I recently asked how John Singer Sargent managed to capture the incredible sense of luminosity of the tent in A Tent in the Rockies. I’ve seen the painting in person; trust me, the interior of the tent looks even more luminous in the painting than it does in the web reproduction above.
Karl made two excellent comments about what’s going on, one dealing with contrast of chromaticity and one based on the viewer’s inferences about the tent material. I think those two comments are on the right track, but I also think there’s something else going on – I think Sargent is taking advantage of some quirky properties of the human visual system.
Check out this web page: http://web.mit.edu/persci/gaz/; if you don’t get the pop-up window (I didn’t) click on the ‘click here’ link as directed. Run the little animated demos, which are all about the sort of effect I thinking Sargent is using to good advantage. These demos (and the embedded explanations) are a fascinating exploration of some of the properties of our visual system.
It looks to me like Sargent has cleverly chosen the composition of this work to be similar to the ‘simultaneous contrast’ illusion – the bright, translucent area of the tent is cunningly surrounded by a region of darker ‘shaded’ canvas, so that the central portion seems even brighter.
I’ve found my minimal understanding of some of these effects to be useful when I’m adjusting a photo to be printed. I’d imagine they’d be similarly useful to any visual artist who has to contend with trying to eke out an expanded sense of brightness or darkness from a medium with fairly limited brightness range. Does the painting world know about this stuff and use it on an everyday basis?
Hi Paul, John Singer Sargent is someone I have been studying for years,(though there is scant information available on his actual technique, (his student’s notes are best for that), the best source on his life is “His Portrait” by Stanley Olsen). I can say I know exactly what he was doing to achieve this effect with colors (though I struggle to do the same with my human limitations and too few years at the practice), it is the same topic discussed with Gautam’s piece; the SUBTLE use of warm and cool colors.
The problem in trying to achieve this effect in one’s own works is directly related in one’s abilities to “see” and “mix” these most delicate colors to achieve this effect (anyone can look at a finished work and find greatness or flaws, but it takes a real “master” to make a work at this level to begin with). “Book learning” will only put you on the right track, many artists have lived and died trying to achieve what Sargent achieved; never underestimate what made this man great,(he was great on so many levels).
Interestingly, their is a level of memory used in his process of hitting these unique color notes, (he described colors as “claret soaked plum”, “light lilac blue”, crushed raison, etc.), by associating actual things in nature as a reference, over years of practice he began to learn the subtle effects of color, how to create it in his paintings, and when and where to use them,(every artist “sees” color differently, every color “is different” in relation to the color next to it; so if you get one color right and the other color wrong, you have blown the whole effect). It does help to read Itten, Chevreuil, and Goethe on color as well. Remember, this is a masterpiece, he had plenty of “duds” as well (he dedicated much more time to his watercolors later in his life, once he gave up “pawtraiture” as he used to say). Sargent worked hard to achieve his “look”, he even painted Ms. Hammersley’s head 16 times to get it right, some folks even took out advertisments in the newspapers to let everyone know how he ruined their face in a portrait. Ah yes, the great Sargent! This should be said also, Sargent studied the works of Franz Hals, and Diego Velesquez religiously, literally doing copies of these men’s works. I would say do the same with histories masters; study them! They are filled with this sort of greatness, once one becomes aware of color as a master artist is, art becomes a differnt thing altogether, (art becomes the vehicle in which to share your color knowledge).
I just had a footnote to add to this statement, “Does the painting world know about this stuff, and use it on an everyday basis?”
Only those who achieve a certain level of awareness in their work become aware of it, (then the effort of trying to capture it begins), and thus, becoming able to grasp the subleties of this real nuance with deft and virtuosity. It is like learning a foriegn language, then being confronted with humour (one will not notice the difference at first, and will be overwhelmed at putting their finger on it). One must be well versed in the basics before being able to grasp at the greater fineries of color; if someone just naturally “gets it” as a beginner, they automatically qualify as “genius” in my book. In fact, of all the work we see out there, most of it suffers from this exact lack of understanding and skill (go on…take a look), it seems to be the last great skill to gain and the most hard won; for sure! Drawing is of course the first.
There is perhaps nothing more humiliating for an artist that knows all of these things, yet still cannot attain it consistantly in their own work (me). I long for the day when it becomes so second nature that it shows up in one piece after the next. At least, being aware of “it” is a start. Great post Paul.
