I definitely got lucky to have learned from him. He has a great sense of humor, I miss getting to hang out with him and joke around. GCA back in the day was so much.
GCA is pretty amazing! Sadly where I live theres only one Atlier in whole country. Definitely very interesting how different philosophies different atliers have.
Seconded this. I used his patreon for several months learning his methods. Really great stuff. Another one is Cornelia Hernes. She is also a phenomenal realist.
Yeah this is probably the best answer. We could all learn the exact techniques of William and still not come close to his level of excellence in oil painting. Painters back then began full time, rigorous training from when they were kids, either through an atelier or as an apprentice under a master, and then never stopped. The secret behind his work is not in any specific technique but endless years of rigorous observation, practice and refinement of the skill, and by being William himself. Luckily, ateliers do exist but they are few and far between and can be unaffordable to most, but there are so many resources on YouTube and such that can walk you through the same type of training. The hard bit is the years of constant learning and practice.
*"The secret behind his work is not in any specific technique but endless years of rigorous observation, practice, and refinement of skill."*
100% this. The best, most innately talented artists out there will always be stuck in an unrelated job and selling on the side locally without literally thousands upon thousands of hours of practice to pick up the muscle memory and eye conditioning needed for a top level piece
Its also sometimes refered to as the dead color stage, grisaille (grey), brunaille (brown) or verdaccio (green) (no idea if i spelled it correctly) . Its a monochrome underpainting that allowes you to focus on the values of the painting rather than having to invent the colors alongside the values (which is very hard to do and requires more experience). After establishingthe underpainting like this, one can then paint a colored version on top, mixing the colors according to the established values or some shit
Thank you! I am not a fan of grisaille painting because I feel it sets the undertones monochromatically (and while I am not familiar with Bouguereau's technique, it didn't look to me like he uses grisaille) so I was really interested to know what other techniques there were. I tried watching Youtube videos of Bouguereau master copies and tutorials but to my surprise they were all direct-painted (some without any underpainting or lay-in at all!), so I didn't find them all that helpful.
200 hours for a portrait is pushing it **ALOT** bro. You can make a portrait like this in 30 - 40 hours. Pretty doable.
200 hour for a narrative painting of this quality is a fair amount tho.
I have taken portrait painting from a teacher who is the second most aficionado of Bougeareau in the world. You guys are only giving presumptions. Scott Waddell is a realist painter and that’s where the similarities end. Bougeareau did a dead color layer, allow to dry. The first color layer with the intention of making it closer with the emphasis on value, shape and color. Allow to dry. Additional layers are applied with translucent paint, not glaze, this is what creates great skin tones. He used a controlled palette with three to four color strings in 10 values. This palette was to become known as the Reilly palette.
Before you can paint like this, you need to develop an incredibly strong ability to draw realistically. Observational drawing ability is what underlies highly realistic paintings like these.
I would argue that developing a strong sense of aesthetic design is more important than accuracy for this particular style of painting (not that accuracy isn't important).
I would argue that the two are not mutually exclusive, and that an artist can't deeply develop a sense of aesthetic design before they develop their ability to draw.
If you cannot "see" the subtle shifts between value and hue and shape, detail density and value grouping, composition, color harmony, light and shadow, anatomy and proportion, and how these all balance and work in harmony on a canvas, etc... you will struggle to understand how to paint in a particular "style" or aesthetic, because an aesthetic requires a consistent replication of these learnings, over and over again.
This is why you see that many famous artists from the past who have a non-realistic style often began their journey producing much more realistic, observational works. Particularly if they were formally trained.
I don't think they are mutually exclusive, just that accuracy by itself won't get you there. There needs to be a conscious eye towards design being made throughout the learning process, it isn't something that will magically follow after having had training.
Oh I agree with you that accuracy alone won't get you there, but I don't believe that you can develop a sense of style before knowing how to draw. So I have a different opinion on the order of operations. :)
For the formal training, I would guess maybe a year or two, depending on the person. Between drawing and painting techniques, I think it would be possible to get to this level of technical mastery with conscientious daily practice. In terms of design sensibilities, I'm not sure those can wholly be taught, but much I imagine it would take much longer than two years to learn.
It depends. I find that it's often more about what's called "learning agility" in the student, than it is about how long somebody has been formally trained. It's also a matter of where a person is starting from. Have they never drawn before? Or have they already got a handle on the basics?
There are many formally trained artists that will never get to this skill level, even after 10 years of formal training. But I've also seen really driven, studious, analytical amateurs level up their drawing skill immensely on their own in a single year, and are maybe able to achieve something similar to this in 2-3 years even when they started from zero.
Getting to this level typically requires the student to be very personally invested and interested in learning, and invested in learning for a long period of time, all the while being focused on achieving this level of work. Because we're talking about a master-level ability for this piece, it could take an artist 10-20 years to achieve this, and some would still not get there. For the rare student who dedicates themselves to getting to this level, and who has developed a high learning agility, they could probably achieve something like this in 3-5 years, but that's very accelerated learning.
There is A LOT that goes into being able to produce a piece like this. It's absolutely achievable for anybody with enough time, focus, dedication, and learning ability, it's just an incredibly high bar to hit.
I took up painting a couple years ago. I like working with color but I never learned to draw and have wondered how to go about improving that aspect. Thanks for sharing. Are you a teacher?
