I've done very little copying in my art career, but whenever I've taken the time to try, it's been instructive and helpful. Lately I've wanted to make some new progress with watercolor, which for me is the most challenging of all media, and where better to turn than to the great master, John Singer Sargent.
Sargent's watercolors have always been the pinnacle for me. After seeing a big show of his paintings in Brooklyn in 2013, curated jointly by the Boston MFA and the Brooklyn Museum of Art, I became even more impressed by his brilliance, and curious about his technique. Since then I've studied reproductions and, especially, enlarged details, read articles about his methods, and tried out some of his techniques, like the use of wax resists. Until this week, though, ten years later, I'd never actually tried to copy one of his paintings. I learned so much that I will probably do more of it, to try to understand the steps through which he's planning and building the layers of the painting, since this is crucial to good watercolor painting. I'm less concerned about studying his draughtsmanship, which is incredible, or his sense of composition. The biggest question for me is, "how does he get the paint down on the paper with such luminosity and brilliance?"
One answer to that is speed. Observers at the time concurred that Sargent worked amazingly fast, with complete confidence. He was such a master of drawing what he saw, and of the human body in particular, that this aspect of picture-making -- which slows most of us down cosiderably, and often causes us to fuss over details -- was not an obstacle for him in the least. Often, his watercolors include just the merest indication of pencil lines, just enough to place the elements relative to each other. At other times, such as in architectural studies, he drew considerable detail before painting. My guess is that Sargent painted this piece in half an hour or less.
Another answer is the way he used his pigments. He knew exactly which were appropriate for the subjects and type of painting he had chosen, and used the same ones repeatedly. He knew everything about how they'd behave in water and in mixtures with one another. In this way he was able to achieve brilliance, intensity, and luminosity, and to avoid the muddiness that comes from overmixing, or inappropriate choices of pigment to mix or layer. He also often used a quite limited palette, which contributed to being able to work quickly.
--
To begin my copy, I drew the figure of the girl lightly and without detail, indicating her clothing and figure, placement of the head and features, and the rough placement of shadows. Then I wet the sheet with a wide brush, leaving the figure intact, and put in one layer of background in very wet yellow ochre, allowing the paint to run, and adding subseqent pigment mixed with a little ultramarine blue -- these were the pigments that Sargent probably used, and I think he painted this entire piece using just those two, plus a little warm brown and/or sienna. (Toward the end I also added a little Pyrrol orange - a modern pigment - in order to get the warm shadows such as appear in the reproduction.) I didn't fuss too much over the background and moved on to the figure as soon as the background was dry enough; the dark shadows beside the skirt were painted later. Sargent has at least three passes in his background; it was hard for me to tell when in the process he painted those except that the earlier layers were pretty dry when he did.
My version: bottom of the skirt - this is probably the best part of my painting!
There are no areas surrounding the figure where the background bleeds a lot, but in some places --like the hair -- the edges are quite soft. Controlling the wetness of the paper and knowing when to add pigment, and how wet to make it, are the great challenges of watercolor. The type of paper also makes a huge difference. I was painting on 140-pound cold-pressed paper; Sargent's piece was on white wove paper, smoother than mine, and slightly larger. In any case, all of my edges ended up being harder than his, and my background lacked the subtle control of his original. I also had some trouble with the drawing of the arm and hands, and adjusted them after taking the first photo at the top of this page; the horizontal arm is still a little too low and slightly too angled, but perfect accuracy was not my goal so I won't be too hard on myself for that! I also softened the facial shadows and lightened the entire face.
My version, with adjusted left arm and softened. lightened face.
While making this copy, it was astonishing to enter Sargent's mind a little bit as I observed his decisions: how to abbreviate the drawing of the clasped hands; which shadows on the blouse should be warm grey, and which cool; how much detail to include in the face; how to show the volume of the skirt, and finally, what finishing touches to add. There is blue gouache (opaque watercolor) on the cap and in a few places on the blouse -- he must have added this because its reflective property is different, because the gouche "sits up" on the paper surface unlike the watercolor which tends to sink in more. I was surprised how much it made the painting come alive when I did the same.
So that was my first foray into copying this master watercolorist -- I'm pleased with what I learned and think it was time well spent. This was an early work of his; time to take a close look at some of his later pieces which are brighter and lighter, and use brilliant color.
Comments