Throughout Western Europe, and especially in England and France, it was “commonly thought” during the waning years of the Nineteenth Century, that “To die before being painted by Sargent is to go to heaven prematurely.” (Saki, Reginald on the Academy, 1904)
When Londoners learned that a likeness of Henry James, the celebrated American author positioned in that junction between literary realism and literary modernism, was going to be painted by John Singer Sargent, there was growing interest in what the American ex-patriot would conceive on canvas as far as the likeness of Henry James was concerned! Sargent was becoming more and more dis-interested in portrait paintings but relented when it came time to the powerful literary figure that was Henry James! Sargent was fond of saying “Every time I paint a portrait, I lose a friend.”
Walter Richard Sickert, a prominent British painter and printmaker during the Fin de Siecle and into the early 20th century, was anxious to see the Sargent painting of James. In a letter to Thomas Hardy, the late Nineteenth Century English poet, author and critic Edmund Gosse wrote: “Sargent’s portrait of Henry James is nearly finished, and I hear it is a masterpiece. There is a plaid waistcoat in it, heavy like a sea in a storm, which is said to be prodigious.”
What are your thoughts on portraiture in general and, in particular, when it comes to John Singer Sargent? A painter who was more interested in landscape and the more intriguing aesthetic side of art than portraiture!
Portraiture was definitely one of the more common types of art that was created during the time. To capture a person’s likeness in essence (and accuracy) can be seen as precious, especially when it involves an artist that’s known for doing great work. Painting these take time as well as a pretty large fortune. Sargent’s interest in landscapes and aesthetics probably helped and improved his work with portraiture despite his disinterest in it later. Techniques and styles that can be used in different forms of art can be used and adapted to others and create better results. Funny enough, this is probably why a lot of people like his portraiture work.
Portraiture is such a staple when it comes to paintings. I would say the general public could recognize portraits more than they could any other kind of paintings. I think having Sargent, an artists who began to have more of an eye for landscapes, brings interest as portraiture is meant to capture the essence of a person. I think especially since Sargent is also linked to impressionism, paintings that are meant to capture the feeling of a moment, brings an interesting perspective on a portrait. If anything I think it aids capturing the essence of a person. Sargent managed to not only the physical likeness of Henry James, but was able to capture Henry’s essence in that moment in time.
I think portraiture is a beautiful form of art that not a lot of people can take up and master in a lifetime. Those that can and do, however, I have always thought possess truly amazing talent I can only wish to have. To be able to capture someone’s likeness with paints is such an amazing feat. I do also think, however, that the art of portraiture has waned since times like these, where it was an honor and a privilege to get a portrait done before death. Many people do not give portraiture paintings the same amount of awe and amazement, and that is also partly because so few people specialize in it anymore, and those that do are often hard to come across. In terms of Sargent, while I think it is shame that he had this incredible talent for portraiture but fell out of love with it, I do understand his sentiments and wanting to turn to a style of painting he felt more comfortable doing on his own choice.
Portraiture is very popular when it comes to art, it’s like the first thing we look at when studying art in general. While I always thought portraiture looked cool or interesting, I was never fully captivated by it. I always like the more whimsical landscapes or pictures that tried to capture events. Sargent’s portraitures bring a different aesthetic and feeling than the others that I have seen. Since he did landscapes and aesthetics, he brings something new which makes his portraitures stand out more for me. I really like what he was going for, he didn’t just want to capture a person, he also wanted to capture a feeling they gave off and I think that is incredible. His decision to move to a different painting style also shows that, as an artist, it is okay to move onto different things and you are allowed to change the way you create.
I particularly love John Sargent’s portraits despite his dismay and wanting to carry out paintings of landscape instead. I personally think that his portraits have a realistic, strong, and authoritative vibe to it. I find it’s interesting to think about portraits as someone who lives in the 21st century. We aren’t as likely to have personal painted portraits of our individual selves (let alone family portraits.) I think most people today would rather take a photo of themselves rather than have a painting. Although I can’t say if the upper class still hold such practices. Either way, in our current times, I think it’s weirder to think that someone has a painted portrait than not having one. In general, I’m quite fond of portraiture and I think it can be a tricky thing to do. You have the challenge of having to capture the true essence of who you paint. It seemed extremely tedious in the past because of the demand. It has me wondering if those sentiments are the same today.
