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

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.

Agree! Lovely girls ❤️

🤭

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.

Total agreement

Was that a joke?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

Exactly!

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.

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.

🧑🏽‍🎨 always do ❤️

It’s just in a minor key. But yes.

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.

It would be drab without the bias. It's art: everyone has an opinion and should defend it to the death! Until tomorrow, when they defend a different opinion to the death. It's on-the-surface unbiased media that are most insidious, I feel: through others' opinions, we develop out own!

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?

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

Sargent’s paintings look a bit like some of the scenes of Henry James’ stories, before their bitter sweet endings. The paintings are technically marvelous, especially from the perspective of other painters. Like James, the painter acknowledged the vapid content of his work, so a great deal of the later paintings focused on landscapes.

@@ShaneyElderberry I agree with everything you say. Yes, I'm familiar with his landscapes. I'm one of the people who don't like most landscapes. It's kind of like with music. Someone can be technically flawless, which is a real accomplishment, but without the soul there's just something missing. To me, his paintings are soulless, but he definitely had an extraordinary attention to detail. Thank you for bringing up the Henry James stories. 🦋

@@ApAcVideoWatcher Landscapes are not like portraits which are meant to make you think and contemplate the character of the person portrayed. A good landscape has one enter the scene and lose oneself within it.; a different experience in observation.

@@charlesfenwick6554 Hi Charles. Thank you for pointing that out in case I didn't understand. That's why I said I don't like "most" landscapes. I'm not able to do what you're describing with most I've seen. On occasion one might stand out and transport me. In general, my brain reads them as lifeless attempts of the real thing. Of course, I do recognize that's not what they are at all. Unfortunately, other than from a purely logical place, I don't perceive them as something to get lost in unless very special. I wish I did. It's frustrating to not be able to see what I hear or read so many people claim over various paintings. I just can't grasp it sometimes in spite of my best effort. Sometimes I can. A great case in point would be a print I bought of some wooded landscape years ago. I couldn't tell who the painter was from the signature and I never bothered trying to find out. The print was a silver halide printing on canvas 36" x 48" with the perfect frame around it. There was some type of glazing or something to do with the printing itself that made the foggy, twilight lit forest appear to shiver and move. Not really, but you couldn't be for sure it wasn't. I don't know if the original painting would have produced the same emotional tug in me as however they managed the print. I don't know near enough about printing to know what was done. It was a wet, European wood. I'm fairly certain. No idea if it was from the imagination or not. I must have been in my mid 20s. Maybe late 20s. I didn't care about names or titles then and I didn't have the same appreciation for technique and skill I have now. I only cared if something moved me. It was the thing that mattered. Everything else was irrelevant. The painter in me can tell someone came back and added the textured brush strokes in with an overglaze. I don't know if the so very subtle ghostly almost a color shift but more like a shadow and light shift was done within the printing process or within the finishing process. I just know the finished piece seemed unreal. Might as well have been an invitation into Narnia. I stared at that painting forever trying to figure out why I was so drawn to it because the forest scene didn't really call out to me. And yet, it really got me. Which reminds me... I need to tell my ex I'd like my printing from the closet it's gotten buried in because I didn't have a place for it. lol Thank you for reminding me. I'm glad you're able to get lost in landscapes. I've always been envious of people who can do that because I have such a fondness for the real deal. Am even envious of people who enjoy painting them. I appreciate them to that degree and even find them remarkable in a sense. Unfortunately, it's very rare I feel anything from them beyond acknowledgement of what the image is and an admiration in the technical abilities or if some particular choice made by the painter might catch my eye and I can focus on it. I'd love to be able to be moved all the time in the way the darn print succeeded in. If you experience that all the time, you are most fortunate indeed and I am most happy for you. Why is your name tugging at me? I'm so horrible with remembering names. Is that from The Magicians? It's from something, or rather something shares it with you if it's your actual name. Please pardon my sidestep there. The curiosity of it catching my attention grabs at me, so I have to go figure out where the character, fictional or historical, comes from that's tugging at me memory. Thank you for both intrigues. 😀🦋

LOL

🧑🏽‍🎨 I'm watching the video right now.. Let me find out....than get back to you🤔

All art is subjective so another art historian may very well come to the opposite conclusion. How many paintings in the Paris Salons were rejected then later considered masterpieces? I think that is what makes art history so much fun, we all get to decide for ourselves what is art.

@@fleur7891 Agreed. It's just that he uses the word "important" at the end, which suggests to me influence on subsequent artists. I'm thinking maybe I don't know enough about 20th century British art... Just searched Sickert's name, and Wikipedia says 'He was an important influence on distinctively British styles of avant-garde art in the mid- and late 20th century." So I guess that's my answer!

@@artomatt Wikipedia gave one opionion, another source could give a differnt one, who is able to make a difinative answer in a subject of subjectivity ? If you get my drift. Art history is full of artists thought hacks at the time they created their art, only to be granted masterpiece status posthumously.