Paul, It's a treat to listen to you speak so passionately on the Boston School concepts. Eagerly waiting to listen your next ones in the series, Vermeer and Monet. :)
You're absolutely right Paul , being a draftsman I had to learn to incorporate the color of forms as the shape , and to let the line appear from where the two forms meet. Thx again for another great video.
I was absolutely riveted by this seminar! It lit something fresh and new in me and I know, with further “looking” I can only reap the benefits and beauty of your appreciation of Art. To begin seeing as you see could only be a fruitful first step. Again, thank you.
Interesting lecture, as a painter (as opposed to art historian) I appreciated your take in Impressionism. I am sympathetic to your idea in what Impressionism is and see why you would include Velasquez as a proto-impressionist. As primarily a painter from direct observation of the ‘visual order’ as you call it, this is a reasonable conclusion. I get the feeling that lecture views the classical painters before Velasquez, who painted form rather that light as in some way primitive. To me it is only a change in what constitutes beauty.
Thank you Paul for sharing this presentation. I get it! And perhaps it's a challenge due to the association with the term "Impressionism" and when/how it was coined, but it's clearly an important link along the line and significant point of differentiation. My sense from your presentation was that that's when pure "painting" began, in the sense that it broke free from drawing-based painting. I've been on my own journey of just that - it's a major mind-shift that requires a lot of observational effort, and digging for the buried knowledge. Seeing color, light, value and how it works in nature and how to translate that into pigments has been a huge part of that. I resonate with the tenants of seeking Truth and Beauty, I've actually said this myself, and so art is a big part of that quest, and it's the prime driver and essence of my purpose for making art. I know for some it may serve other purposes, and I can appreciate it's capacity to tell a story but if it's founded upon the primary principles of revealing some point of truth and beauty in reality that is far more enlightening and captivating I think.
Thank you very much for these great lectures Paul, I really enjoy both your manner of presentation and the contents of your videos. Could you please comment on a contemporary of Velazquez, Rembrandt (especially given that this year is the 350th anniversary of his death) and any influence he too may have had on the impressionist approach to painting (especially in his later years). I love Rembrandt’s treatment of light and his ability to convey emotion. Thanks very much, Kate
I really enjoyed your Impressionism and Boston school series❤️ I learned so much of the painting techniques, theories and inspirations from your insightful and informative lectures. They are truly fantastic and I was so glad that TH-cam recommended me of your wonderful channel and platform:)) thank you so much for sharing with us of your knowledge and experience!
Good stuff! I'm not sure painting's primary task is to draw in from nature and pursue beauty but for sure it is a visual language and being able to relax and respond to the shapes, value and color independent of what things actually are is very freeing!
Thank you for this wonderful lecture! Besides the book, you mentioned by R.A.M.Stevenson, Velasquez, are there any other books you would recommend for someone who wants to study Velasquez? Thank you!
I don't know of others that presents Velasquez from a painter's perspective (especially who's mentor and training was an evolution of the Velasquez thinking) which is where I find the most value as a painter. If you find another let me know.
I doubt this one, he never thought as am impressionist. There is no color in his work. He is pursuing natural forms, he is still heavily influence by classical drawing and painting. Theres is form, light , perspective. He is painting as a Titian and venetians would, that is drawing with the brush, a practice that many baroque artists would do because of their mastery of drawing and painters started exploring paint for paint’s sake (in spanish is called materia, or how much you show of the buttery consistency of paint)every stroke does follow form. His naturalistic forms might confuse you, but the impressionists were never masters of anatomy as Velasquez or any old master was. Using economy of paint to express forms is more a queation of atmosphere , not light. He might be a proto-impressionists, but he could draw as well as Rembrandt, or Rubens.
No way Velasquez was an impressionist. He is one of the greatest realist. He did not paint the impression of thing, did not express his feelings of things, did not focus on accurate depiction of light (in sense of impressionism), but painted simply what he saw with (because of his great eye) minimum of brushstrokes and developed beautiful shortcut in his style. He realised that human brain is cooperative so why putting every detail on canvas (board). But it doesn´t have anything to do with the real impressionism, sorry.
Paul, It's a treat to listen to you speak so passionately on the Boston School concepts. Eagerly waiting to listen your next ones in the series, Vermeer and Monet. :)
Sacred!! Thank you Paul Ingbretson, for bringing ... "great knowledge" back to light!!
You're absolutely right Paul , being a draftsman I had to learn to incorporate the color of forms as the shape , and to let the line appear from where the two forms meet. Thx again for another great video.
YES! And it is gratifying to hear people who understand this.
@@PaulIngbretson 👍
An excellent presentation. Now I want to see more!
Truly love this, it is everything I have come to find as well. I’m deeply happy and inspired you speak the truth
This is fantastic. I have subscribed and earmarked these for serious study. Thank you so much for their production.
Much appreciated, Mike.
I was absolutely riveted by this seminar! It lit something fresh and new in me and I know, with further “looking” I can only reap the benefits and beauty of your appreciation of Art. To begin seeing as you see could only be a fruitful first step. Again, thank you.
Wonderful!