I personally am not as interested in portraiture paintings. I feel as though maybe the up close and personal nature of portraiture painting makes me enjoy the thought of humanity less. I have always been interested in landscape photography and in turn landscape painting intrigues my interests more. I feel as though portraiture painting only shows what the subject wants to portray and it is not a true representation of the person as a whole and that makes me feel portraiture is dull and false. I can see why upper noble classes in history have enjoyed portraiture painting but for my interests I just don’t have a taste for it.
Portraiture is a representation of a person/figure. They represent a person’s physical structure, attire, emotions, and personality. Artists capture both the essence and physical likeness of the person’s face and upper torso while creating portraitures. It can be difficult for artists to accurately create realistic portraits of people. Artists are required to match both the head shape and proportions to create an accurate portrait. Also, they have to properly align both their figure’s shading and facial features to create a realistic face design. It’s difficult for artists to paint facial features, because there is no clear method to position them both precisely and properly. They need to match both the position and distance of the eyes, eyebrows, nose, mouth, and other textures of the face from the shape of the head. Also, they need to accurately apply proper shading and values to create both realistic proportions and composition of the figure’s face. Finally, they have to apply both proper textures and values of their figure’s hair. They have to match their hair length, flow, values, and movements to create an accurate design. It’s difficult for artists to create realistic portraits based on these circumstances. Everything needs to be precise to create both accurate and realistic designs. I can understand why John Singer Sargent prefers landscapes over portraits. Landscape paintings allow Sargent to focus more on the beauty of the area rather than exact details of a person’s facial and body structure. Also, landscape paintings allow him both more color opportunities and painting techniques. Portrait paintings require both precise composition and alignment of elements. Landscape paintings allow both creative freedom and painting opportunities.
The portrait strikes me as quite pleasing, I think, because of how Sargent painted the coat and background. It is so hard to tell where the darkness begins and where the coat starts. Henry James’s expression appears to me as if he was in the middle of speaking or about to open his mouth. It reminds me of a photo, one taken a right both the subject is ready for it. It looks less posed them most portrait paintings, more relaxed. Although Sargent may have preferred landscape work to portrait, I think he still managed to place an intriguing aesthetic into his work. The color plate and texture pop on the painting. His comment that every time he paints a portrait, he losses a friend is interesting. I wonder if he meant metaphorically like an art idea of a friend. Or if his capture of their inner-self caused them to be displeased, not what they were looking for, or once they got a painting, they did not see use in him anymore as a friend.
My concept of a portrait is that it should to depict an individual without words. It should say something regarding the individual’s character. The vast majority think a picture is a photo of an individual that just portrays them from head to shoulders. However, a picture can likewise be of your pet or your sister’s feet skating. It should say something regarding the individual you are shooting or the individual you are making with the camera. I trust The main principle when making a picture is that there are no standards. You can present subjects or catch them normally.
In the event of Sargent, I think his choice to move to an alternate composition style shows that, as an artist, it is alright to move onto various things and you are permitted to change the manner in which you make. Methods and styles that can be utilized in various types of craftsmanship can be utilized and adjusted to other people and make better outcomes.
John Singer Sargent is certainly an amazing realism and modern artist. He was able to perfectly create the likeness of Henry James in two different mediums. As amazing as his work may be, it’s seems as if Sargent dislikes the impact his pieces leave. I wonder what he means by he loses a friend every time. Is he referring to the person whose likeness he recreates or the piece he has to let go? Maybe he is referring it to a part of himself that is lost since portraits are what he dislikes to make. My interpretation is that even though landscapes are what Sargent enjoys to make, he still ends up making portraits as that was where most of the money is being made. It’s an inner conflict of demand and passion.
Portraiture in general, I believe, is very fascinating to look at! Especially when there’s so many different styles artists can portray the person they make or even themselves. I like being able to see how the artist’s mind and creativity it set in portraying the person they make a portraiture if they use specific color schemes or textures. Sargent’s portraiture of Henry is really nice with all the warm tones on the skin and the cool/dark colors of the suit he is wearing. The facial expression is very organic to even the subtle wrinkles. Even the dark background helps bring a strong contrast to let Henry’s face stand out. It’s so interesting to see the great skill Sargent had when he was more of a landscape painter than a portraiture and is still able to pull it off. Even his sketch shows great skills and values before making the final painting.
