I really found that. I expected it to be a bit anodyne but actually was smitten. I guess we might be said to live in a superficial culture so it spoke to me!
So glad to have found someone talking about this. Went today (May 2024) There for two hours and I loved it. They have hung the works at eye level and you can get right up close to see the brushmarks. Clear and succinct notes beside each piece. I especially loved the addition of the photos of the sitters. It helps to see how much artistic licence has been used. I am a fan of the artist but even if you aren’t the items are so beautifully presented in the gallery rooms, with rich coloured walls to highlight the works. A feast for the eyes.
Honestly, I cannot for the life of me understand how a viewing public could critique with snobbish remarks these magnificent works by Sargent. His execution of these mostly commissioned portraits were of such a standard that women yearned for the pleasure of his brush stokes! And their doting husbands generously obliged by paying top dollar and these business men believe me wanted the most bang for their bucks! They were no fools.
I agree and was guilty of probably having a slightly snobbish attitude myself before going in, despite desperately trying to keep an open mind! Once in the gallery, I just really enjoyed being in the lush, well executed world. It was a balm to the chaos outside.
If I could I would be there in a heartbeat. J.S. Sargent was a superb artist and seeing his work in person is such a tremendous thrill. Lucky, lucky you!
Thomas, I am really sorry that I missed your comment so have been tardy in replying. Firstly, thank you for watching and wow, it must have been amazing in Boston. So many people in London are commenting on the show and I feel it will be a highlight of the year.
Thank you for another thoroughly fascinating video. We watch these with great eny from the other side of the world. One thing that struck me watching your video, was the apparent extent to which his faces seemed to be influenced by photography (I don't know if he used photographs as references at all), but generally in the degree of finish and capturing an almost 'decisive moment' approach. This is particularly obvious when the garments are often more loosely painted.
Thank you again for watching. The show had lots of photographs of the sitters and it was fascinating to compare. He almost always painted from life over numerous sittings but interestingly try to capture the face in one sitting which, I agree goes for that decisive moment which is a bit like a camera shutter coming down. Gorgeous works!
@@artgalleryexplorerhet is mij niet helemaal helder, ben je daar nu ? Want ik ga niet verder dan het hek, omdat het daar privé terrein is en heb geen zin aan problemen met hun
Wow! What a major show! His work work has always been a little to sweet for my liking. The paintings look opulent to the Core. He could paint fabric like no one else. I would still loved to see the exhibition. I totally agree with what you said about his work.
This is a wonderful presentation/simulation of a visit to Sargent and Fashion. Thank you. AND I deeply appreciate your comments, and insights. I traveled from the US to see this show, live in LA, and this evening happened to be ON LINE and reading reviews of the show, came across your "Should I Visit..." vid.
@@artgalleryexplorer thats very cool. loved that you are open to sharing your thoughts. wondering what is it like to actually visit an exhibition with you together lol which exhibitions will you go in august?
@@yuchen9179 Thank you again for your kind comments. I hope you get to see some wonderful art! I will cover a lot of the London shows that will be still on over August - starting this week.
Thank you for watching. Not for everyone - if you want something deeper and gnarly or experimental, especially. I do like Tate Britain too. It has a great range and I need to cover the permanent properly at some point.
100% - I will certainly cover that on the vlog. I have weirdly not yet covered the Wallace collection but the Ranjit Singh show has a long run. I will aim to get there in May or early June if not before. Thank you for the tip.
He had a talent for 'catching the likeness' of his sitters in his portraits, but really there was too much attention to fabric and textured garments! Much in the same manner as Ingres, and not enough attention devoted to the sitter's face. Doubtless his 'fluid' brushwork influenced Augustus John and other late 19th century portrait painters. But he was no fool, he knew "which side his bread was buttered" and sought patronage from the 'cream' of Edwardian socialites.
And he certainly got that patronage - to the point where he could basically give up portrait commissions by 1907. I know what you are saying but I was surprised to find myself drawn in. Rembrandt is my absolute favourite in terms of portraiture and he is certainly no Rembrant but something about the sheen and rather superficial beauty spoke to me - I guess because there is a similar vibe today?
By saying there was too much attention to the clothing you are dismissing the majority of the history of portrait painting, where nearly all the rich people who could afford a portrait wore their best clothes and demanded the attention. If you think back a bit, to the sumptuary laws which laid down what people of certain classes were allowed to wear, it was essential to be,portrayed wearing the finest clothing you were allowed. It is only in very recent times that some artists have chosen to concentrate on the face.
Forgive me, but I strongly disagree, since as a portrait painter myself over 30 years my principle interest was in observing the portraits of the Old Masters. If one takes Van Eyck, Hans Holbein, Rembrandt and Velasquez---to name a few---then their goal was to be ‘honest’ and portray the sitter with the characteristics of a human face, not a mere ‘clothes hanger’ to be admired for wearing sumptuous attire and to look out at the world with self-gloating eyes (as was the case with Sargeant‘s sitTers)! Even Reynolds---for all his flattery of his opulent clientele---was honest and in fact broke new grounds in portrait painting. Whereas Whistler also fell into the trap of devoting a whole painting to the luxurious dress of his model and called it “Symphony in white”. The ‘old guys’ may have obliged their wealthy clients by depicting their fashions, but they did this principally because they were ‘commissioned’ and (to be frank) wanted the ‘fast buck’. I’m sure this was the case with Valesquez, because no matter how lavish the garment (as with Pope Innocent X) he still devoted all his talents to depicting the conniving ‘serpent’ behind the popish garments! @@janepage3608
The review I was referencing which said that was this one -www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2024/feb/20/sargent-and-fashion-review-tate-britain-london I totally agree - didn't express it so well in the review when I said people always cared about what they wore but that is what I meant! I suppose the premise of the show was that Sargent was more akin to a modern stylist who would dress and drape his subjects, as opposed to them controlling what they wore. Thank you for watching.
