IN THE HANDS OF EXPERTS - PART TWO (THE PRACTICAL AND INTERESTING BIT)...REMINDER...I thought it worth mentioning again that one of the reasons I'm putting these posts up is because I think the techniques are absolutely applicable (not to say appropriate and / or authentic) techniques to be used for 'steampunk' art. I've seen some great drawings on the 2nd art thread which I think could be turned into great paintings and I've seen some great digital work which I think would be killed by the use of contemporary alla prima techniques. I think Justice could only be done to them in oil (if so desired) with these old fashioned painting techniques - I'm not trying to turn you all into neo-Victorian painters.
Having said that, if, after seeing how great they are, that's what you decide to strive for, I wouldn't be sorry!!!
QUICK RECAP...Try to identify the following elements as you look at the examples......
1. DRAWINGIs made up of..
OUTLINE + SHADING
Shaped and Guided by..
(i) OBSERVATION (copying from life/ nature etc)
(ii) MEMORY (copying from antiquity and old masters, then committing to memory)
(iii) KNOWLEDGE (canons and anatomy)
(iv) INVENTION / IMAGINATION (something added which is uniquely your own).
2. PAINTINGA METHOD consists of a painting PLAN, comprised of several STAGES, each one executed using various TECHNIQUES.
Typical painting PLAN...(i) Drawing
(ii) Transfer drawing
(iii) Fix drawing
(iv) Chiaroscuro (monochrome, light and shade underpainting - starting in the darks and working toward the lights)
(v) Glazes (transparent layers of paint)
(vi) Scumbles / Velaturas (velatura = veil, starting in the lights and working toward the darks)
(vii) Solid painting (usually in highlights, keeping shadows transparent)
(viii) Finishing details
(ix) Varnishing
KEY to my abbreviations:s/o = student of
eg: Bouguereau s/o (Picot, David) = Bouguereau was a student of Picot, who was a student of David.
whereas: Bloggs s/o (Smith + Weston) = Bloggs was a student of Smith and of Weston.
inf = influenced by (if not directly taught by. For example, Alexander Stanhope Forbes was taught by Leon Bonnat but more obviously influenced by Jules Bastien-Lepage).
(F) = France
(DK) = Denmark
(NL) = Netherlands, etc, etc.
THE PAINTINGS and PAINTERS ......1. Jacques Louis DAVID (1748-1825) (F) s/o(Francois BOUCHER).If all roads lead to Rome, then virtually all 19th century painting leads back to this man. Even if some of his students, or the students of those students started new movements, ultimately, it was the enormous influence of David which shaped 19th century painting.
The two examples I have chosen are very far from his best work and one of them has been advanced little beyond the sketch / chiaroscuro stage but David was so famous and in demand that people were prepared to pay even to have an 'unfinished' portrait by him - useful for us when looking at technique. (I've read some modern commentators on his work describe these unfinished works as 'a bold technique for their time' - twits!)

Good example of the earliest stages in the techniques so far described. The drawing has been transferred and fixed, the chiaroscuro done with verdigris leaning toward the black, then the lightest of yellow ochre glazes plus a few light scumbles and a dab of detail to the eyes - that'll be £100,000 please, thank you very much!

This one is a bit more advanced but still shows how David was a master at doing as little as was necessary - to prove you are a master! The shadow side of the face is pretty much the original verdigris glaze with which the canvas was pre-toned. The background would have been glazed darker again at a later stage. You can clearly see where the scumble ends and the shadows begin. He's used plenty of vermillion in his final stages, so that he can do the highest highlights in Naples yellow (with white) - more common on a mans skin than finishing the highlights in pink. Whichever way you do it - pink highlights on yellow or yellow highlights on pink - it is the contrast between the two that makes it look like skin. The ear is made to look more pink than the rest of the face with vermillion too.
Only the darkest shadows of the jacket were done at the chiaroscuro stage. The rest is just glazing - I doubt there's any solid paint on the jacket but there is on the collar and the waistcoat (in the highlights).
2. Baron Jean Antoine GROS (1771-1835) (F) s/o (DAVID).Great painting isn't it? It is a perfect example of what I said in one of my very first posts; the techniques themselves aren't that difficult to demonstrate but to bring them to this level of accomplishment ..... well that's a different thing entirely!
Sadly, Gros ended his life by throwing himself in the Seine. Why? By all accounts because he was depressed about Romanticism taking over from Neo-Classicism. And this, despite the fact that the romantics were still using the same techniques - as had the majority of painters in all genres for the previous 400 years!