Personally, portraiture is my favorite form of art, and even though Sargent preferred landscapes he was still a brilliant portrait painter. Even though I can paint both portraits and landscapes as well, I prefer painting portraits more because I find them more interesting. I also think portraiture is really important in history because people aren’t around forever and a painting that captures their essence can help us remember them. Landscape paintings capture the beauty of the view around them, which I will admit it’s pleasing to look at, but nature will always be there around us and you can’t say the same for people. However, I do respect Sargent’s choice to lean more towards landscapes in the end because painting portraits can be stressful. People can put a lot of pressure on you when painting a portrait and everyone has different expectations of what it will turn out to be when you’re trying to capture the likeness of someone.
I feel that portraiture is an interesting form of art that allows one to capture their true psychological likeness. One can make use of any sort of style in order to establish their identity and essence in an endless number of ways. In terms of painting, I have always preferred landscape, but portraits can be interesting depending on how much it has to say about the person depicted. Sargent’s portrait of Henry James is quite impressive to look at because of the contrast between the lighter tones used for his skin and his dark suit and background. I have always had a soft spot for contrast, so I find this rather interesting. The portrait is also shaded so well, the painting appears to be very realistic. I feel that Sargent managed to depict a serious tone from Henry James that makes him appear like someone of influence. However, Sargent’s greater interest in landscape painting is understandable. Making landscape paintings is considerably less stressful than making portraits. Also, one does not have to focus on a specific subject but rather their surroundings. This gives the artist total freedom over how they choose to interpret said surroundings instead of having to limit themselves to their thoughts on a single subject.
I find it interesting how portraiture has had a level of importance for many decades throughout history. Whether it has to do with the artists who were well known for them or the idea of having a physical painting of yourself is unknown to me, but the craft has always been sought after. I also think that having Sargent, a landscape painter, create a portrait aided to the piece feeling more dynamic than the average portrait painting. Sargent knew different techniques and skills related to landscape painting, so it could have translated differently in portrait work.
Portraiture in the traditional sense feels stale to me, brilliant artists using their talents in a way that I feel is the least interesting. However when attempting to view early American portraiture through the historical lens, I am able to appreciate the art form more readily. When it comes to JSS, his portraits feel fresher and are more dynamic than his predecessors, and I really appreciate the fact that he’d rather be painting another subject. I think that fact has an impact on the quality of each portrait – commanding the light and shadow so deftly, and treating the human face and figure as a lush landscape.
I think caricature art is very highly regarded and respected. Mastering the likeness of someone’s face is extremely difficult and takes years of practice to get comfortable with. Thanks to many portrait artists, we know what many famous historical figures looked like, or at least what the artist wanted you to know. His knowledge and skill in portraits definitely can help in his other landscape and natural paintings, despite his disinterest. Sargent’s style in regards to James takes on a lifelike approach. I can distinguish an expression, even if it is neutral and faint and I can see the life under his skin. It is a lightly dynamic painting that brings James to life.
Portraiture will always be a form of art that is to be seen as a classic. To truly get the exact detail of a person’s face, hair, body, etc… takes time and it is something I will always take my hat off to those artists because they are amazing. As for Sargent being interested, that wasn’t normal per se, I think that helped in a way to achieve a higher skill level in making portraits because by the example given he did an excellent job. Everything about Henry James in the painting seems lifelike and captures Sargent captured the body language in a perfect manner. Overall, I thought Sargent benefits from both areas because I believe it is important to expand your knowledge on certain art forms and not just one.
As I had stated in a previous blog post, landscape art allows a certain freedom that portraiture does not. I myself have been heavily trained in portraiture in many medias such as painting, charcoal, and colored pencil to name a few. The reason for this is because when creating a portrait you would not want to depict the individual poorly because you could be offending them. I would not want to paint someones nose too large in case it so happens that their nose is their greatest insecurity. I can see why Sargent would say that he would lose a friend every time he did a portrait because it is very mentally taxing to depict someone perhaps as how they would like to be seen instead of how they actually are. For example, in the portrait above we see Henry James in a “prodigious” plaid waistcoat, giving acclaim to not only the craftsmanship of Sargent’s work, but also how Sargent saw James as a person. In many ways this could be a good thing, or it could show that whoever Sargent did not paint in a plaid coat was not someone he respected, a treacherous two way street.
