these seem to be off color wise my only suggestion is go to your local library and check out a nice oversized book on him, you wont regret it

a sample of how he worked oils in transparent glazes

















again the pics really don't do him justice I'll try to get some good images later(some of the ones I posted seem oversaturated as well) also you'll notice I haven't posted Daybreak his Masterpiece the reason being I really couldn't find a decent sized good color version of it. Soo I'll post more about Parrish later enjoy!

[quickman]

I saw these at the San Diego Art Museum recently, and there is a show going on until the 11th of September. If you are in the area you should check it out. I didn't know that photos weren't allowed until after I had taken these, oh well..

Daybreak.

[Victor B]

Quickman fantastic! I'm soo envious of you but thanks for posting those pics! Also the ARC has a much nicer selection of pics up but cant find a way to save them..? So follow the link
http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/databa...aid=314&page=1

oh and lastly a little more on Maxfields techinique I belive from a letter he wrote to someone who asked him...

"Well - this method is very simple, very ancient, very laborious, and by no means original with me. It is somewhat like the modern reproductions in four-color half tone, where the various gradations are obtained by printing one color plate over another on a white ground of paper. In painting it is an ancient process, and anyone can read in the many books written about the methods of the old masters, telling how each one had his own particular way of going about it: some by starting with a monochrome underpainting, some with a few colors, over which were glazed more or less transparent colors.

"Yes, it is rather laborious, but it has some advantages over the usual ways of mixing colors together before applying them. It is generally admitted that the most beautiful qualities of a color are in its transparent state, applied over a white ground with the light shining through the color. A modern Kodachrome is a delight when held up to the light with color luminous like stained glass. So many ask what is meant by transparent color. as though it were some special make. Most all color an artist uses is transparent: only a few are opaque, such as vermillion, cerulean blue, emerald green, the ochres and most yellows, etc. Colors are applied just as they come from the tube, the original purity and quality is never lost: a purple is pure rose madder glowing through a glaze of pure blue over glaze, or vice versa, the quality of each is never vitiated by mixing them together. Mix a rose madder with white, let us say, and you get a pink, quite different from the original madder, and the result is a surface color instead of a transparent one, a color you look on instead of into. One does not paint long out of doors before it becomes apparent that a green tree has a lot of red in it. You may not see the red because your eye is blinded by the strong green, but it is there never the less. So if you mix a red with the green you get a sort of mud, each color killing the other. But by the other method. when the green is dry and a rose madder glazed over it you are apt to get what is wanted, and have a richness and glow of one color shining through the other, not to be had by mixing. Imagine a Rembrandt if his magic browns were mixed together instead of glazed. The result would be a kind of chocolate. Then too, by this method of keeping colors by themselves some can be used which are taboo in mixtures. Verdigris, for instance, is a strange cold green with considerable power, with an exceptional luminous quality, rare in greens. If in contact with coal gas it will change overnight, but when locked up in varnish it seems to last as long as any. Alizarin Orange, given up by color makers, is another. I have examples of both done forty years ago which show no signs of change.

"I used to begin a painting with a monochrome of raw umber, for some reason: possibly read that the ancient ones often began that way. But now the start is made with a monochrome of blue, right from the tube, not mixed with white or anything. Ultramarine or the Monastral blues, or cobalt for distance and skies. This seems to make a good foundation for shadows and it does take considerable planning ahead, and looks for all the world like a blue dinner plate. The rest is a build-up of glazes until the end. The only time opaque color is used is painting trees. The method of early Corots and Rousseau is a good one, suggested by nature herself, where a tree is first painted as a dark silhouette and when dry the outside or illuminated foliage is painted over it. This opaque may be a yellow or orange as a base to glaze over with green, as the problem may demand.

"It must be understood that when transparent glazes dry they look like nothing at all. and their glazes [color] must be brought back to life by a very thin coat of varnish. This varnish also protects one color from another should protection be called for. And it must also be understood that this varnishing is a craft all by itself and cannot be too carefully done. Hurry it, and put it on too thick and too cold, and disaster follows. Fortunately colors in their transparent state are dry when they feel dry, these glazes are extremely thin and have a chance to dry much faster than heavy impasto, whereas whites and opaque yellows seem to take forever to become thoroughly inert. Varnishing should be done in a very warm room where the painting and varnish have been exposed to the warmth for some hours. This is to drive off all invisible surface moisture and to make the varnish flow better and thinner, to be applied as thin as possible. Also, the varnished surface should remain warm until set. Days should be waited until this varnish coat is thoroughly dry: then a light rubbing of pumice flour and water takes off dust particles and makes a surface somewhat better to apply the next process.... Copal Picture Varnish is the varnish used."

Maxfield Parrish (1950)

[madplanet]

Another good thread. Parrish was an amazing illustrator and painter (it's all fine art) and his use of color was and is still original. I envy his light usage as well. I always thought that maybe the reason that he never got more attention was that he came off as too Norman Rockwellish. It's bs, there are some similarities, but there is so much going on in his paintings; I could stare at those colors all day. Too bad that show isn't going to show anywhere near here.

[Main Loop]

if you're in San Francisco, you can see an original mural over a bar in a hotel on New Montgomery Street.. pretty cool although its not the best way to showcase someone's work..

[loomer]

Parrish defiently had his own thing going on. I also have the book by Coy Ludwig...really interesting. Sometimes I think Parrish's work is a little too photo-based...but I love his work anyway. There was a retrospective of his not that long ago at the Brooklyn Museum, and I definetly agree...the later landscapes are just amazing in person. They don't even look like it was done with paint...it has more of a jewel-like quality to them. I can honestly say I don't think I know of any other painter that has quite gotten this effect like Parrish has.

[Valentino]

Originally Posted by madplanet

Another good thread. Parrish was an amazing illustrator and painter (it's all fine art) and his use of color was and is still original. I envy his light usage as well. I always thought that maybe the reason that he never got more attention was that he came off as too Norman Rockwellish.

Hm...I wouldn't say so. IMHO, both his subject matter and the look of his paintings are as far from Rockwell as they can be.

Btw, Parrish method of glazing over varnish over glaze (etc) is kind of playing with fire. The purpose of the varnish is to protect the painting coat from from atmospheric pollution (dust, dirt etc) and abrasion, to bring out the colors to the brilliance they had when you applied them (in case of pigments like umbers who tend to "sink in") and (if you're after the gloss) to impart an uniform sheen over the whole picture.
Varnish is not intended to be a ground for painting.

[madplanet]

Yeah, you're right on that one Valentino, the subject matter isn't the same at all and as far as the technique I tried and failed to a comparison as a type of illustrator.

[Rascar Capac]

Originally Posted by loomer

I think Parrish's work is a little too photo-based... .

That's what I thought too...
his work has this photo-cut out/pasted look that I never liked ...maybe If I saw them in real life, I would have a different opinion
but thanks anyway for posting - lots of interesting info on there

[fredparsons]

Over the last two years,five different persons at five different times who did not know one another, have told me that my photographic images remind them of the work of Maxfield Parrish. While I consider this very, very flattering - I do not really see the connection all that much except in maybe one or two building images he painted. Anyway, if you like, take a look and see what you think. Go to www.pbase.com/fredparsons (By the way, I was voted the most popular photographer on this site of 10,00 or so contributors in the month of October, for what that is worth if anything ) Fred Parsons