How to paint like Pablo Picasso (Cubism) – with Corey D’Augustine | IN THE STUDIO

How to paint like Pablo Picasso (Cubism) – with Corey D’Augustine | IN THE STUDIO

Hi, I’m Corey D’Augustine. Welcome back to In the Studio. Today, we are responding to some of the comments
from previous sections, specifically some interest in Pablo Picasso, undoubtedly one
of the most crucial artists of the 20th century. Well, we’re not going to take on our friend
Pablo directly. Instead, we’re going to explore one of the
movements that he is most closely associated with, and, of course, that’s Cubism. Really one of the watershed moments in the
20th century is 1907’s “Demoiselles d’Avignon,” we’ll take a look at that work in a moment,
launching Cubism, which gave way directly to abstraction. You may notice that we’re in a slightly different
location today. The studio at MoMA is being renovated, so
we’re actually at my house today. Welcome. But at any rate, today I’d like to explain
why Cubism happened, so not only demonstrate how to make a Cubist-type painting, but really
understand how to look at a Cubist painting. How to understand a Cubist handling of space
and the logic here since I think a lot of us can agree that Cubism is one of the more
difficult movements to understand. Part of my job here today is to unravel this
really interesting and complicated thread. So Pablo Picasso at the age of 14 painted
a painting that would be very comfortable on the walls of Museo Prado. That’s the Prado Museum in Madrid where he
essentially went to school looking at great paintings by Velazquez, by El Greco, by Zurbarán,
artists like that. But before we Picasso, Picasso, Picasso, as
almost everyone does, I wanna give a really well-deserved mention to Georges Braque, because
Braque, the French painter was really equally responsible for the innovations and the inventions
of Cubism, as we’ll see shortly. 1907, “Demoiselles d’Avignon,” a great historical
moment in the beginning of the 20th century where Picasso launches Cubism. And as we look at this painting, which is
a MoMA’s collection, notice that while certainly realism is far from what Picasso’s dealing
with here, instead he’s compressed that space. All this flat shard, it almost looks like
the picture plane is a sheet of glass that’s been shattered. If you imagine how far you could walk into
the space of this painting, well, it’s not very far. Contrast that with an old master painting,
think about “Mona Lisa,” for example, and suddenly imagine how far you could walk behind
“Mona Lisa” until you get to those mountains, months perhaps, okay? This is the space of painting that I’m talking
about here and that Picasso and Braque really shattered. But if we look down at the bottom end of this
painting, we realize why Picasso’s painting in this style. This still life down here, which maybe you
didn’t even notice at first, is in fact painted from a different perspective. What I mean by that is that when we look at
these lovely ladies, the demoiselles themselves, it’s a frontal perspective. We are looking at them. They’re looking back at us. And, in fact, that’s just like every other
painting you’ve seen in an old master gallery, the painter has one perspective. Well, Picasso here, almost as a riddle, is
saying, is asking, “Well, what would a painting look like if it had two perspectives?” And the answer is, “It looks weird,” because
none of us have an experience like this. I am seeing one thing right now, and as you’re
looking at the computer screen, you’re seeing one thing, your perspective. Well, to juxtapose two different perspectives
in this very closed aesthetic space is difficult, it’s a head scratcher, it’s a riddle. Now, as we move forward by a couple years,
“Girl with Mandolin,” also in the MoMA’s collection, we can see that there were far more than two
perspectives. Each one of these shards, if you will, count
them… I don’t know. I never did. There’s 40 or 50 something like that. Each one of these shards is painted from a
different perspective. And what I mean by that is that some of these
shards, if we move from left to right, go from a highlight to shadow, meaning that that
light source is on the left-hand side of the canvas. Other of those shards, however, go from shadow
to light, meaning that the light is on the other side. Now, this doesn’t make sense. This is not how we experience the world around
us. And we realize that Picasso’s pushing away
from realism, and he’s becoming quite cerebral. So “Girl with Mandolin,” early, analytical,
Cubist painting. Why analytical? It’s kind of chapter one of Cubism. He’s analyzing the space of this girl and
this musical instrument. So, I’ve set up a still life here. Before we take a look at the still life, I
want to show you the New York School artist Ad Reinhardt’s comic explaining essentially
what I just explained to you. If we take a look at this wonderful comic
by Reinhardt, we find ourselves at the Prado or at the Met here in New York City and here’s
the space of that painting. It’s from one perspective and we see the
illusion of depth, this great invention of the European Renaissance. If you look at a Cubist painting, however,
it’s flat and you can’t find any space behind there whatsoever. The reason why is that we’re not only looking
at this glass, this goblet, from one perspective—but we have a side view and a top view. In other words, the aerial view, looking straight
down juxtaposed together here. And that aerial view is important because
photography of course exists at this point in time, and perhaps realism is not so interesting
anymore since you’re competing with photography. Perhaps a painter’s job then becomes more
difficult, more interesting, or perhaps more cerebral. I think Picasso would agree with that. This canvas last week I stretched and primed. This is a linen canvas. You can see just because of its color here,
little brown, not the cotton duck that we worked with in some of the previous demos. And I’ve put a calcium or a chalk-based oil
ground here. Why? Well, Picasso typically worked this way. Braque typically worked this way, not always,
by the way. But you’ll notice that it’s a little bit more
translucent. It’s not a super hard, opaque white like a
lot of the more contemporary primers or gessos are. Also, this is an oil-based ground, not an
acrylic. Acrylic, of course, didn’t exist in the Cubist
era. So what I’m going to do here is just simply
begin by thinking about this still life through the lens of geometry. And a very important artist, in fact, a very
important artist to Picasso and Braque is Paul Cezanne. Cezanne in 1904 talked about thinking about
nature in terms of cones, in terms of spheres, in other words, reducing all that complexity
