Grab your free accuracy tool here: https://painterly.work/4d40Y9T

I know that Sargent's portraits weren't all the same level of looseness, and varied even within the painting, depending on it being a face, or clothing etc, but I think in general his faces are a midway point, but slightly closer to your 'Bear' than your super-loose one. His loosest brushwork tended to be in the hair, clothing and surroundings. What makes his portraits exceptional, is also something very hard to define. A kind of distilling of the attitude and demeanour of the sitter, which appears to transcend technique. He knew not only how to make it look like the person, but represent their entire being in the most efficient manner. The enigmatic 'smile' of Mona Lisa is celebrated, but Sargent did something equally extraordinary almost every time.

One mistake I've made is confusing "painterly" with "fast". Just because a brush stoke (or in the case of your calligraphy example a letter) looks like it was "dashed off" quickly doesn't mean it was. It might have been very deliberately created with great care while still appearing fresh and spontaneous. I would imagine Sargent was quite methodical with his brush work even when it looks like he wasn't.

This is a wonderful video, thanks for making! And so glad it was recommended to me :)

from what i know he would do many detailed studies till he knew the subject matter super well like for madame x... then for the final he did it super quick like a speed painting..

Look out! There's a Bear behind you!

Always free with such great info. Thank you

Something I've noticed on my art journey is that changing subject, genre and scale from time to time helps to explore the compositional aspects of detail. If we do 100 portraits of similar faces on a similar size canvas, it becomes a bit easy to gravitate towards repetition of the same composition and process. Shifting to a full figure alters that balance because now you will be inclined to use fewer brush strokes for the same features, and likewise from figure to landscape you may start to indicate the figure with just a few strokes. That understanding carries itself back into the detailed work, where you can approach it with a specific idea of what will look fresh if you intentionally preserve a certain level of development, and seek earlier answers to accuracy so that they don't interfere with that process.

Haven't quite finished watching this but what a clever way to explain how the painterly vs realism works.  It has immediately resonated with me and I dont even paint :)

Thank you 😊 you are an excellent teacher.

The examples you used in this video, particularly the one about forging a signature, were really helpful! Something in my brain clicked! Thank you for such a wonderful video and resources!

A good lecture you gave. Thank you,

Oooo I need this

I recommend you to study Nordic painters like Helene Schjerfbeck and Ellen Thesleff instead of Sargent. You are a masterclass painter. The first unfinished work is so much better then the new one that is unfinished. Maybe you got colours right or something like that.

OMG! Why in all my years of art training did I not meet you?

I liked your pink hair

The earlier painting is actually so much better! Now the high cheek is wrong also eyes are way too big and irises ended in the wrong places..The other eye is lazy. The new painting is caricatyrish and like beginners work, the first one masters.

Chelsea -- it's been a while, can we see your set-up, palette, and or lighting?

Sounds like you had good basic training at the Atelier

hey i have been drawing for a year and i am not particularly good, but some of my fundamentals are coming together and i occasionally, though not consistently impress myself with a pencil. I really want to invest in painting in oil but I have no idea if i am even ready to start. Heard you should be able to at least draw decently and understand all the fundamentals prior to painting but how did you start out?