Welcoem to posts!!
in the future - u will be able to do some more stuff here,,,!! like pat catgirl- i mean um yeah... for now u can only see others's posts :c
Due to some studio construction issues I will be late with the video this week. However, here is a stand-in for the day: an R. H. Ives Gammell portrait from the Amherst College (Massachusetts, USA) that I'd never seen before. It is a sterling example of his portrait work and of the qualities he aimed for and tried to instill in us, his students. It is as compelling a color scheme as anything he ever did. It is beautifully posed and distinguished in composition and design with a powerful and unified light. The drawing of the head is masterful and the color convincing. Paxton must have been proud.
49 - 7
Under the weather this week so forgive me for resorting to a bit of written conversation as a stand-in for a video. This one is prompted by a couple comments online suggesting frustration with what i'm calling the Boston School information assessing process: the Boston School method. Jonv's is the latest: "I'm clearly on a different orbit in a different place and totally spaced out by all this talk and words and waffle. Simply don't understand a single thing in this upload - is this genuine serious stuff or a bit of the Emperor's new Clothes gag going on? [1] Do I think about points first then manage them or review how they speculatively float in the endless method whose process makes up the better part? [2] So where is the worst or less good part? [3] How does one review a relationship without some sort of basis of agreement on at least something?"
Let me say first that I understand the difficulty of following our process in your initial reviews so please, a) listen a couple of times to the video in hand, and then; b) look for and watch related videos â which are many - and you should find your points addressed in various settings.
Apart from obvious frustration expressed in the first sentences there are three solid and important questions that allow me to review elements that are standard â should say âcriticalâ to our thinking and I've numbered them 1, 2, 3. I will take number three [3] first because the key to success in getting to a good likeness using our method is knowing something for sure to start out. As you understand clearly, everything we âfloatâ needs mooring so out first effort is to ask what we know for sure, another definition of âmooring.â In the world of color we need to establish (with marks on the canvas) what shall represent the darkest dark and what the lightest light. Even though that is simply a choice based on the limits of the pigments it becomes the fixed value construct, your mooring. The same is true of intensity of color which is determined by saying, âlet it be xâ, and proceeding to fix that for yourself on the page as your absolute, your âmooring.â Spatially it means setting in stone (by your own choice) a length (if you're just drawing the figure) which, because you will never change it becomes the spatial anchor (again, mooring). That allows every subsequent size to operate from something you know for sure. If you are working with a viewfinder points of exit become key, etc., and so on with each aspect of the visual impression requiring the determination of such a point of certainty or âbasis of agreementâ as you wisely put it. It is your job to search them out, create them, and live within them. My guess is that this should have clarified your question one [1] somewhat at least to the extent you mean locations which isn't simply an endless series of points without anchors.
Question two [2] âWhere is the worst or less good part?â regards the follow-up process where you want to then correct any âback-stragglersâ as Gammell liked to call the least good part. The key to see which area of the picture they involve requires you to try to take in, grasp, the âthing as a wholeâ in nature and compare that to the â wholeâ of your canvas to see what area is least âlikeâ nature (memories of Sesame Street?). Such follow-up is necessary continually to keep you from building on poor relationships. As I said, this is a stand-in for my weekly video so if there is further clarification needed perhaps do so below in the comments section.
Paul Ingbretson
11/29/23
53 - 12
Looks like today's video will be a little delayed. Hoping to post by this afternoon - Mr. Producer
14 - 1
Regret having to miss a video due to a bad cold with relentless coughing but thought to offer a stand-in blog. Enjoy!
UNE PENSEE MERE
One of my students has recently expressed difficulty understanding âunityâ in a painting. Though from imaginative painters the comments below apply to impressionist painting even more, if possible, including the final one from a writer. They recommend that the painter: Have a âpre-conceived sense of the thingâ in its essential beauty âfixed in your mind and eye,â your âmother thought,â the âresult desired,â envisioned with a âclear impression,â and aim to maintain its unity, its essence, in the work right âfrom the outset.â The key is to have an idea, a vision, of that essence and maintain it beginning to end. Hope this is helpful.