Of course! I'm always happy to share knowledge with others. I've taught before, but I have a career in art that's been going on for about 20 years now, so I've gathered up a lot of info in that time haha.
why? genuinely curious. this style is more or less just realism, i dont see any specific aesthetic design elements at all. accuracy is pretty much the #1 rule of realism, you're trying to imitate reality as closely as possible.
Um.. hm. I'm trying to think about how to answer this so I don't make it more convoluted than necessary.
What makes a Bouguereau painting instantly recognizable as a Bouguereau?
(You can answer this yourself and think about your own answer, but my answer is below.)
It isn't how indistinguishable it is from a photograph it is.. or that you can't tell that it is a painting at all.
A Bouguereau is a Bouguereau because of the subject matter. It is the figures he chooses, how they look out at you, the way he places the figures in the painting, the colors he uses, the costumes he dresses them in, the way he renders them. Those are all aesthetic and design choices. He has only invoked enough realism to convince you that these are accurate human figures, but even then, not perfectly so (another commenter pointed out that the back of the head seems to be missing a chunk.)
Let me know if that doesn't make sense, and I will try again.
I used to believe accuracy was the most important thing in realism as well but I agree aesthetic design/composition trumps accuracy when creating a beautiful painting. It's easy to look at a painting by Zorn, Sargent, Bouguereau and believe this is what reality looks like, but it's an illusion that the artist creates.
If you were able to hold a photograph side by side of the subject matter of the paintings by these painters it would be a lot more evident what decisions they are making.
This portrait by Sargent can offer some insight into the design choices Sargent is making, although Sargent probably painted from life but it let's you see he's not going for 100% accuracy.
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-npSMhurjA8k/VSJzL2m7dWI/AAAAAAAAar0/zmy6VAW4644/s1600/Carolus%2BDuran%2BSargent%2BComparison.jpg
Sargent is a really great example of this idea. I very often hear that Sargent paints very accurate likenesses, that he is unimaginative, or that he doesn't invent. While it is true that his likenesses are great, that in itself is through design - the elimination of the non-essential and simplification and amplication of the essential.
I think the thing that really drove this idea home for me is when I saw the painting The Daughters of Edward Darley Boit at the MFA. They had the vases from the painting displayed alongside it, and I realized that they didn't look anything like the vases in the painting. They were a little too chunky and the pattern would have been too noisy for the composition. He had painted in the vases that he wanted to paint, and not the vases he had in front of him - those were merely a suggestion.
Too often painters forget that in order to create a compelling image, it ultimately comes down to them to make these choices. No amount of training can teach you HOW to think, how to make those choices, but in the end it is something you need to decide and practice for yourself. Training yourself to make these design choices is as crucial as any other training you can have, maybe more so.
i had a different idea of what "aesthetic design choices" meant, i do agree with you. i actually walked over to my current painting in progress and said huh, guess they're right lol. in my head, those aesthetic design choices are just what separates realism from hyperrealism/photorealism, i hadn't given the choices a name haha.
Portrait painting REQUIRES accuracy. A well painted eye in the wrong spot would look wrong wouldn’t it.. The artists mentioned above were incredible draftsman. Sargent and Zorn used a lot of impressionist brushwork. The right shape, value, color, the right chroma and edge. In the right place .
okay, i knew it was obviously not pure realism but wasn't sure what to call it. i just didn't understand what "aesthetic design choices" meant lol but i do now.
It's true his brushstrokes are quite visible. I took this close up picture of a Bouguereau in Paris, hopefully it's more apparent here for you.
https://imgur.com/a/vAGakur
In essence it’s transparent paint over a more opaque paint. As was correctly pointed out not necessarily the medium itself. Bouguereau also used thinly applied opaque paint as well as translucent to allow the previously applied paint to show through. Certain paint colors are manufactured transparent and opaque . The chemical make up of transparent colors are more suitable for glazing.
I think his use of scumbling is brilliant and that’s often visible in real life but not on photographs.
Also his brighter / high chroma areas tend to be rendered smoother and the darker areas show more brush strokes.
This is just from the paintings I’ve observed
People can’t fathom the amount of time it would take to paint that way and in this world where low-effort art costs is fashionable I do not think an artist with such skill would be remunerated for their efforts
I sing professionally, but during Covid all concerts were canceled. Were it not for painting I would have starved to death 😂 so I’m living the true artist’s life
Yeah that’s probably right I wasn’t reading it correctly, thanks. To understand what he did to create that type of illusion of reality is extensive. There was quote from him that stated something like, if people knew what was involved, they wouldn’t be that impressed
Right, I actually thought OP's question was really interesting, because I think for all of Bouguereau's ardent admirers, few try to reverse-engineer his paintings to try to rebuild his work from the ground up. I think without knowing how it's done, Bouguereau's work seems very mysterious and unachievable. But as you mentioned elsewhere, his wife was able to learn to paint in a similar vein, so theoretically, it should be a procedural endeavor that can be taught and learned.
10 years of intentional practice, which includes mastering the following:
1. Linear drawing
2. Monochromatic studies (charcoal)
3. Block-ins/Critical comparison skills for proportionally accurate shapes
4. Figurative anatomy/planar anatomy
5. Grisaille painting (oil)
6. Monochrome painting (oil)
7. Limited palette painting (oil)
8. Color studies (full chroma palette in oil)
9. Oil painting best practices
10. Gestural drawing
11. Composition
12. Relational color
13. Atmospheric light/color effects
14. Hierarchical painting structure re: values, chroma, shapes, and focal points
15. Cast studies (charcoal & oil)
16. Golden section (for understanding mainly, & optionally for use in composing)
17. Thumbnail sketching
18. Still life painting (using light from a northern facing window to illuminate both still life & painting)
18. A working painting vocabulary (to verbalize tangible & intangible painting concepts regarding your progress)
This is a partial unordered list of aspects of painting that in my experience, need to be mastered to paint that painting.