I’m a big fan of portraiture, especially since a big focus of mine is character design. Portraits can capture or depict something that a medium such as photography can miss. While this can also be vice versa in certain situations, I think portraiture can, and should, give a deeper look and focus into who exactly the person is. In terms of John Singer Sargent, I can understand that he has a difference in interests and that portraiture can feel restrictive. As stated, while portraiture can depict a person on multiple levels through subtle and not-so-subtle details, it is still restricted to the subject of focus. Landscape and other types of art can remove this limitation and allow the artist to express themselves however they want. I do believe that portraiture doesn’t need to be restrictive to a grounded version of a subject and instead be portrayed in a stylistic way, but it is important to keep in mind that some artistic choices might not sit well with a subject’s portrayal. In fact, I think there’s a benefit in having an interest in landscape and the more aesthetic side of art along with portraiture, taking aspects from both sides to create unique art.
I feel that portraiture is essential as an art form for so many reasons other than depictions of a person’s features. The different ways in which an artist may decide to use certain colors of paint or the sharpness of their pen may entirely change the way in which they portray viewing themselves or the people that they are making, and in return, change the way their audience may view said person. For John Singer Sargent, his portraits are particularly interesting in the way he utilizes light to his advantage as well as the incorporation of the background to really add to his piece. I think as a landscape artist originally, this truly plays to his advantage in adding depth and character to his subject when he pays such close attention to the surrounding factors of the person and what that says about their character.
Portraiture is such an amazing way to capture a person’s essence. I’ve always enjoyed seeing portraits like this one of Henry James because that moment in time is stamped into a painting, and painters like Sargent can really capture moments beautifully. It takes a certain amount of skill to even render a portrait accurately, but when it’s done at high levels it really makes you think and wonder a bit more. You get this exclusive view into what a person looks like and what that might say about their life and who they are. In a way the face is like a landscape because it has its own terrain, I just think nature won’t judge you harshly if you mess up the likeness a bit. While a person who is getting their portrait painted might take offense if it doesn’t look like them.
Lizbeth Ramirez | Art 474
I think Sargent portraiture is beautifully done. No matter the medium he was able to capture the likeness of his subject. I think it’s interesting how he mentions that “Every time I paint a portrait, I lose a friend.” Perhaps he is referring to his own disinterest in portraiture because he has to truly look and study his subjects that might ruin his original image of them. I think I might understand his disinterest in portraiture, although for me it’s in photography. I feel like when I’m photographing others I’m doing it out of obligation but not out of my interest. It feels more like a chore, and I honestly hate it. The outcome might be nice and look beautiful for them but for me, it’s just another portrait.
Portraitures are a classic when it comes to art and paintings. Capturing a person’s persona and essence through the form of paint on a canvas is something that sounds so mystical and charming. Before the creation of cameras and photography, this from of art was incredibly invaluable. Nowadays, it feels like a lost art because of the countless amount of portrait artists oversaturating the category, but having been overdone millions of times, as well as the life-changing creation of modern-day smartphones/cameras and photography. Sadly, portraitures are no longer seen with as much awe as it used to, but it was bound to happen eventually. I can completely understand Sargent’s decision on focusing solely on landscape art. If it felt like something that he had no passion for, as well as something that felt overdone, I would definitely pursue another form of art too.
I feel like portraitures are one of the main things people think of when they are asked to think about art. I feel that they stand as a staple in the art world, especially in art history. The wonder of portraitures comes from the wide array of different artist who are able to paint someone’s entire personality or character into a portraiture. If you were to ask two different artist that specialize in the art form, I believe each result would carry itself apart from each other in a unique and equally valid way. This is part of the reason why I find it so interesting that someone such as Sargent dabbled in the craft. In a way landscape and portraitures have the same end goal, to replicate the tone and mood of the subject the best one can. I feel that Sargent’s reason for disliking portraitures comes down to the reason of analyzing a person so intimately and subjectively. In comparison to the “what you see is what you get” side to landscape, it would be easy to see which would be more comforting.