3 ms·

I would call Sargent a great artist by any standard, and in multiple mediums. He may have made his money in portraiture, but even then he generated pieces like

by ghc 8y ago

I would call Sargent a great artist by any standard, and in multiple mediums. He may have made his money in portraiture, but even then he generated pieces like The Daughters of Edward Darley Boit that are outstanding art. But outside or portraits, his murals and bas reliefs are absolutely phenomenal and worth traveling for.

jacquesm 8y ago
That is a very impressive painting. In spite of being fragile the vases are still around, the girls are long gone.
thejohnconway 8y ago
I like Sargent, and have seen a lot of his major works in person. I suppose I’m using a pretty high threshold for “great”, which I’d reserve for the top tier. My point was that the artistic worth of a painting is not tightly correlated to the technical skill of its painter. Good enough is usually all that’s needed.
- eigenstuff 8y ago
  There's some Dali quote out there where he says he is not that technically skilled as an artist, and if you look up close at some of his paintings in person, you can kinda see what he's getting at. He is no slouch by any means but he is definitely no Sargent or Vermeer. I think a lot of people who aren't really into art assume greatness=technical prowress, in particular those quick to poo poo modern art, but (speaking for myself at least) those who are in the art world are more concerned with the novelty and innovation of ideas (given some baseline level of craftsmanship, of course). Don't get me wrong, I have nothing but respect for people who can paint hyperrealistically, because I know and understand and appreciate the amount of work that goes into that level of mastery. But at the end of the day, I'm going to be far more impressed by an artist like Riusuke Fukahori who took that skill set and used it to create a new and novel sculptural technique. That's technical mastery combined with creative genius. That's great art.

by ghc 8y ago

jacquesm 8y ago

That is a very impressive painting. In spite of being fragile the vases are still around, the girls are long gone.

thejohnconway 8y ago

I like Sargent, and have seen a lot of his major works in person. I suppose I’m using a pretty high threshold for “great”, which I’d reserve for the top tier. My point was that the artistic worth of a painting is not tightly correlated to the technical skill of its painter. Good enough is usually all that’s needed.

eigenstuff 8y ago
There's some Dali quote out there where he says he is not that technically skilled as an artist, and if you look up close at some of his paintings in person, you can kinda see what he's getting at. He is no slouch by any means but he is definitely no Sargent or Vermeer. I think a lot of people who aren't really into art assume greatness=technical prowress, in particular those quick to poo poo modern art, but (speaking for myself at least) those who are in the art world are more concerned with the novelty and innovation of ideas (given some baseline level of craftsmanship, of course). Don't get me wrong, I have nothing but respect for people who can paint hyperrealistically, because I know and understand and appreciate the amount of work that goes into that level of mastery. But at the end of the day, I'm going to be far more impressed by an artist like Riusuke Fukahori who took that skill set and used it to create a new and novel sculptural technique. That's technical mastery combined with creative genius. That's great art.