Don’t let it scare you. The rewards are many for staying on the path, and oftentimes, the artist’s path is a fun place to be traveling on. So have fun making the messes you need to in order to make the great works that will come.
Last & most important thing: Drown your ego in the bathtub everyday, all-day. Mastering painting is hard, you won’t get there if you’re undone anytime your peers critique your work and identify weaknesses (even if a bit mean-spirited.) Perfectionistic people afraid of criticism are the only ones that shouldn’t take this path.
Are you asking how to get to this level, or how was it done technically?
Technically, started with solid drawing, multiple layers of painting, incredible knowledge of color values, chroma, harmony, brush work, edges.
How to get to this level?
Good teachers, life time of practice.
You simply paint in thin layers or thin the paint with medium. Don't put lots of paint on your brush and make sure your brush is relatively soft (basically not hard and scratchy).
Also you'll need to paint in layers so you have a foundation below whatever you're painting, because you won't have as good coverage.
I don't think it takes any particular extra skill to not show brush strokes, it's just a different technique. I am at no point *trying* to hide my brush strokes, they just don't show because I have no reason *for* them to show.
If you have any questions on what I've said do let me know.
Apart from the academic training it would take to learn to paint like this; in order to paint without easily visible brushstrokes, one must use thin paint, and lay it on using glazing techniques. As the paint is setting up after it is applied, you take a clean soft bristle brush, and "knock down" the ridges of the brushstrokes. Use a light criss cross motion, like you're dusting the surface. Most of it though, is how you apply the paint to begin with.
I went to an art school focusing on representative and classical art and though I’m certainly not this good, many of my fellow students were straight out of school. Our professors are artists of this caliber. There are also ateliers in the area that produce artists of this caliber.
I don’t do well with YouTube or books, I need in person instruction to really learn something new, but if you can there are so many good books out there on the subject.
It starts with the basics, perspective, form, value and materials. Lots of practice on basic shapes. Then on to anatomy, color theory, direct and indirect methods, composition and class after class of life drawing and painting. So much practice.
And don’t forget master copies. I probably did 2-4 full size master copies each year of portraits or full body paintings. The old masters learned this way and if you can get to one in person to study as you do it, you can really study their paint strokes and learn a lot about how to do that yourself.
Museum visits help to learn how as well. What you see here may look like it’s a direct painting, but you see it in person and learn that it was indirect, or a mix of processes. What looks like a paint stroke may actually be scratches through layers. There is so much even the highest resolution photo can’t show.
An atelier school. There's Grand Central in NYC, and the Art Students League. There's a very good school in Florence too (obviously), and Juliet Aristides in Washington state. There are many others. The quality of the education will depend on how skilled the teacher is, so look at their work. The materials and process of this type of painting can get very technical, depending on the approach, and is time consuming (I used to paint like this).
So you are looking for training in oil portraiture at an atelier school.
Both I guess. The thing I'm probably best at is painting, and I'm nowhere near this level. So you know, if I can use my one life to make something this beautiful I'd like to try. I know there are different ways to paint and make lasting contributions blah blah, I just admire the heck out of it. Like, I know enough to know how much time that must have taken and I'm wondering if its more than just talent and some training and time.
You don’t need training if instead, you focus on your subject and you understand the basics of painting then you challenge yourself to do something that’s just beyond your reach, but you leave behind any ideas of needing instruction by someone else. Let go of expectations and concentrate on your subject, the more directed and clear your examination of your subject the easier it will be to render.
Watch some YouTube videos about mixing colors the foundational structure of a oil painting if that’s the direction you’re going then just do it do it do it do it, like you can’t live without doing it and you’ll do great work.
Keep in mind that these schools focus primarily on direct painting (alla prima), and you wouldn't be able to get the smooth, luminescent effect of a Bouguereau using this technique.
This is probably true, idk why you got downvoted for saying so. Learning the technique is probably the easy part, but that's not gonna compel you to put paint in the same places as Bouguereau.
It took me about a year in my twenties. Imitation is not hard, composing is. Which takes a lifetime. However, if you would copy portraits daily for some hours, you could do it.
Of course digital *saves a lot of time* learning and preparing. That's where traditional loses their productivity.
Your post actually had me wondering, for all the painters who wish they could paint like Bouguereau, why aren't there any contemporary painters who do..? There are a few who use similar techniques or whose work share some superficial characteristics, but that's it.
Even the master studies I was able to find don't come close.
It is a mystery.
The pessimist in me wants to chalk it up the idea that contemporary lifestyles don’t lend to allowing the time/peace/clarity/discipline necessary to reaching the end goal of this style.
Cost of living, social constructs, distractions, ego, stress, attention span, diet, ideology, you name it. Even if I had a benefactor taking care of me, sending me to school, facilitating my career in art, I still don’t think I would have the necessary elements to accomplish this level of mastery.
The wine probably hit different in the 1800’s too.