Nice post Paul. I checked out that web page too. Very cool.
Like Jon, I’m a Sargent fan. I’ve never seen this one in real life, but I sure have gotten a little dizzy many times looking at various Sargents in various places.
I’m not sure how to insert images into comments, but I copied the above jpg converted it to grayscale bumped up the contrast using curves just a tiny touch. I wanted to put the black and white image in this comment but didn’t figure out how, so here’s a link to a grayscale version.
The luminosity in the grayscale image is not lost — demonstrating that the effect is basically tonal rather than hue centered, but it is certainly not as effective — demonstrating Sargent’s skill at using hue to achieve that extra punch it takes to put something over the top.
Student’s would do well to consider the tone before the hue, however.
BTW I use the ancient, beautiful, musical word “tone” instead of the modern, ugly, ambiguous word “value” when I’m describing grayscale phenomena. Munsell used “hue, value, and chroma” to define “color.” I’m using hue — position on the spectrum, tone — degree of light or dark, and saturation — purity of hue.
So we have here yellows in the upper tones, and these hold saturation when diluted (unlike blues). This, combined with Sargent’s use of subtle grays based on burnt sienna and ultramarine in the shadows provides the complementary scheme punch to get that extra edge not present in the grayscale. You will see those hints of blue peeking through in all these little spots all through the background, but he avoids this in the tent. My guess is that he layed in the base colors using yellow and siennas in the tent and blues (very lightly) in the shadows, then progressively added the darker colors until the thing popped.You can see where he put some of the green (and therefore blue) in the tent, and this was obviously some of his last touches. That serves to integrate the whole thing.
Cheers
Hi Rex, Your comment, “Student’s would do well to consider the tone before the hue, however.” Brilliant!
A great point, learn to see in monchrome then start adding color, this is a great way to learn quickly which is the darkest dark and which is the lightest light, then one might decide what actual “colors” would do best in there respective “tone” positions.
Paul interesting post. I’m most intrigued by your final question (
Does the painting world know about this stuff and use it on an everyday basis?) and Jon’s reply. I’d love to hear how other artists would answer this question..
I know I do not think about these things while in the process of making my art. My work is abstract and all of my colors have to be created before I start – there is no simple/fast way to create new colors while in process [short of another full day dyeing session, which requires warm weather for good results]. So probably not how most of you work as you can tweak your colors as you go. I think a fair number here are doing representational work, which is a different thing, although I think there are similar concerns about how colors react to one another.
For me this type of thinking is very left brain and analytical “I need to place this color next to that one and then X will happen if I also do Y and Z”. But I find that my best work is made if I can shut off that part of my brain and just go with what feels right and not stress each small step. I’m not sure I can fathom adding this type of thinking to my process because I always start questioning and doubting what I’m doing when I slow down and let the left brain have a say and next thing I know the work is crap.
Now this is not to say I don’t go back and evaluate and analyze and try to learn from what I did. I write notes about what I think works and fails and what I want to improve on in future work. But I don’t read these notes and use them as a recipe. I feel that I absorb these things and it is with a lot of practice and repetition that I get better. Not because I’m analyzing each step during the process
So now of course I’m thinking – oh no – I should be more analytical about what I’m doing? I sound like a flaky artist.
But I know that’s silly because I think what I’m doing works for me and I’m happy with my process and I’m not looking to change it. But it does make me wonder how others approach this type of thing.
Hi Lisa, First, I went to your site and saw your quilts; make no mistake, you are making art (functional art)! Just a note about color and textiles. You may know the mosaic artists of ancient times also did not mix their own color (as in paint), they did however, choose different tones and values of broken glass to achieve the same end (they had to work with what they had even so); as you could do with your quilts by selecting different fabrics from the start of a project, within a certain color range. Remember the mission of the Bauhaus School; to bring color awareness to the different textile industries, so they would in turn make fabrics and textiles with the aim of bringing art and beauty into the industrial manufacturing side of mankind. “Color” is an entire branch of study, within the “art” arena. All of us as artists in many diverse fields, can all benefit from at least being a little aware of the power color. Usually, when we don’t like something in art, it is something wrong with the color; as opposed to line, form, composition, etc.
