I somehow ran into Paul Ingbertson’s videos:
and he seems to be referring to some neat techniques. He’s obviously a fantastically skilled painter of excellent paintings, and he’s put up a lot of videos of him answering questions from viewers. I find him quite pleasant to listen to, and I believe he is trying to articulate a way of painting that (trying my best):
Begins by mixing on the palette and putting strokes down in approximately correct spatial locations towards ensuring that the colors ‘look right’ relative to each other. He does this on what looks like white canvas vs toning it.
De emphasizes the ‘block in’ (but assumes that the painter is skilled in drawing).
Doesn’t rely on premixing.
Paying attention to the ‘visual order’.
It’s quite vague because I have a hard time trying to extract his underlying message. His method of painting seems to be quite different than what many of learn, but I’m really having a tough time extracting the underlying gist. There is no reason why I should be able to extract a great deal, painting involves a lot of concepts/thinking/things and can be very tough to verbalize.
I’m debating if it is worth continuing to listen through the videos, was wondering if anyone had any thoughts.
I listened to a podcast he did a while ago, and he’s a lot of experience behind him:-
He’s all about the strict Boston school style and ethos, which is massing in colours and refining until you reach your desired results. It’s a very free way of going about things which doesn’t rely on underdrawings (or any detailing at all until a very late stage) which is pretty impressive, and he’s very good at it.
I got the notion that he doesn’t have much time for adherents of other techniques/styles, and you might find his opinions aren’t for you unless you’re into his aesthetic 100%. Take a good look at his work first and compare it to some other guys/gals you like before you go down the rabbit hole though.
I’ll definitely give it a listen today!
I was able to listen to a number of these videos today and I have to say I really enjoyed them. For those of you not familiar with Paul Ingbretson here is a bit about him from his website:
“Paul Ingbretson is an accomplished professional artist and teacher and a leading modern day exponent of what became known as the “Boston School” of American art. His background includes several years at the Art Students League of New York with numerous of their top artists but who ultimately organized his artistic approach around the values associated with the “Boston School” as interpreted by the late R. H. Ives Gammell. Paul is equally adept and successful in painting portrait, interior, still life and landscape; teaches privately in Manchester and Haverhill, New Hampshire; and is currently president of the prestigious Guild of Boston Artists initially formed by the artists responsible for the evolution of the “Boston School” at the beginning of the 20th Century.” (http://studio.ingbretson.com/)
If you look on the hompage of his website you can see that he has a good number of these videos. Here are the ones I was able to listen to today while painting:
Paul Ingbretson Talks about Thinking and Painting #106:
Paul Ingbretson: Talks About Painting - No. 1:
(I was only able to watch half of this one…)
Paul Ingbretson Demonstrates Premixing Colors on the Palette #107:
I would have to agree with Maneesh (the OP) that Mr. Ingbertson is extremely pleasant to listen to, but yes—he drifts from topic to topic using a great deal of colloquial language that would infuriate some “professional pedants” like David Briggs and Virgil Elliot. (Not that there is anything wrong with trying to promote a shared lexicon among practitioners—as long as you are not tossing out the baby with the bathwater in your effort to do so.) However, with a little effort one can suss out what he means in many cases.—and once you figure out his usages—you’ll find that he has some very practical advice to share.
I would also like to mention that some of his terminology is built on what I thought were very useful metaphors. When he spoke of “notes” I assumed he meant a discrete color units (i.e., a particular HVC.) His strategy of first working to establish strong “notes” for context seemed to be synonymous with the “anchors” I speak of often. I speak of establishing anchors that are calibrated to the palette and speaks of establishing strong notes in a stage he called “setting up the palette.” He and I also seem to share very, very similar views on premixing, conceptual contamination, and the validity of diverse approaches to painting (although in reading Martin’s comment it sounds like he may have shared some strong criticisms elsewhere.)
Much of what I listened to seemed as thought it would be quite useful and he had some nice quotes from artists to share that can serve as the basis for some effective heuristics. I’ll try to listen to more but in the meantime—if any of you do—please let us know what you think. In addition, if you have the time–share any questions about the content here so that collectively we might be able to make the most of what these videos have to offer.
So all in all, leaning on what limited content I listened to, I would recommend checking these videos out–but be prepared to adapt your terminology a bit.
That settles it for me, I’m gonna start getting through his stuff and see if I can absorb something. Yes, your ‘anchors’ do seem to line up with his ‘notes’.
Look forward to trying to see how/if I can incorporate any of this in my next painting attempt.
Hmm I think I got that strict impression from listening to the interview on this page here:- http://skillbasedart.weebly.com/podcasts.html
Although I did watch a couple of his youtube’s around that time too (he has a LOT of content) so it could be something else ticked me off, of course I may have just got the wrong impression (pun intended).
Will be interested to hear your thoughts once you’ve had a trawl through all the Ingbretson web stuff @Maneesh_Yadav