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).
@PaulIngbretson3 жыл бұрын
Even Millet said he couldn't understand it.
@williambo59892 жыл бұрын
a great book from the book in it it mentioned Velasquez was no stranger to the artistic shortcut, in later life he acquired the reputation of being phlegmatic, a euphemism for lazy.
@richardgiedd20623 жыл бұрын
Harold Speed talks a bit about Velasquez and Vermeer and what he deduced about their methods in his book on painting as well.
@michellerose119011 ай бұрын
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.
@PaulIngbretson10 ай бұрын
Welcome, Michelle!
@rossmcleod79833 жыл бұрын
Excellent tutorial, many thanks.
@PaulIngbretson2 жыл бұрын
You are very welcome!
@evelynramos44511 ай бұрын
From asking how the sitting? Amazing! Point of reference
@PaulIngbretson10 ай бұрын
?? elaborate?
@canalcerrado24333 жыл бұрын
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 .
@PaulIngbretson3 жыл бұрын
I agree with you on a number of these points, Canal.
@canalcerrado24333 жыл бұрын
@@PaulIngbretson thanks Paul, issues I have and think about since I started educating in art. You can call me Alex , not antiguos or canal 😅
@michellerose119011 ай бұрын
Love what you wrote. Use whatever techniques are more intuitive to your development as an artist. Studying 'masters' provides insight and erudition, if one so chooses, but it is important to find your own path and explore. So many interesting things to learn on Mr Ingbretson's channel. Thanks.
@paulingbretson43942 ай бұрын
Extremely thoughtful comment, canalc, thanks.
@israeldiegoriveragenius2th1643 жыл бұрын
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.
@PaulIngbretson3 жыл бұрын
One of my central points about the linear model simply has to do with improving on the 'truth to the look of nature' toward which the representational arts have always aspired and progressed at least in Europe. Not a requisite of 'art' by any means.
@kofiperry193 жыл бұрын
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?
@PaulIngbretson3 жыл бұрын
I am guessing that he watched her over and over as she sat in the same position, identified a shape he liked, possibly one he thought atypical and that was repeated and thus was able to review it more than once. I find you need to practice shutting your eys quickly as soon as you see it and hold it there a moment. In the next blink you might notice other aspects of the image. Memory drawing training serves you well under such circumstances. I once practiced looking at pigeon silhouettes against a sky above my studio. They are constantly moving so, to have only one shape and not confuse the one with the nest produced by a little movent I blinking my eyss shut as soon as the silhouette registered.- seeing it in a blink. Worked very reasonably. I will try to show some one day online.
@kofiperry193 жыл бұрын
@@PaulIngbretson Thanks for the reply! And I'm very curious what your plans are for that imaginative figure drawing you showed in the video. Will you be showing more of that project in the future?
@khayalethu.mtshali3 жыл бұрын
Patreon link in bio please
@guzzopinc1646 Жыл бұрын
Not that into Velasquez's more "impressionist" style. I think he let Rubens sway him away from his deeper nature in The Weavers.
@evelynramos44511 ай бұрын
Have a book w writing? Thank you
@PaulIngbretson10 ай бұрын
Soon hopefully!
@williambo59892 жыл бұрын
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
@PaulIngbretson2 жыл бұрын
If you can say it in fewer words, you aren't lazy! :)
@guzzopinc1646 Жыл бұрын
William Bougart I totally agree. Velazquez, in my opinion, was impatient. Early during his career he was often taunted with the claim that he could only draw faces and nothing else. But it was this "impatience" or laziness that ultimately makes his work so profound... There is nothing trivial in it. Everything counts.
@williambo5989 Жыл бұрын
@@guzzopinc1646 the most interesting fact about Velasquez is he produced no school that imitated his technique during his time maybe his technique was so unique and difficult or ahead of its time. .
@user-dm6dc1kn6b3 ай бұрын
I love listening to dogmatic artists. Fascinating.
@dont-want-no-wrench Жыл бұрын
i think you are making some interesting points, but hard to follow your stream of talk.
@marjorieforgues79162 жыл бұрын
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!!
@PaulIngbretson2 жыл бұрын
I hope people who watch this and read the comment above understand we aren't judging work categorically but talking about the evolution of his seeing. He changed his approach for a reason.
@jrichardson62 жыл бұрын
That old woman frying eggs is one of his greatest pieces despite it being one of his earliest.