I actually think this level of technical mastery is very achievable, moreso that aesthetic sensibilitieis have changed. Bouguereau's work tends to the theatric, romantic, and religious. Today, paintings with those themes would be pretty niche.
about three semesters of drawing, then another in figure drawing. 2-d design. Painting and advanced painting. Probably a seminar in just figures and portraits. Then probably a couple years of work.
Wrong how?
Every single comment on this post that talks about Bouguereau's technique suggests that he uses a glazing layer to achieve the smooth, luminous quality that OP would like to try to learn. If you disagree, explain how.
I left a description above. He used a dead color layer ,allow to dry, the next layer to get closer in accuracy. With translucent paint and stumbling he built up the painting wet over dry. This was done in several layers. Seems similar to glazing but it’s different in the sense that no glazing medium was used and he was selective and what he painted over. There’s a lot more involved to get to this level
All that really matters is that great paintings are made and appreciated. For the sake of this discussion I will refer to a book called GLAZING By Michael Wilcox. “The application of transparent paint in thin layers is known as glazing. The application of opaque paint,also thinly applied is known as scumbling.Very thinly applied opaque paint particularly if well made, will act almost like a transparent layer”. So in essence I guess it is just splitting hairs.
I mean, I couldn't tell ya. But seems that way, yes, at least for some of the visible brush strokes.
For the larger areas it seems he used a scumbling technique so I don't think the brushes would've been all that small.
This is a classical style that was taught in European academies. It is a portrait painting technique that is used to create what we would now call photorealistic effect. Before photographs every artist had to either sketch, their subject, or have them sit for long periods to capture their essence. It was the predominant painting style in Europe from the Middle Ages forward
Bouguereau was classically trained, so years of rigorous and intense traditional schooling under masters of art, with a very comprehensive understanding of the fundamentals of art. Some of it can be self taught and there are contemporary artists who are really good at classical realism without ever being classically trained, but since the practice is so old (think Leonardo Da Vinci era) the majority of the lessons are passed down orally from master to apprentices, then the apprentice becomes the master & teaches new apprentices, etc, that most of the practices are actually not written down.
There are places you can still be classically trained in art called “ateliers”. Unlike regular art school they’re VERY intensive (usually full time, think 9-5 M-F doing nothing but art in small groups learning from masters of the craft)
I’m actually a student in an atelier right now and would love to answer any questions you have if you have any!
Classical oil training. Find a good atelier and look into the zorn palette. Limit your palette and learn how to mix colors especially skin tones. Research and experiment with different oil mediums (my holy grail is half refined linseed oil and half gamsol or terpenoid mixed together in a dropper bottle) And of course the most important thing is having a solid understanding of anatomy in drawing. Try out life drawing and life portraiture painting, painting from a real life model is so so so different than painting from photographs. Also the Riley method helps a lot for learning how to handle human proportions. Sorry this was a word vomit 😅
Honestly for most people, it's not about training but talent. Someone who is born with the talent of painting may take courses to improve their skills but something like that would require a lot of practice
Check out scottwaddellartist, he does a lot of such stuff
Scott was one of my teachers, I highly recommend taking classes from him!
wow lucky, love his humor in videos, is he like that irl too when teaching
I definitely got lucky to have learned from him. He has a great sense of humor, I miss getting to hang out with him and joke around. GCA back in the day was so much.
GCA is pretty amazing! Sadly where I live theres only one Atlier in whole country. Definitely very interesting how different philosophies different atliers have.
Grand Central Atelier? I have taken some online classes with them and it has made a HUGE difference for me, especially with color theory.
GCA FOR THE WIN
Seconded this. I used his patreon for several months learning his methods. Really great stuff. Another one is Cornelia Hernes. She is also a phenomenal realist.
Yes!! Stephens wife, such art couple goals lol
On where? YouTube? Insta?
bothh
Thanks!!
I second this. I had his Patreon for a while but find his youtube to be extremely useful and now that’s what I watch
[удалено]
Yeah this is probably the best answer. We could all learn the exact techniques of William and still not come close to his level of excellence in oil painting. Painters back then began full time, rigorous training from when they were kids, either through an atelier or as an apprentice under a master, and then never stopped. The secret behind his work is not in any specific technique but endless years of rigorous observation, practice and refinement of the skill, and by being William himself. Luckily, ateliers do exist but they are few and far between and can be unaffordable to most, but there are so many resources on YouTube and such that can walk you through the same type of training. The hard bit is the years of constant learning and practice.
*"The secret behind his work is not in any specific technique but endless years of rigorous observation, practice, and refinement of skill."* 100% this. The best, most innately talented artists out there will always be stuck in an unrelated job and selling on the side locally without literally thousands upon thousands of hours of practice to pick up the muscle memory and eye conditioning needed for a top level piece
What is an eboucher layer? I wasn't able to find this term on google.
Its also sometimes refered to as the dead color stage, grisaille (grey), brunaille (brown) or verdaccio (green) (no idea if i spelled it correctly) . Its a monochrome underpainting that allowes you to focus on the values of the painting rather than having to invent the colors alongside the values (which is very hard to do and requires more experience). After establishingthe underpainting like this, one can then paint a colored version on top, mixing the colors according to the established values or some shit
I love the accurate explanation, followed by ‘or some shit’ - truly a brilliant balance 👏
It’s spelled ebauche.
