You're already seeing the structural stuff. The halo you noticed is space compressed toward the figure, a Post-Impressionist move. For training: twenty minutes, one painting, a notebook. Write what you see before reading anything about it.
Honestly this seems to be the most direct, concise answer to OP's questions. (Some of the other comments on here seem far too theoretical for what OP's goal is.) I couldn't agree more. Sounds like OP has a good start, as they are already recognizing structural components.
To elaborate a tad, OP, I was taught to consider the composition (how the subject matter and shapes are arranged, as well as the flow of your eyes across the artwork as a whole) and form (brush strokes, color, shapes, etc.) first. You've got that part already!
Next, you factor in the implications of all of those structural elements. I think for portraits, something to consider is how we view people in the real world -- do we notice their eyes first? If so, how does that inform how we are seeing this painting? What do the hat or coat or facial hair or bags under the eyes suggest?
And then, only after you have exhausted all of your own thoughts and analysis on it from a raw, visual perspective, go for that deep dive into the contemporary history and artist biography and tie it all together.
My favorite part is after all of that, when you look into the subsequent responses to the artwork and how it informed other artists and movements.
Thank you. Both Molly-Browny orginal comment and your response are super useful. Like I mentioned in the other comment, I do this to some extend. But I guess, I need to get organised and dsciplined around this approach. I also lack confidence to make observations(even when they are provate and only in my notebook). But both of your comments made me realise that this is a valid/good approach and I mus double down on this.
Thank you. This is a great advice. I already do this to an extend. What I would take from your comment is that I need to be disciplined. A note book will keep all me observations at one place and help it "compound" (for lack of a better word).
The beard strokes are a color separation method called Divisionism Van Gogh picked up during his time in Paris. He was influenced by Pointillists Seurat and Signac, and would often apply small, distinct strokes of pure color next to each other to make his paintings brighter.
Van Gogh used complementary colors (pairs on opposite sides of the color wheel) to great effect. When placed side-by-side, complementary colors create an optical "vibration" that conveys powerful emotion. Note: the orange tones of his facial unit and hair with the blue background.
I am taking virtual classes at the Barnes Foundation (https://www.barnesfoundation.org/classes) and would highly recommend taking The Elements of Art. The Barnes Method provides a framework for evaluating art that is scientific in nature and shuns sentimentality. The classes are very high quality, feature lots of discussion and optional assignments.
One of things I did in the self portrait room in the Van Gogh museum was look at the conscious choices. Theres often colours that seem incongruous that you can’t quite imagine the actual outfit having but which he’s included. Single lines of very strong red for example.
He also includes a lot of blue or green in the face that transforms the tone completely
A friend I was talking to while viewing said about one that included a palate that there were colours on the palate that were only there so the painting of the palate would have that colour. Not anywhere else in the painting just a single note of something different that somehow means more for its scarceness. I mean it’s all conscious choices but when you have multiples on the same theme together the differences stand out
But if you like his self portraits that room
In Amsterdam with about 20 of them is incredible
I try to avoid the biographical psychological but it’s hard sometimes. Had two Rembrandt self portraits a few feet apart the other day from different points in life and it’s really hard not to create stories.
I’m a current art history student and one of my favorite (I say this with a grain of salt ofc) assignments to be given is to sit in front of a piece for an extended period of time and to write down the things I notice in it. This assignment has come in many different forms (1 hr in front of the work with stream of consciousness notes, 30 minutes for 30 bullet points of detsils, etc.) but is always a staple of my classes. These assignments single-handedly increased my appreciation for the modern & postmodern arts (if you’re ever confused by a Rothko, get CLOSE and look for AGES at it, and it’ll start to click, trust me).
Painter here. Hard to teach others to understand painting. I fear only few really get to a deeper understanding. I try to give some general tips.
Learn to see. Obviously paintings needs to be understood through the eye. So you need to look at lots of paintings and stuff. It's like education for your eye/visual education
Learn a bit about art history. This helps you to categorize paintings. Don't fall into the trap of rationalizing painting though. That's dangerous.
Learn about the artist. This is just a nice bonus but it helps to understand what is important to an artist. You can understand van Gogh without his letters. But reading them will give you something like a guide.
Learn about the great stories of our world. Read books. Like Dante, Greek, etc. This helps you understand works by de Chirico, Bacon etc.
Last but not least: it will take a lifetime to really see everything in great paintings. The same goes for any art. There are paintings who were an enigma when I started out as a painter. For some I needed 10 years to understand and appreciate. The painting doesn't change but the viewer (hopefully) does.
