Iconic Painters Duel: Sickert vs Sargent | Perspective 

I agree 100%

I agree, in person just amazing

Yes sir

@@667hodge everything in art is arguable. What do you have to say to refute that statement?

I think comparing these 2 artists is like comparing apples to tomatoes. Nirvana to B.B. King. They both present something very different. One is showing the dark reality of average life in that time & the other is presenting a powdered-up dressed for the ball so to speak moment representing high society & fashion. In my opinion, they both employ the perfect approach for their chosen subject. If we were to reverse the subject without swapping styles, the results would b awkward. I view their vision & execution as being equal.

I absolutely love Waldermar too. What a sensation.

Tu

Yes an absolute comic genius

Agree! Lovely girls ❤️

🤭

He IS underrated- but not by anyone who has ever painted a portrait.

He is one of my favorite, but I (like many) see or attempt to consider the subject chosen by the painter & then how or why they choose to present those moments in a certain way. In this case, both artists r painting very different subject matter. I think they both employ the perfect approach to each. If we swapped subjects between the two while they both executed their standard style/voice, I think both would create something awkward. We should start knowing that the artist (especially a master) is making a choice in place of assuming they cant draw or paint as representationally as another. When we assume instead that these r intentional choices, then we have a chance to see everything they r communicating. Stylistically u might just prefer Sargents choices, but as much as I love his choices, I do not want to see every subject painted by every artist in the same light.

@@kindnessfirst9670 This is so true!

I know their styles are different but I don't think there's any comparison. Sargent is a vastly superior artist in my opinion.

You're so right. He seems to be thinking, "Oh, really?"

Never underestimate how competitive most artists are, even with their best friends and lovers.

Imagine if people did the same with the fictions of Henry James and Edith Wharton. Sometimes it seems as though it takes a lot of effort for many people to admire the quality of a work, rather than the subject.

Was that a joke?

Total agreement

I could. Sargent is motly just kitsch.

I'd have to hang it over the bed so it wasn't looking at me the whole time. Or you could hang it facing the bed in the guest bedroom when you're having a hard time shifting guests out of the house...

@@karlkarlos3545 And what's wrong with that? Putting up a painting just because someone tells you you should like it, even if you don't, is silly. It's perfectly fine to enjoy kitsch if it gives you joy. People can prefer more than one type of art depending on their mood, just like you can listen to lighter or more meaningful music at different times of your life. Art appreciation should be free from guilt or embarrassment. Otherwise it's a chore, rather than a pleasure. Also, Sargent's technical ability is enough to bring a substantial amount of admiration and awe, regardless of theme.

@@Palmieres What are you talking about?

@@Palmieres absolutely! Reminds me if Getty's collection at Sutton Place: crap art by famous artists.

You sound very talented , please enjoy your talent as it is your gift to you and the world.

totally agrre! though i hasten to add that his use of oils were fast and bold, yet incredibly delicate. its true that only a master can be bold with watercolour

yep, and Sargeant with Joaquin Sorolla. But, I guess that comparison doesn't give you the opportunity to play the "it's grungy and harsh so its better game" that is all too often the default agenda.

I personally agree with you. All art is subjective and what we would enjoy having in our homes is not necessarily what we would appreciate as an artist's success at accomplishing his/her objective in creating their work. Thank you for your comment.

@@fleur7891 Astute comments. There are some great artists whom one would not necessarily want to see all of the time-Francis Bacon and Lucien Freud come to mind. The modern cult of ugliness takes precedence over the pursuit of beauty. Art should represent civilisation at its highest level but some artist particularly contemporary ones wish to drag it down to the lowest level.

Or might Sickert have painted women who were humiliated by the lives they led and the society/milieux they led them in? Perhaps in solidarity?

How was Sargent tied to the 18th century? He was born in the 19th century and most of his career was in the 20th century. Nothing of his style was typical of the painting of the 18th century. It’s a bit of a nonsensical comment

Each artist is a perfect expression of separate but parallel life-worlds of Edwardian London. Both are great in their own way, but let's just say it's Waldemar who wins the round!

🧑🏽‍🎨 always do ❤️

Stupid comparison.Just because an artist doesn't float your boat doesn't make him less of an artist. Sickert celebrated life too. In his paintings of music halls, theatres and domestic interior scenes you gain an appreciation of the vitality of popular culture as well as the drabness of lives lived then. He was a man for all seasons unlike Sargent who was studio bound and painted accomplished portraits for fat commissions. Sickert was complex, forthright with a difficult personality, and could never be accused of blandness or conformity. Certainly,he would seem a much more interesting character than Sargent. His American counterpart was admired for his technique but bedevilled by criticisms of superficiality in his portraiture. He later specialised in murals and working en plein air and expressed mixed feelings about his earlier work. You state you don't understand why Sargent doesn't achieve higher praise. However,his reputation has undergone a reappraisal by some critics who admire his work and regard him as a post impressionist.But,then you obviously didn't know that such is your supreme confidence in your ignorance. Indeed it's difficult to take you seriously, particularly when you're simply incapable of correctly spelling the name of a painter you profess to admire so much. How strange.

Exactly!

LOL

I used to make a practice of going to transition points to find characters for my stories. A train station, an underground, a dockside, even a lowly bus station, have "types", within which reside individual stories. For entirely different reasons, and along divergent roads, both artists require your participation for their works to truly live. And that after all, is the purpose of all types of art.

I think it was deliberated, Sargent indeed is closer to the optimism of Reynolds and Gainsborough. Sickert on the other hand is pure XX century bleakness.

It is a trait of much spoken speakers to sometimes misspeak without realizing that at the time. Good catch on your part, thank you for your comment.

@@petrolillos Your comment is most interesting and may be correct, thank you for sharing.

@@fleur7891 The 18th century was said deliberately, I think. If it had been a mistake, they would have shot the section of the presentation again

I'd never heard of Sargent, but knew quite a lot about Sickert after a visit to the MoMA turned me into a fan.

I agree strongly- one look at a Sargent watercolor and u know he is a master artist equals to the best who ever held a brush.

It got you to watch the film, didn’t it?

Its specifically about their contemporary popularity, and whether or not one was considered better by the public, it seems. Not that you cant enjoy both lol.

@@glumsulk who really cares who's the more important? Who is biying either?

It’s just a “ploy” to expose each artist’s work. No one involved actually gets knockered in the face.