The book, "Velasquez, the technique of genius" is a great book to read in regard to the evolution of Velasquez' technique. From his early technique garnered from his Seville training to his unique and sublime technique he displayed towards his late period (which had painters and art conservators scratching their heads for more than 300 years).

Harold Speed talks a bit about Velasquez and Vermeer and what he deduced about their methods in his book on painting as well.

It may be an early work, but it has greater charm! than the more technically advanced works of his more formal years. In truth, I find the subject more appealing in it's freshness and was delighted by this. I'm adding this to my 'masters' list. Thanks for your talks.

Excellent tutorial, many thanks.

From asking how the sitting? Amazing! Point of reference

The only “issue” I see of not using “outline”, although in classical terminology is called a contour which is a series of visual points derived from perspective theory, plus in the era of Velasquez that renaissance model is abandoned for a more light and shade approach(if you study And copy Rembrandts etchings he does not follow the old model, rather he uses lines to represent shades, so is strokes rather than noodling up like most classical realists) I would say attempt to copy a Rembrandt ettching and you will see how far that way of drawing and thinking is from gammels academic approach, is not the same. I think there are a few drawings by Velasquez (toned and mass based very similar from the drawings of the Boston school, but without the abstract aspect present in later naturalistic academies ,but more symbolic way of drawing) When the old masters draw a hand , they not only draw what they see , but what they know things to be (it is why in the old times was necessary to study anatomy); but this is not my point. By nature we use outlines is something inside any draftsman that has no formal education in art, by eliminating outline and forcing an artist to only see shapes you can cut out the intuition from the artist. All artists are divided in an afinity to outline or mass, hence Rafael and Ingres (outline based) to more mass, light, color based (velasquez, titian, impresionists) . You have to find what your intuituve way of drawing goes and adapt tecnique to seeing nature the way you are inclined to, if not you”ll be forcing yourself ti draw a certain “way” or paint in a certain look, it is one of the main reasons I quit an atelier, I was loosing my sensitivity to draw. Velasquez was trained in the more design oriented approach of the roman school, he then by going to Italy and discovering Titian abandons it and searches effects... the Boston school regardless of its fancy defenders belongs to Titian and what was known as colore not disegno... there isnt other ways of seeing is either or, you have to discover yours .

De Camp was right, you don't start at the end. The artist has to go through a journey. I also do not see anything wrong with the linear model, many great paintings have been made that way, it is a matter of taste.

At 13:54 do you mean that he never would've seen the model's hand in that position at all and that he just invented the effects from his head, or do you mean he saw the pose once and memorized the shapes and effects to paint them later?

Patreon link in bio please

Not that into Velasquez's more "impressionist" style. I think he let Rubens sway him away from his deeper nature in The Weavers.

Have a book w writing? Thank you

Velasquez was a lazy painter he found the best and fastest way to paint and it was effective. “I choose a lazy person to do a hard job. Because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it.” ― Bill Gates

I love listening to dogmatic artists. Fascinating.

i think you are making some interesting points, but hard to follow your stream of talk.

I did not appreciate the comment about Velazquez early work which he considers inferior, I don’t know how someone can dissect a masters technique without appreciating his entire process and his growth as an artist! and that is why I am unsubscribing it actually angers me a lot his lack of sensibility!!

His surname was Velázquez, no Velasquez

Still a copy