Masterful lecture-I look forward to watching it again
Paul, really enjoy your vids. Extremely helpful. Thank you so much! Sof Georgiou, Australia
Awesome, thank you!
Omg, my mind is blown. I seriously just had my mind expanded. I'm painting within the lines!
EMAIL ME FOR A COPY OF BENSON'S DAUGHTER'S NOTES FROM HIM
@@PaulIngbretson thanks
@@PaulIngbretson I cant find your email address. Your "about " tab doesnt have contact details
I wish we could go for a coffee and talk about art! I always wanted a wiser friend that knows about art
:(
Interesting lecture, as a painter (as opposed to art historian) I appreciated your take in Impressionism. I am sympathetic to your idea in what Impressionism is and see why you would include Velasquez as a proto-impressionist. As primarily a painter from direct observation of the ‘visual order’ as you call it, this is a reasonable conclusion. I get the feeling that lecture views the classical painters before Velasquez, who painted form rather that light as in some way primitive. To me it is only a change in what constitutes beauty.
- or what constitutes truth. :)
Thank you Paul for sharing this presentation. I get it! And perhaps it's a challenge due to the association with the term "Impressionism" and when/how it was coined, but it's clearly an important link along the line and significant point of differentiation. My sense from your presentation was that that's when pure "painting" began, in the sense that it broke free from drawing-based painting. I've been on my own journey of just that - it's a major mind-shift that requires a lot of observational effort, and digging for the buried knowledge. Seeing color, light, value and how it works in nature and how to translate that into pigments has been a huge part of that. I resonate with the tenants of seeking Truth and Beauty, I've actually said this myself, and so art is a big part of that quest, and it's the prime driver and essence of my purpose for making art. I know for some it may serve other purposes, and I can appreciate it's capacity to tell a story but if it's founded upon the primary principles of revealing some point of truth and beauty in reality that is far more enlightening and captivating I think.
Well said, Brian
Thank you very much for these great lectures Paul, I really enjoy both your manner of presentation and the contents of your videos. Could you please comment on a contemporary of Velazquez, Rembrandt (especially given that this year is the 350th anniversary of his death) and any influence he too may have had on the impressionist approach to painting (especially in his later years). I love Rembrandt’s treatment of light and his ability to convey emotion. Thanks very much, Kate
Thank you for this lecture! I enjoyed it very much, and learned a lot.
Fascinating. Thank you very much.
Glad you enjoyed it!
I really enjoyed your Impressionism and Boston school series❤️ I learned so much of the painting techniques, theories and inspirations from your insightful and informative lectures. They are truly fantastic and I was so glad that TH-cam recommended me of your wonderful channel and platform:)) thank you so much for sharing with us of your knowledge and experience!
Pleased to be helpful, e.
Good stuff! I'm not sure painting's primary task is to draw in from nature and pursue beauty but for sure it is a visual language and being able to relax and respond to the shapes, value and color independent of what things actually are is very freeing!
I MAY have missed this way back Beampici but think it a good point for discussion
Thank you!
Very welcome!
Thank you for this wonderful lecture! Besides the book, you mentioned by R.A.M.Stevenson, Velasquez, are there any other books you would recommend for someone who wants to study Velasquez? Thank you!
I don't know of others that presents Velasquez from a painter's perspective (especially who's mentor and training was an evolution of the Velasquez thinking) which is where I find the most value as a painter. If you find another let me know.
Thank you so much for your response. If I do find one (I doubt it), I will let you know.
Hi Paul, can you expand on the idea of nature as the ‘lost source’ of or for painting? Found in this video around minute 48 FYI. Thanks, Paul.
Particularly as a nexus of other ideas
Very funny...I should have put the phrase in italics so you would know I meant the French, "la source" : THE source.
At least someone Who understand something about painting
Glad you enjoyed that, Angelique
I doubt this one, he never thought as am impressionist. There is no color in his work. He is pursuing natural forms, he is still heavily influence by classical drawing and painting. Theres is form, light , perspective. He is painting as a Titian and venetians would, that is drawing with the brush, a practice that many baroque artists would do because of their mastery of drawing and painters started exploring paint for paint’s sake (in spanish is called materia, or how much you show of the buttery consistency of paint)every stroke does follow form. His naturalistic forms might confuse you, but the impressionists were never masters of anatomy as Velasquez or any old master was. Using economy of paint to express forms is more a queation of atmosphere , not light. He might be a proto-impressionists, but he could draw as well as Rembrandt, or Rubens.
You describe the general approach to teaching that was associated with the Boston School.
Meaning the School of the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston ca. 1900
The correct spelling is Velázquez
Mine is the Americanized one, I guess. The way it's spelled in R. A. M. Stevensons book
No way Velasquez was an impressionist. He is one of the greatest realist. He did not paint the impression of thing, did not express his feelings of things, did not focus on accurate depiction of light (in sense of impressionism), but painted simply what he saw with (because of his great eye) minimum of brushstrokes and developed beautiful shortcut in his style. He realised that human brain is cooperative so why putting every detail on canvas (board). But it doesn´t have anything to do with the real impressionism, sorry.
:)
Please, it's VELAZQUEZ, not VELASQUEZ!!!
Hmmm?