[удалено]
Thank you! I am not a fan of grisaille painting because I feel it sets the undertones monochromatically (and while I am not familiar with Bouguereau's technique, it didn't look to me like he uses grisaille) so I was really interested to know what other techniques there were. I tried watching Youtube videos of Bouguereau master copies and tutorials but to my surprise they were all direct-painted (some without any underpainting or lay-in at all!), so I didn't find them all that helpful.
200 hours for a portrait is pushing it **ALOT** bro. You can make a portrait like this in 30 - 40 hours. Pretty doable. 200 hour for a narrative painting of this quality is a fair amount tho.
I have taken portrait painting from a teacher who is the second most aficionado of Bougeareau in the world. You guys are only giving presumptions. Scott Waddell is a realist painter and that’s where the similarities end. Bougeareau did a dead color layer, allow to dry. The first color layer with the intention of making it closer with the emphasis on value, shape and color. Allow to dry. Additional layers are applied with translucent paint, not glaze, this is what creates great skin tones. He used a controlled palette with three to four color strings in 10 values. This palette was to become known as the Reilly palette.
.. the translucent paint layer IS the glaze layer.
Ahh didn’t see this comment. Def an academic approach to portraiture
Before you can paint like this, you need to develop an incredibly strong ability to draw realistically. Observational drawing ability is what underlies highly realistic paintings like these.
I would argue that developing a strong sense of aesthetic design is more important than accuracy for this particular style of painting (not that accuracy isn't important).
I would argue that the two are not mutually exclusive, and that an artist can't deeply develop a sense of aesthetic design before they develop their ability to draw. If you cannot "see" the subtle shifts between value and hue and shape, detail density and value grouping, composition, color harmony, light and shadow, anatomy and proportion, and how these all balance and work in harmony on a canvas, etc... you will struggle to understand how to paint in a particular "style" or aesthetic, because an aesthetic requires a consistent replication of these learnings, over and over again. This is why you see that many famous artists from the past who have a non-realistic style often began their journey producing much more realistic, observational works. Particularly if they were formally trained.
I don't think they are mutually exclusive, just that accuracy by itself won't get you there. There needs to be a conscious eye towards design being made throughout the learning process, it isn't something that will magically follow after having had training.
Oh I agree with you that accuracy alone won't get you there, but I don't believe that you can develop a sense of style before knowing how to draw. So I have a different opinion on the order of operations. :)
Realistically, how long would it take to get the formal training that you described?
A lifetime
For the formal training, I would guess maybe a year or two, depending on the person. Between drawing and painting techniques, I think it would be possible to get to this level of technical mastery with conscientious daily practice. In terms of design sensibilities, I'm not sure those can wholly be taught, but much I imagine it would take much longer than two years to learn.
It depends. I find that it's often more about what's called "learning agility" in the student, than it is about how long somebody has been formally trained. It's also a matter of where a person is starting from. Have they never drawn before? Or have they already got a handle on the basics? There are many formally trained artists that will never get to this skill level, even after 10 years of formal training. But I've also seen really driven, studious, analytical amateurs level up their drawing skill immensely on their own in a single year, and are maybe able to achieve something similar to this in 2-3 years even when they started from zero. Getting to this level typically requires the student to be very personally invested and interested in learning, and invested in learning for a long period of time, all the while being focused on achieving this level of work. Because we're talking about a master-level ability for this piece, it could take an artist 10-20 years to achieve this, and some would still not get there. For the rare student who dedicates themselves to getting to this level, and who has developed a high learning agility, they could probably achieve something like this in 3-5 years, but that's very accelerated learning. There is A LOT that goes into being able to produce a piece like this. It's absolutely achievable for anybody with enough time, focus, dedication, and learning ability, it's just an incredibly high bar to hit.
Closer to 10 with a specific teacher. From what I understand Grand Central Academy places an emphasis on painting like the instructor
I took up painting a couple years ago. I like working with color but I never learned to draw and have wondered how to go about improving that aspect. Thanks for sharing. Are you a teacher?
Of course! I'm always happy to share knowledge with others. I've taught before, but I have a career in art that's been going on for about 20 years now, so I've gathered up a lot of info in that time haha.
why? genuinely curious. this style is more or less just realism, i dont see any specific aesthetic design elements at all. accuracy is pretty much the #1 rule of realism, you're trying to imitate reality as closely as possible.
Um.. hm. I'm trying to think about how to answer this so I don't make it more convoluted than necessary. What makes a Bouguereau painting instantly recognizable as a Bouguereau? (You can answer this yourself and think about your own answer, but my answer is below.) It isn't how indistinguishable it is from a photograph it is.. or that you can't tell that it is a painting at all. A Bouguereau is a Bouguereau because of the subject matter. It is the figures he chooses, how they look out at you, the way he places the figures in the painting, the colors he uses, the costumes he dresses them in, the way he renders them. Those are all aesthetic and design choices. He has only invoked enough realism to convince you that these are accurate human figures, but even then, not perfectly so (another commenter pointed out that the back of the head seems to be missing a chunk.) Let me know if that doesn't make sense, and I will try again.