âHave, in its entirety, in your soul, and in your eyes, the figure that you wish to represent, and let the execution be only the realization of this possessed and preconceived image.â J. A. D. Ingres
âEveryone ought to have a central thought, une pensee mere, which he expresses with all the strength of his soul, and tries to stamp on the hearts of others...In art one must have a main thought, express it eloquently, preserve it in oneself, and communicate it to others strongly as though as by the die of metal . J. F. Millet
To paint well, in any manner, one must know from the first touch what the result is to be, and one must place no touch on the canvas that is not a necessary step toward the attainment of this result . . . To paint well, technically, is to have profound knowledge both of the process and of the result desired; is to have perfect foresight and perfect skill; is to be both craftsman and artist. Kenyon Cox
The beauty of painting is as much in the approach as in the finish. There must be unity - homogeneity - beginning to end. It must be built up like a symphony - logically, uniformly, with an end in view from the outset. Edgar Degas
âAnother cause of obscurity is that the writer is not quite sure of his meaning. He has a vague impression of what he wants to say but has not, either from lack of mental power or from laziness, exactly formulated it in his mind and it is natural enough that he should not find a precise expression for a confused thought. This is due largely to the fact that many writers think not before but as they write. The pen originates the thought. The disadvantage of this and indeed it is a danger against which the author must always be on guard, is that there is a sort of magic in the written word. The idea acquires substance by taking on a visible nature and then stands in the way of its own clarification.â W. Somerset Maugham
Paul Ingbretson
4/12/23
33 - 5
The hectivity of the holidays has prevented me from getting you, my faithful viewers, our usual video so I am offering a blog substitute to stand in. The re-reading of the Ingres commentary suggested enlarging on one of his important points. Please enjoy along with my wishes for a great New Year ahead and expect me back next week. Paul
Ingres, Millet and the âBoston Schoolâ on Mass Spotting
The other day I found myself in the dim light of my studio and noticed with disappointment the âspottingâ of the values in an older picture. My recent review of the Ingres translation reminded me of again of its importance. We've talked previously about the need to 'blur down' to grasp the visual order of the scene before you and being able to replicate that in your work. We haven't talked about how it also helps to determine whether you have a balanced or, maybe more importantly, a distinguished, placement of the variously-sized value-masses. The Boston School refers to this as the âspottingâ of the picture. In a basically dark picture the lights will produce the main spots while in a light one it will be the darks. Obviously a picture is frequently dark on one side and light on the other displaying a unified distribution of both.
Both Ingres and Millet suggest observing one's picture in actually dimmed light to assess the value play. Ingres says (see my previous video offering): âTo grasp the effect one should see one's painting in the darkest part of the studio. Ancient sculptors used to place their figures in caves to better judge the...masses.â Note the word âeffectâ and âmasses.â At other times I have referred you to Millet's contribution: âIf a sketch seen in the dim twilight at the end of the day have the requisite balance it is a picture; if not, no clever arrangement of color, no skill in drawing or elaborate finish, can ever make it into a pictureâ
The Boston School's Frank Benson really brings it down to the practical when he tells his painter-daughter: "Paint in a tentative way - not as though you had to paint a picture of the fabric to sell it to someone. The reason for the effectiveness of such a way of painting is that you are painting a light, a value, in relation to the whole picture - not just by looking at that exact spot and painting what you see, which is what you do. That fold is not interesting in itself. But it is interesting to paint because of what it does to the whole picture. You are still interested in too small things - an ear, an eye, a likeness. That Is the worst thing, a likeness. It takes your,, attention from the whole picture. But you have to have it, of course....Do not paint the figure, the rabbit, the Instrument â paint the light and shade and interrelating values of the whole thing....This business of fussing around with the details before you have gotten the masses in correctly is what makes for a poor picture.
A word to the wise for beginning the new year.
Paul Ingbretson
12/29/22
42 - 2
Wishing you all a wonderful Christmas/Holiday season and letting you know we will be posting our latest video closer to Christmas...maybe right on Christmas day. Best to you all. Paul
53 - 11
To Think or Not to Think
We have been delayed getting out video out to you today. Hoping for Sunday.
Meantime I thought a moment's revisitation of thinking as it pertains to painting 'impressionistically' might be useful. There are two apparently contradictory ideas that come to mind rather quickly and bear repeating pertinent to the subject. The first I ran into was, âYou have to be out of your mind to be a painter.â However, as I was letting that one sink in, up popped the painter, Millet, positively quoting Rembrandt saying, âWhen I stop thinking, I stop painting.â A conundrum? Most of us are constantly thinking and wonder how you could possibly become a good painter or execute a good painting without being able to think. Good observation...seems obvious. You have to think about what to do first, second and third. You have to think of whether your correction is a proportion problem or a gesture one, a hue problem or a chroma one. In short you have to become a problem solver requiring clear thinking. On a particular issue Gammell told me I needed to âthink it throughâ meaning to consider the several aspects of the thing using observation and logic to understand it. Turn it over and over in my mind. Indubitably, inevitably. Cogitation is is obviously important so wherein lies the wisdom of âbeing out of your mindâ? I am sure you're well ahead of me here being the impressionist-minded souls you are. At least one element of value is in the use of the âunknowingâ eye, the âinnocentâ or ânaiveâ eye but that is really to isolate what you are thinking about. Another is in the use of the intuition and feelings which are so critical to accessing the beauty of what you see and in the very use of your muscles in the application of paint. You might call it the 'athletic' side which seems to almost act spontaneously having been previously conditioned to respond like the dog getting the slippers. But something else was more compelling in the attempt to apply the axiom. It came to me when I found myself in my head grinding away on what I thought I knew rather than staying with what was in my eyes before me, out there, and not between my ears. So I will just leave you with a final 'axiom' rather in the form of a question I put to a student who is failing to simply work with what is before him: âAre you in your eyes or are you in your head?â
Paul Ingbretson
11/10/22
40 - 8
JUST LETTING YOU ALL KNOW WE STILL HAVE STUDY SPACE IN THE INGBRETSON STUDIOS FOR THE 2022-2023 STUDIO YEAR. WOULD LOVE TO HAVE YOU JOIN US IN LAWRENCE, MASS.
50 - 2
This set of images with DeCamp on left and Degas on right are prelude to the conversation on our delayed video. P.
34 - 2
Technical difficulties have prevented us from getting you our usual Thursday video. Hoping to have it to you by the weekend at the latest with okay quality. Meantime hoping you are getting in some good painting time! - Paul
17 - 2