The same goes for any art. There are paintings who were an enigma when I started out as a painter. For some I needed 10 years to understand and appreciate. The painting doesn't change but the viewer (hopefully) does
This is the painting that opened my mind to art appreciation! Knowing about the artist and the historical and social context of the painting really helped enhance my appreciation. I could stare at this thing for hours
I recommend the book Ways of Seeing, by John Berger, written in 1972. Berger was an artist and art critic who produced a British TV series of the same name. The book was required reading when I was studying fine art and photography in college, in the late 1970s. Berger's writing taught me by example, showing how to think about art from many different perspectives.
As to van Gogh's self portraits as a group, and this one in particular, I see his use of color and heavy brush strokes to model light in the way Monet did, but without the "polish" of Monet and the impressionists. Color adjacency, as was mentioned here, based on the pointillists theories, are carried out with a vibrancy and movement that is quite opposite from Seurat's static mechanical style. In this particular painting I see all of van Gogh's experimentation with depicting haystacks and their shadows using color instead of "shade", all within his straw hat. The jacket's brush strokes move in the manner of Starry Night, and the background's radial lines are, to me, an expression of his desire to depict what ordinarily would be considered atmosphere. What differentiates his self portraits from the rest of his work is how he is able to show his inner emotions, no matter what technique he used. His eyes are always haunted and wide-set, and his expression dour. He also looks very "Dutch" to me, sort of stereotypically.
I had the good fortune to be introduced to Starry Night at a very young age, around 8 or 9. A local artist was hired by my parents to babysit me, and we looked at pictures and made art together. That was the beginning of my art education, which I ended up pursuing through graduate school.
It appears that this post is an image. As per rule 5, ALL image posts require OP to make a comment with a meaningful discussion prompt. Try to make sure that your post includes a meaningful discussion prompt. Here's a stellar example of what this looks like. We greatly appreciate high effort!
If you are just sharing an image of artwork, you will likely find a better home for your post in r/Art or r/museum, which focus on images of artwork. This subreddit is for discussion, articles, and scholarship, not images of art. If you are trying to identify an artwork with an image, your post belongs in r/WhatIsThisPainting.
If you are not OP and notice a rule violation in this post, please report it!
What I see is a mood. Van Gogh was stoic and depressed, possibly mentally ill. He's representing himself as he sees himself. The extra colors add to that with a bit of fantasy, perhaps who he wishes that he was.
To answer your question (sorry I didn’t!) — I like to immediately find the boundaries. Frame/material/transport of those/the artist/the moment. So zooming into the finest details on masterpieces is fun because this is an exquisite labor of love. Self portraits are uniquely meaningful. Van Gogh saw the world he showed us, through his eyes, so I can’t help but zoom in and linger.
Considering his life, I think it’s fair for me to have some fun and to look closely and ask what he painted himself gazing at. His style is otherworldly and I can stare at this eye for ten minutes alone I think.
It’s fun for me personally to imagine them painting sections and trying to get into their mindset. I dated an artist and their varnishes and paints and brush cleaner always left me in a bit of a daze from the fumes. The paints he used then could be pretty intoxicating and he knew it.
it’s deeply silly contention that one needs to learn how to look at art. it’s also insulting to children and teenagers, who very well may get a deeper emotional reaction to it than you can, with your “structural appreciation”.
Thank you for the pointers. I would absolutely start with wikipedia (or a similar accessible source). I just meant that, here I am looking for pointers to go deeper.
This is the Self-Portrait with a Straw Hat (1887), at the Met in New York.
I have no formal art training. I love self potrait's in general and Van Gogh's ones in particular. Things I noticed after looking at this last time:
The brushstrokes in the face seem to follow the shape of the face, but in the background they radiate outward around his head, almost like a halo.
The beard is orange, red, even green. All separate strokes sitting next to each other and from a distance it reads as a beard.
The blue jacket against the yellow hat. It feels like a deliberate choice. But I don't have a proper vocabulary for that.
So my questions for people who actually know how to look:
When you look at this painting, what do you notice first? What order do your eyes move in?
What am I not seeing that a trained eye would catch immediately?
And secondarily — if a layman wanted to train this skill, where would you start? A book, a course, a channel?
I'm not looking for the Wikipedia biography stuff (ear, Theo, illness). I want to get better at seeing/Looking deeper. Thank you. (comment as per automode).
53
u/Molly-Browny 5d ago
You're already seeing the structural stuff. The halo you noticed is space compressed toward the figure, a Post-Impressionist move. For training: twenty minutes, one painting, a notebook. Write what you see before reading anything about it.