Simultaneous contrast is one of the basic tenets of Josef Albers’ approach to teaching color theory. There are a lot of great exercises and explanations dealing with it in his book The Interaction of Color
Nice to see the Adelson paper. This is one of the things I had in mind when I said that scientists are interested in these issues. Adelson was on my Ph.D. committee. Great guy.
I’m reprinting my earlier comments from 23 October about this painting below . . .
Paul,
Part of the key to the luminosity in A Tent in the Rockies is the contrast of chromaticity. Inside the tent you see the light through the cloth, it has a warmth because of that. Outside, you have the harsh white reflections, and the cool shadows. If you look at the picture and cover the interior of the tent, then there is nothing special going on. If you cover everything except the interior of the tent, there is also nothing special going on. It is the contrast of the exterior, with the cool white sunlight (and cool bluish shadows lit from the blue sky) against the warm lighting system of the interior.
Now having said this, I then put the picture into grayscale. Some of the power of the image is lost, but not all. The brightness of the cloth, seen from inside, still has a lot of power in itself, aside from the color issues. Outside, we can see the tent is not transparent. But inside we see the effect of a light source that is so strong, it lets light pass through. This causes us to infer a powerful light source, and hence the “feeling” of luminance, of a bright day. So the power of the picture has something also to do with the way it manipulates the perception of the properties of the cloth.
Transparency and translucency are topics of great interest to visual psycho-physicists. It is amazing how much the visual system is able to infer from sparse cues. I hope we can get one of these scientists to show some work here.
Are we allowed to critique this painting also? Jon mentioned the importance of convincing foliage texture in a previous critique. Sargent does not do very well on this score here. I didn’t notice this before, but those pine trees bother me.
As I seem to be into collecting old saws at the moment….there is another one along the lines that tone and shape trump colour every time.
Picking up on Karl’s point about the trees. I find them less bothersome in the grayscale rendering. I think I find the colour in the trunks the least convincing.
Paul, those demo movies are great. I’ve picked out the White’s illusion as potentially really significant for printing, but there is more there than I can digest today.
I’ve also found out how to embed flash movies into WordPress if anybody is interested. A simple plugin here shown in action here.
Colin,
How neat. I should have stayed in science!
Wait, we can do that stuff too!
I asked Robert Shapely of NYU’s Center for Neural Science to comment on the Tent in The Rockies painting. He agreed to let me post his email here, but to point out that he has not seen the painting itself in the museum, (as Paul has).
Sargent is working with “color compliments” here. Think about it… the tent material in the “warm” is yellow, and the shadow cools are a very light “purple”. Even their proportions are important for the effect he achieved. Sargent appreciated the work of Monet and other impressionists, due to their use of color in this way, it is what he gained from them; as opposed to his teacher Carolus Duran.
Great demos, thank you Paul. I’m sure you’re right about playing on perceptual tendencies of the vision system. As the demos make clear, and Karl knows better than anyone, analysis of the scene at a fairly high cognitive level influence the final interpretation. I think this was the point (correct me if I’m wrong) of Shapely’s comment on the shadows cast by the tent; the three-dimensionality of our mental model plays a big role in our perception. His final point about how the painter conveys the sunlit/shadowed parts of the tent is answered well by Karl’s original remarks about warm/cool color contrast. Adding to this, it was fascinating to read Jon’s post about the details of color that Sargent worked out.
Let me try to put things slightly differently, and see if this makes sense. The back of the tent will appear luminous if it’s significantly brighter than the rest of the tent and we’re induced to accept the tent as a white in color or nearly so. To help with “anchoring” the tent color on white, the very dark woods and shadow are quite important. Actually, you can enhance the luminosity effect by providing a darker border around the image (though interestingly full black doesn’t seem optimal to me). It also helps to have the dark surround more at the edge of the field of view, which probably explains part of the stronger effect of viewing the original painting (close up). Again, I think high-level cognition comes into play in that we know it’s not likely that the back panel of the tent is cloth of a different color or density.
Robert Shapley,
You said,
“To respond fully I think it would be necessary to see the painting itself.”
Why? The internet image is sufficiently good. If the painting were lost, this would would be all we could talk about. A neuroscientist recording brain activity works from collected data. The internet photo of the Sargent painting is acceptable data for our discussion.
