John
Singer Sargent, born in Florence, 1856 to an American family, would become “leading
portrait painter of his generation,” a modern master. Educated in schools
throughout Europe, Sargent received a thoroughly liberal-arts education, and
continued to have an avid interest in literature and music throughout his life.
However, it was his early talent – his mother said of him at eleven, “…artists
say that his touch is remarkable” – and later prodigious diligence – besides
his portraits for which he was renown he would produce over 1,600 watercolors
and over 600 landscapes and genre works in oil –that would challenge and change
the story of art (Fairbrother 11).
Sargent’s
20s were spent moving from schools to academies to ateliers, where he trained
in subjects like painting, academic drawing, perspective, and anatomy. It was
also in the 1870s that the first Sargents appeared in exhibitions. While Sargent’s
pieces were at times received with reservation by both critics and sitters (this
would foreshadow the public’s depreciation of his style after his passing), these
times were in the minority; Sargent was, for all purposes, not only a gentleman
“of the best social position,” but also a consummate representational artist
(19).
Sargent’s
rise was not met without obstacles, however. While his reputation as a
portraitist grew ever so gradually in the 1880s – “more progressive critics saw
promise in Sargent… Antonin Proust, one of the few contemporary champions of
Manet’s work, believed that Sargent was a remarkably talented artist ‘called to
a great future’” – detractors, numbering among them Oscar Wilde, would “[call]
Sargent’s work vicious and meretricious” (36). Sargent’s portrait of Madame
Pierre Gautreau would mark a revealing turning point in his career.
In his confidence “that the public would be awed and amazed by his interpretation,” he created more studies of Mme Gautreau than any other client – his notes remark of her “‘lavender’ coloration,” “her ‘most beautiful lines’” – all “indication of his high expectations” (49). His submission to the Salon, however, “had a different emphasis: the subject stands in a rather haughty pose...In this image she is an incredible idol with a compulsive need to display herself before an audience” (49). It was poorly received. In response to criticism of his original submission to the Parisian Salon, Sargent painted over it to make his subsequent portrait “proper.” It was this backlash to one of his greatest efforts that “stung him,” made him understand “the power that a portrait could wield,” and marked the start of “a period of transition” (52, 55).
In
the late 1880s, Sargent would branch out into the swath of both historical and
contemporary art, studying and experimenting in this “most expansive and
receptive phase of his career” (55). He decorated, created still lives,
experimented with palette and mood, worked en
plein air, tested impressionistic waters with Monet, and introduced fresh
subjects to conventional portraiture. His repertoire grew, as did his
recognition. “In 1899 a critic marveled that the faces in Sargent’s portraits often
seemed to ‘presage’ the abundant ‘perplexities and anxieties [that] loom up
before the contemporary man and woman’” (75).
Ellen Terry as
Lady Macbeth (1889)
It was at this
point that his career was flooded with many travels to the United States, an
overwhelming number of clients, though in a life in luxury (he charged “a value
of about eighty-six thousand dollars in 1993” “for a full-length portrait” (77)).
His portraits were good – almost too
good. Critics suggested his artwork could be “cruel or cutting” in his “disarmingly
frank likenesses” (94), though when his insights aligned with the status quo,
Sargent was hailed as a master. His commissions grew, as did his technique and focus
of drawing attention to his portraits’ “precise social task – to project a
fastidious superiority by virtue of being ornate, exclusive, and prohibitively
expensive” (97). This became too much for Sargent. Toward the 1900s, he took
more time for himself, painting watercolors of scenery and environments.
His most rich, vibrant,
and spontaneous pieces, where the presence of color and energy of light become foregrounded,
appear in these watercolors of his.
As a venerated artist of his time,
Sargent “had the triple approval of fashion, influential artists, and
professional academies” (117). Regarded as a modern-day master, a modern Velazquez,
Sargent became the portraitist to
see, if one wanted to take “one step ‘essential to immortality’” (124). He
worked for people from university presidents to royalty and national
presidents, with clients including Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Winston
Churchill, and Theodore Roosevelt. With the advent of modernist art which
Sargent displayed little significant interest in, however, Sargent’s status as “artist”
– beyond his “inborn talents” which even the most critical critics acknowledged
– fell out of favor (117). The artist’s “genteel aesthetic” (133) was attacked
and buried by progressive critics in the 1930s, who, while ridiculing “‘the most
adroit appearance of workmanship, the most dashing eye for effect’,” championed
the “fresh” ideals of modernist art. Only since the 1960s did interest in Sargent
revitalize. Although his art was forgotten in the hype of modernism, Sargent is
now receiving his fair due as an artist in every sense of the word. Not only do
his pieces fetch prices beyond what even he had seen in his day, they continue
to stand as remarkable pieces of talent, studied draftsmanship, and complex,
human personality – which is why I have chosen him for this report.
A collection of
sketches, where genius shines brightest. Includes instances
of pure contour drawing, with intelligent constructive shortcuts – volumes of hair,
simple decorations.
References
John Singer
Sargent – Trevor Fairbrother (1994)
No comments:
Post a Comment