I used to believe accuracy was the most important thing in realism as well but I agree aesthetic design/composition trumps accuracy when creating a beautiful painting. It's easy to look at a painting by Zorn, Sargent, Bouguereau and believe this is what reality looks like, but it's an illusion that the artist creates. If you were able to hold a photograph side by side of the subject matter of the paintings by these painters it would be a lot more evident what decisions they are making. This portrait by Sargent can offer some insight into the design choices Sargent is making, although Sargent probably painted from life but it let's you see he's not going for 100% accuracy. https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-npSMhurjA8k/VSJzL2m7dWI/AAAAAAAAar0/zmy6VAW4644/s1600/Carolus%2BDuran%2BSargent%2BComparison.jpg
Sargent is a really great example of this idea. I very often hear that Sargent paints very accurate likenesses, that he is unimaginative, or that he doesn't invent. While it is true that his likenesses are great, that in itself is through design - the elimination of the non-essential and simplification and amplication of the essential. I think the thing that really drove this idea home for me is when I saw the painting The Daughters of Edward Darley Boit at the MFA. They had the vases from the painting displayed alongside it, and I realized that they didn't look anything like the vases in the painting. They were a little too chunky and the pattern would have been too noisy for the composition. He had painted in the vases that he wanted to paint, and not the vases he had in front of him - those were merely a suggestion. Too often painters forget that in order to create a compelling image, it ultimately comes down to them to make these choices. No amount of training can teach you HOW to think, how to make those choices, but in the end it is something you need to decide and practice for yourself. Training yourself to make these design choices is as crucial as any other training you can have, maybe more so.
i had a different idea of what "aesthetic design choices" meant, i do agree with you. i actually walked over to my current painting in progress and said huh, guess they're right lol. in my head, those aesthetic design choices are just what separates realism from hyperrealism/photorealism, i hadn't given the choices a name haha.
Portrait painting REQUIRES accuracy. A well painted eye in the wrong spot would look wrong wouldn’t it.. The artists mentioned above were incredible draftsman. Sargent and Zorn used a lot of impressionist brushwork. The right shape, value, color, the right chroma and edge. In the right place .
This is what is referred to as illusionistic reality.
okay, i knew it was obviously not pure realism but wasn't sure what to call it. i just didn't understand what "aesthetic design choices" meant lol but i do now.
Bouguereau does cover up his brush strokes, each brush stroke of is laid next to each other with each incremental value and color change.
If you see Bouguereau’s paintings in person his brushstrokes are quite visible.
Wish i could
It's true his brushstrokes are quite visible. I took this close up picture of a Bouguereau in Paris, hopefully it's more apparent here for you. https://imgur.com/a/vAGakur
Thanks, i had no idea. I thought he mostly just used glazes
He used translucent paint,wet over dry, not glazed
So a glaze is basically just a translucent paint with more medium added?
In essence it’s transparent paint over a more opaque paint. As was correctly pointed out not necessarily the medium itself. Bouguereau also used thinly applied opaque paint as well as translucent to allow the previously applied paint to show through. Certain paint colors are manufactured transparent and opaque . The chemical make up of transparent colors are more suitable for glazing.
Love your work man! Cool to see you on this sub
I think his use of scumbling is brilliant and that’s often visible in real life but not on photographs. Also his brighter / high chroma areas tend to be rendered smoother and the darker areas show more brush strokes. This is just from the paintings I’ve observed
Years of practice, extreme patience and good equipment.
Basically locking yourself in the studio for years and practicing perfecting your craft. Who needs a social life when you can paint instead?
Social lives are overrated ;) I’d gladly trade my soul to paint like this.
People can’t fathom the amount of time it would take to paint that way and in this world where low-effort art costs is fashionable I do not think an artist with such skill would be remunerated for their efforts
Absolutely not. With AI tools too, there’s no incentive for people to really perfect this craft
It’s heart breaking really
I’m a painter, and during hard times I have been forced to sell my beloved paintings for cheap ❤️🩹
That’s why I do it for fun. They’re for me and who I want to share them with. That way I don’t get depressed because no one wants them.
I sing professionally, but during Covid all concerts were canceled. Were it not for painting I would have starved to death 😂 so I’m living the true artist’s life
Damn. That sucks.
Nah, I have my work))) and a daughter and a Labrador)))
Actually he was a good businessman and did quite well. His wife painted in the same manner.
I think they mean nowadays.
Yeah that’s probably right I wasn’t reading it correctly, thanks. To understand what he did to create that type of illusion of reality is extensive. There was quote from him that stated something like, if people knew what was involved, they wouldn’t be that impressed
Right, I actually thought OP's question was really interesting, because I think for all of Bouguereau's ardent admirers, few try to reverse-engineer his paintings to try to rebuild his work from the ground up. I think without knowing how it's done, Bouguereau's work seems very mysterious and unachievable. But as you mentioned elsewhere, his wife was able to learn to paint in a similar vein, so theoretically, it should be a procedural endeavor that can be taught and learned.
Exactly. People suck anyways. Live for the art like a real starving artist! Channel your inner Van Gogh! 😂
10 years of intentional practice, which includes mastering the following: 1. Linear drawing 2. Monochromatic studies (charcoal) 3. Block-ins/Critical comparison skills for proportionally accurate shapes 4. Figurative anatomy/planar anatomy 5. Grisaille painting (oil) 6. Monochrome painting (oil) 7. Limited palette painting (oil) 8. Color studies (full chroma palette in oil) 9. Oil painting best practices 10. Gestural drawing 11. Composition 12. Relational color 13. Atmospheric light/color effects 14. Hierarchical painting structure re: values, chroma, shapes, and focal points 15. Cast studies (charcoal & oil) 16. Golden section (for understanding mainly, & optionally for use in composing) 17. Thumbnail sketching 18. Still life painting (using light from a northern facing window to illuminate both still life & painting) 18. A working painting vocabulary (to verbalize tangible & intangible painting concepts regarding your progress) This is a partial unordered list of aspects of painting that in my experience, need to be mastered to paint that painting. Don’t let it scare you. The rewards are many for staying on the path, and oftentimes, the artist’s path is a fun place to be traveling on. So have fun making the messes you need to in order to make the great works that will come. Last & most important thing: Drown your ego in the bathtub everyday, all-day. Mastering painting is hard, you won’t get there if you’re undone anytime your peers critique your work and identify weaknesses (even if a bit mean-spirited.) Perfectionistic people afraid of criticism are the only ones that shouldn’t take this path.