Virtually all of Baccus's arm, the back of his neck and a lot of his torso is absolutely transparent and probably the colour of the pre-toned canvas (with a verdigris glaze). You can see echo's of this transparency in the shadows around the eyes and on Ariadne's hand pointing out to sea. The pink reflections on the underside of the breasts and arms obviously needed white with the vermillion (white usually kills transparency) but Gros has tried to keep this mixture very thin - almost the level of a glaze - so that it doesn't totally obscure and ruin the transparency of the shadows.
The drawing is so absolutely classical and Gros's knowledge and skill level so high that I doubt he needed any live models at all for this picture - maybe a hand model for Baccus's hand which is suppording the Ariadne's arm ..... naaa, I doubt even that!
(N.B. you can't see Baccus's arm at this size, so here's a smaller version....)
3. Marie-Guillemine BENOIST (1768-1826), (F), s/o(Elizabeth VIGEE LEBRUN + DAVID)
This self-portrait is another one I've chosen because it's easy to see the techniques I've described in action. The shadow side of the face is clearly transparent (with the exception of the little bit of scumbling + vermillion on the cheek).
The interesting thing about this 'self-portrait' is the lack of trueness to reality. The drawing and painting of her body is clearly a result of her classical training - almost as if she has placed her own head on the shoulders of a body drawn from an antique statue - making this painting a clever example of a portrait which has been enhanced by additional knowledge. As a result, she's produced a beautiful and elegant painting, rather than a dry, family snapshot.
THE FABRICS - were done in exactly the same way as I've described for skin - chiaroscuro (only in the darkest shadows for such light material), glazes (for the main body of the colour i.e. the local colour) and scumbles of more solid paint in the highlights.
4. Thomas COUTURE (1815-1879) (F) s/o (GROS, DAVID)I learnt a lot from this man's treatise on painting, which directly passes on the knowledge he gained from Gros and David - (once you separate out the ranting and discontent at those 'infernal romantics' :-))

Another painting where it's easy to see where the scumble ends but on this one, you can also see clearly where the scumble overlaps the chiaroscuro under-painting (the grey-green bits on the shadow side of the face). The clear, rich red area around the ear, in the corner of the eye and under the nose, I would suggest is the initial glaze which couture also uses to form most of the highlights in the hair. Because the white scumble would have 'moderated' the red under-painting into pink in the light areas, Couture has used a pale yellow (either yellow ochre and white or naples yellow) for the highest highlights to provide his skin contrasts.
To keep the brightness of the purple flowers in her hair, I would say that Couture first fixed the drawing, THEN glazed most areas in the red (or bistre leaning toward the red end of the scale) leaving the flowers free of this glaze. You just can't re-create this level of brightness and purity of colour by mixing up a light purple in solid paint and painting over the red afterwards.
5. James TISSOT (1836-1902) (F) s/o (INGRES, DAVID)Another prolific painter whose work is well worth looking up.

As this is essentially a portrait, you can see how much weight Tissot gives to 'observation' in both the drawing and the execution of the painting (look at that breastplate on the floor - pure observation!). It's more difficult to see the chiaroscuro in the face and hands in this picture, but it's still there (under the chin, the jaw line running from his ear to his collar, the far side of his nose, the back of his hand holding the cigarette). Sometimes, painters only render the deepest shadows in the chiaroscuro - particularly when they're confident enough to know that the glazes and scumbles will take care of the rest.
Look at the fabrics and try to work out which bits were glazes and which bits solid painting - Tissot's slightly more 'impressionistic' rendering of these items makes it a bit easier to tell the difference.

Just thought some of the fans of steam might like this one - also by Tissot.
6. Jules Joseph LEFEBVRE (1836 - 1911) (F) s/o (Leon Cogniet, Guerin, Regnault, Bardin)
This picture isn't typical of Lefebvre's usually more natural skin tones but I thought I'd include it because Lefebvre hasn't advanced the skin areas in this painting much beyond that of my earlier simple demonstration in acrylic (he was just a better artist than me!). You can still clearly see the outlines of the figures where the drawing has been fixed (verdigris fix by the look of it) and there isn't much by the way of chiaroscuro to speak of either, which makes me think that it was possibly an experiment or a search for a new direction. It's still a great painting and just goes to show that it doesn't always have to be hard work.
The drawing is classical, based on the 'narrowed down to perfection' principles of the academic system I mentioned in the 'part one' half of this post.
7. Alexandre CABANEL (1823-1889) (F) s/o (F.E.Picot, David)
As the 19th century progressed, many painters started extending the scumbles on skin tones further and further into the shadow areas; Cabanel was one of the earlier experimenters with these effects. On this painting, the limited area of chiaroscuro is obvious and the only significant area of shadow left transparent is the area directly under the chin.
FABRICS - look at the area of silk in the foreground. How it's done: Chiaroscuro in verdigris in the shadow areas (deepest shadows strengthened), then a glaze or two in pale purple (looks like carmine or laque garance with ultramarine to me; it's made pale by applying the paint THINLY not by mixing with white!), then the highlights painted fairly solidly in white.
8. Jean-Hippolyte FLANDRIN (1809 - 1864) (F) s/o (Ingres, David)
A masterly example of all the elements of drawing held in perfect balance (only tiny, weeny criticism is possibly that he's neglected the 'invention' element of the figure drawing). The painting shows an excellent chiaroscuro balanced with perfect glazes and scumbles - a real demonstration piece.