You said,
“And why does the physical contrast reach such high values?–not because the surface material has different color paint, but because the 3-d structure of the tent causes shadows in the (simulated) bright sunlight.”
Robert,
look at a gray scale version of the image. It shows that the color must be adding something functional in the painting. The grayscale image gives a different impression entirely.
I’m in the (apparently unique) postion of having seen both the original painting and various reproductions.
I’ve seen reproductions which show the effect (like this one), and also some in books which show the effect very little. None of the reproductions seem to have anything like the intensity of effect that the original painting had – I was overwhelmed by the impression that that patch of the painting was actually emitting more like than was falling on it.
That makes me think the effect depends on having the values and hues exactly right. Because of that, I think that I disagree with Karl – I think we’re at a disadvantage because we’re not standing in a museum, in front of the original painting. Subtle changes in values and hues seem to make a pretty bit difference.
Perhaps that might be a useful clue to what’s happening, here.
Paul,
Let me clarify. Obviously, it would be great both for the discussion and for appreciation of the painting if we were all together in the museum right now. And wouldn’t that be fun! My point is this: given that we have a pretty good internet image, we should do what we can with it. Scientists face this problem all the time. They collect some data, and in the process they learn how to collect the data better (more accurate data, less noise, etc). Should they do more experiments, or analyze the data they have already? It is best to analyze all data. It is best to do perfect experiments. But both activities take time. There needs to be a trade-off.
It is good to keep in mind that we all see the image differently on our various computers. But we seem to agree on certain points: the picture has an impressive luminosity effect. That means the digital image is good enough for our inquiry, at least to begin with.
This from Edward Adelson, via email:
Edward,
You wrote “A painter like Sargent ‘knows’ more about the appearance of light than scientists do. Unfortunately, this knowledge tends not to be explicit.” You hit here on one key purpose of Art & Perception, to help artists (of all kinds) discover their implicit knowledge, so that they can use it more effectively and share it with others. This is one reason why a dialogue with vision scientists is so helpful to us. Thanks for your comment.
I saw this painting at a John Singer Sargent exhibit at the Seattle Art Museum. It stood out from the others in that it wasn’t a portrait of someone, but also in the luminosity described in the other posts. It IS definitely even more so in the flesh. Not really having seen an exhibit of early American paintings before, this particular work absolutely enchanted me and I find myself looking for more information about it from time to time. I really enjoy the range of color in the support poles – birch I think. They remind me of trees in my back yard when I was growing up… peeling the layers off like an onion. Love this painting. Thanks!
Kristi,
Thanks for the eyewitness report on the painting. I am eager to see the real artwork!
Kristi,
Thanks for adding to this discussion. It may be becoming a bit of a resource — I don’t know where else you can find similar content on the web (if you do, please add a link in a comment!). Depending on the exact search (e.g. Sargent tent in the rockies), this page comes up 1, 2, or 3 on Google.
Steve,
I replicated your search result with the Tent in the Rockies. However, Google searches can be affected by previous searches. The results might be different on a different computer/user combination.
Perhaps we should revisit this topic of the Tent in the Rockies. There is a lot of analysis in the comments here, and analysis left undone or not published on the site (e.g., the grayscale image, only in a link).
Interested in doing an update, or a whole new interpretation? Paul Butzi brought this to our attention in the first place. I wonder if he would care to continue the analysis as well. With a discussion like this, different viewpoints are vitial.
I would more than welcome a revisit by Paul or anyone else. As the archives grow, and especially as topics are re-visited, the accumulation of content can certainly become potentially valuable to people on the web. The problem is that organizing and condensing that can be a significant task. That can be eased, and to some extent made less necessary, if there are excellent search tools for the site, so that good information on a topic is readily identified across posts and comments. Anyone with ideas on any of this, please comment here!
Steve,Kristi, Karl, and all,
Revisiting this post has been most interesting — thank you for adding to the comments and getting me back here.
Steve, I’m trying to think how this could apply to our little exercise on
There is not much “high level” (as Edward Adelson would put it) cognition in Mountains of the Mind, although there may be some for some viewers, given the title. And of course there is for me. But there should be a good deal of low level light/value play. Can anyone analyze it further in the same terms as the Sargent is analyzed here.