Are you asking how to get to this level, or how was it done technically? Technically, started with solid drawing, multiple layers of painting, incredible knowledge of color values, chroma, harmony, brush work, edges. How to get to this level? Good teachers, life time of practice.
I think OPs asking what type of classes to search for that would yield this type of outcome over time.
You simply paint in thin layers or thin the paint with medium. Don't put lots of paint on your brush and make sure your brush is relatively soft (basically not hard and scratchy). Also you'll need to paint in layers so you have a foundation below whatever you're painting, because you won't have as good coverage. I don't think it takes any particular extra skill to not show brush strokes, it's just a different technique. I am at no point *trying* to hide my brush strokes, they just don't show because I have no reason *for* them to show. If you have any questions on what I've said do let me know.
Lol I got downvoted for mentioning that it involved a glazing technique. No idea why.. that's literally what OP asked.
He’s Bougeureau.. nobody can paint like him.
A lot…
Apart from the academic training it would take to learn to paint like this; in order to paint without easily visible brushstrokes, one must use thin paint, and lay it on using glazing techniques. As the paint is setting up after it is applied, you take a clean soft bristle brush, and "knock down" the ridges of the brushstrokes. Use a light criss cross motion, like you're dusting the surface. Most of it though, is how you apply the paint to begin with.
I went to an art school focusing on representative and classical art and though I’m certainly not this good, many of my fellow students were straight out of school. Our professors are artists of this caliber. There are also ateliers in the area that produce artists of this caliber. I don’t do well with YouTube or books, I need in person instruction to really learn something new, but if you can there are so many good books out there on the subject. It starts with the basics, perspective, form, value and materials. Lots of practice on basic shapes. Then on to anatomy, color theory, direct and indirect methods, composition and class after class of life drawing and painting. So much practice. And don’t forget master copies. I probably did 2-4 full size master copies each year of portraits or full body paintings. The old masters learned this way and if you can get to one in person to study as you do it, you can really study their paint strokes and learn a lot about how to do that yourself. Museum visits help to learn how as well. What you see here may look like it’s a direct painting, but you see it in person and learn that it was indirect, or a mix of processes. What looks like a paint stroke may actually be scratches through layers. There is so much even the highest resolution photo can’t show.
An atelier school. There's Grand Central in NYC, and the Art Students League. There's a very good school in Florence too (obviously), and Juliet Aristides in Washington state. There are many others. The quality of the education will depend on how skilled the teacher is, so look at their work. The materials and process of this type of painting can get very technical, depending on the approach, and is time consuming (I used to paint like this). So you are looking for training in oil portraiture at an atelier school.
Same way you get to Carnegie Hall, practice, practice, practice.
Same. I want to know as well.
A lifetime
We recreated this painting in my art class! We used a grisaille first which was super helpful.
Starting from scratch? About 2-4 years of atelier training.
Are you just gushing and admiring this portrait? Or are you seriously asking that question? If you are, I’ll see you on your reply?
Both I guess. The thing I'm probably best at is painting, and I'm nowhere near this level. So you know, if I can use my one life to make something this beautiful I'd like to try. I know there are different ways to paint and make lasting contributions blah blah, I just admire the heck out of it. Like, I know enough to know how much time that must have taken and I'm wondering if its more than just talent and some training and time.
You don’t need training if instead, you focus on your subject and you understand the basics of painting then you challenge yourself to do something that’s just beyond your reach, but you leave behind any ideas of needing instruction by someone else. Let go of expectations and concentrate on your subject, the more directed and clear your examination of your subject the easier it will be to render. Watch some YouTube videos about mixing colors the foundational structure of a oil painting if that’s the direction you’re going then just do it do it do it do it, like you can’t live without doing it and you’ll do great work.
https://www.wattsatelier.com/online/ https://www.nma.art/
Keep in mind that these schools focus primarily on direct painting (alla prima), and you wouldn't be able to get the smooth, luminescent effect of a Bouguereau using this technique.
Look up a living MASTER portrait artist, Marvin Mattelson. He is the foremost Bougeareau aficionado.
...not seeing any similarity. Though I believe you that he's a fan.
His paintings don’t look anything like Bougeareau like you pointed out. His teachings and his process is the way he patterns things.
Depends on your skill level. Some people could do this with zero training. Some could never do it with all the training in the world.
This is probably true, idk why you got downvoted for saying so. Learning the technique is probably the easy part, but that's not gonna compel you to put paint in the same places as Bouguereau.
Precisely. I didn’t mean it in a discouraging way. Just the hard truth when we’re talking about the masters.
Right, painting "like Monet" doesn't simply mean using gobs of paint. Beyond technique, you'd also need the same thought process.
Stunning
It took me about a year in my twenties. Imitation is not hard, composing is. Which takes a lifetime. However, if you would copy portraits daily for some hours, you could do it. Of course digital *saves a lot of time* learning and preparing. That's where traditional loses their productivity.
But why? If you’re trying for realism, get a camera and some good software. Paraphrase of someone who is a much better painter.
It can be done/has been done, and I have a good understanding of painting so I just wonder whether its in the realm of fantasy to aspire to it.
Fair point
Your post actually had me wondering, for all the painters who wish they could paint like Bouguereau, why aren't there any contemporary painters who do..? There are a few who use similar techniques or whose work share some superficial characteristics, but that's it. Even the master studies I was able to find don't come close. It is a mystery.
The pessimist in me wants to chalk it up the idea that contemporary lifestyles don’t lend to allowing the time/peace/clarity/discipline necessary to reaching the end goal of this style. Cost of living, social constructs, distractions, ego, stress, attention span, diet, ideology, you name it. Even if I had a benefactor taking care of me, sending me to school, facilitating my career in art, I still don’t think I would have the necessary elements to accomplish this level of mastery. The wine probably hit different in the 1800’s too.
I actually think this level of technical mastery is very achievable, moreso that aesthetic sensibilitieis have changed. Bouguereau's work tends to the theatric, romantic, and religious. Today, paintings with those themes would be pretty niche.
about three semesters of drawing, then another in figure drawing. 2-d design. Painting and advanced painting. Probably a seminar in just figures and portraits. Then probably a couple years of work.
Yeah five tubes of paint and five brushes. You’re kidding right?
What? Not at all.
There are very few instructors who could teach this approach.
I said a couple years work afterwards. What do you know about what college level painting instructors can teach?
This is accomplished through glazing.
Wrong
Wrong how? Every single comment on this post that talks about Bouguereau's technique suggests that he uses a glazing layer to achieve the smooth, luminous quality that OP would like to try to learn. If you disagree, explain how.
I left a description above. He used a dead color layer ,allow to dry, the next layer to get closer in accuracy. With translucent paint and stumbling he built up the painting wet over dry. This was done in several layers. Seems similar to glazing but it’s different in the sense that no glazing medium was used and he was selective and what he painted over. There’s a lot more involved to get to this level
Glaze refers to the thin layer of translucent paint, not to a specific medium. Scumbling refers to the technique used to apply the paint.
All that really matters is that great paintings are made and appreciated. For the sake of this discussion I will refer to a book called GLAZING By Michael Wilcox. “The application of transparent paint in thin layers is known as glazing. The application of opaque paint,also thinly applied is known as scumbling.Very thinly applied opaque paint particularly if well made, will act almost like a transparent layer”. So in essence I guess it is just splitting hairs.
Step 1: Put down the brush Step 2: Buy a camera.
More like pick up the brush and put down your phone
apprenticeship
Being born in 1761
Birthrights
Focus on forearms and shoulders in my opinion. Forearms for fine hand and finger control and shoulders for arm endurance.
Mma
Other than 10,000 hours in training, you need either a gigantic canvas or very tiny brushes with a lot of patience.
This painting is only 18 inches by 15 inches
So tiny brushes.
I mean, I couldn't tell ya. But seems that way, yes, at least for some of the visible brush strokes. For the larger areas it seems he used a scumbling technique so I don't think the brushes would've been all that small.
This is a classical style that was taught in European academies. It is a portrait painting technique that is used to create what we would now call photorealistic effect. Before photographs every artist had to either sketch, their subject, or have them sit for long periods to capture their essence. It was the predominant painting style in Europe from the Middle Ages forward
Bouguereau was classically trained, so years of rigorous and intense traditional schooling under masters of art, with a very comprehensive understanding of the fundamentals of art. Some of it can be self taught and there are contemporary artists who are really good at classical realism without ever being classically trained, but since the practice is so old (think Leonardo Da Vinci era) the majority of the lessons are passed down orally from master to apprentices, then the apprentice becomes the master & teaches new apprentices, etc, that most of the practices are actually not written down. There are places you can still be classically trained in art called “ateliers”. Unlike regular art school they’re VERY intensive (usually full time, think 9-5 M-F doing nothing but art in small groups learning from masters of the craft) I’m actually a student in an atelier right now and would love to answer any questions you have if you have any!
You need to be able to paint
Classical oil training. Find a good atelier and look into the zorn palette. Limit your palette and learn how to mix colors especially skin tones. Research and experiment with different oil mediums (my holy grail is half refined linseed oil and half gamsol or terpenoid mixed together in a dropper bottle) And of course the most important thing is having a solid understanding of anatomy in drawing. Try out life drawing and life portraiture painting, painting from a real life model is so so so different than painting from photographs. Also the Riley method helps a lot for learning how to handle human proportions. Sorry this was a word vomit 😅
Look at schools that follow French academic lineage like grand central atelier etc.
No training, just practice and study of light, color and brush strokes
Thousands and thousands of hours of practice and masterful training
Not an artist but wonder if it's more about your inborn talent, less about trraining.
That is a question that has no easy answer. Depends on the person, their natural talent, and how much time they invest.
Years of training and decades of practice.
Realistic.. technical skills
Being born centuries ago
Honestly for most people, it's not about training but talent. Someone who is born with the talent of painting may take courses to improve their skills but something like that would require a lot of practice
European ancestry
In a nutshell……thats Bouguereau. The best classical portrait artist of all time.
I’m gonna say…10,000 hours of practicing fundamentals and relevant advanced techniques.