of our natural experience of the world through the lens of geometry. In fact, I’m going to do exactly the same
thing now. In other words, I’m going to be finding linear
aspects of some wonderfully, delicate, and non-linear shapes here. Okay. So I’ve just made a couple marks here. What I’m doing is capturing the curve of the
stool, some the lines of this drapery, this tablecloth, what have you. Now, I’m going to do something weird. Rather than continue with this drawing, I’m
going to move a little bit. I’m going to continue with the drawing here,
but now from a different perspective. Of course, everything has moved here, but
I’m going to continue seamlessly connecting the lines that I’ve already made. So, for example, when I’m standing looking
at this wine bottle from this perspective, I see a straight line, that’s the label, in
the center of the bottle. Of course, when I was over here, that straight
line coincided with the edge. So on the one hand I’ve drawn the right edge
with that curve, but since I’ve captured the center now here, I’ve sliced straight through
the center of the bottle. Now, this is all going to start to make more
sense once we start filling in these empty spaces around them. Looking down on objects, looking up at objects,
capturing as many different perspectives as the still life allows. Okay. So we’re halfway through the underdrawing
here. A couple things that you can notice here. This semi-circle I started capturing an aerial
view looking down into that wine glass for half of it. Right next to it, I was on the backside here
capturing a straight, on-frontal perspective, and there is that contour of the side. Now, if they don’t connect, and that’s fine. It’s interesting that as you move around,
of course, what you’re looking at moves around. Sometimes, in a certain perspective, something’s
in the front, and then from the reversed perspective, excuse me, of course, it’s in the back. A couple of these leaves are summarized as
triangles. That wine bottle a couple times, different
contours, different edges, etc. Now, I may add a couple more lines later,
but this is coming from all of these different areas of that tablecloth that we’re seeing
in all these interesting folds, which, of course, are rather soft, and I’ve summarized
them through very linear kind of geometry. So the next thing I’m going to do is some
shading. Now, of course, very little of this drawing
and very little of the shading is going to be evident in the finished painting, but this
is going to help me know what goes where in other words, and I can still edit freely at
this phase of the game.I’m going to reinforce some of the shadows. I see it coming on the underside of there,
some of the shadows coming off of some of these leaves. Okay. So a interesting-looking preparatory sketch
or an underdrawing. I haven’t even picked up the paintbrush yet,
but you can start to see how some of these forms are developing. And you’re getting the sense that rather than
this three-dimensional, illusionistic space that I could have created, instead of compressed
everything, I’ve taken that space and packed it into this very, very shallow and very narrow
pictorial space, very close to the picture plane. Now, it’s not exactly the same plane, because
this shading, this modeling here tells you that things are a little bit tilted. They’re a little bit rounded like the edge
of the inside of the wine glass, etc. But, of course, it doesn’t resolve, because
for your eye to really understand this rational, inhabitable, three-dimensional space, everything
needs to have the same type of shading. Instead, here everything is going every different
direction. It’s extraordinarily complex. All right. So taking a look at the palette that I’m preparing
here, you might rightly say, “Well, this is not the most beautiful palette in the world.” If you looked at some of the work we did in
the style of de Kooning in previous weeks, where there’s celebration, there’s explosion
of color at times, in here, well, there’s a black, and a brown, and a lighter brown,
and an ocher, and a kind of earthy yellow color, and kind of a dull green. And I’ll give you a couple hints of some more
vibrant colors over here, but, in fact, many of the early Cubist painters deliberately
worked with…let’s call them boring or toned-down pallets. Why? Not because they didn’t wanna make beautiful
paintings, certainly not, but because they realized that color has a space of its own. And what I mean by that, and Cezanne knew
this very well, by the way, is that hot colors, like this red, they’re very aggressively and
they push forward. Not the shading of the painting, but just
the color itself has a kind of space. Cool colors, like these blues and these grays
or some of the grays that I’m about to mix, so there’s green here, they’re calmer. They kind of are quieter in our eye. They retreat away from the picture plane. They press back into the space. In other words, they also have a kind of space. So I’m tackling Braque and Picasso “Circa,”
1910, 1911. There’s not a whole lot of color, but, as
you can see, there’s a whole lot of spatial complexity. Now, the first thing that I’m going to do
is to grab a rather large brush. I’m going to get a little bit of that murky
turpentine into my palette, and probably a good time to mention that there is not one
way to make a Cubist painting. So I’m just summarizing here, interpreting
some of these different techniques. So a little bit of murky turpentine here,
and to that I’m going to take a little bit of Naples yellow and a little bit of ocher. A little bit more of ocher. Still a little bit more of ocher. Now, because I’m working with turpentine and
not with linseed oil, the binder, the vehicle of this paint, it’s going to stay matte, and
it’s going to stain into the canvas a little bit. It’s not going to be so glossy and translucent. It’s going to be more matte and opaque. Now, I’m just going to use this to warm up
a couple areas out towards the edges of the canvas a little bit. You can see that this is going on quite thinly,
and that’s great. You can also see that it does pick up the
charcoal a little bit. One reason that I’m starting off with this
light color, you’re going to see that this painting will become quite dark. But it’s much easier in oil painting wet-in-wet,
what I’m going to be demonstrating today, to go from light to dark than it is from dark
to light. In other words, if I put a dark color in here,
I’m going to make it really dark very quickly. If I have a black paint, which I will, and
then I add some white to it or some yellow, it’s going to stay quite muddy, quite dark. So, especially for beginning painters of this
technique, working light to dark is really going to save you some heartache. Okay. So what we can see here is that the painting
is still extremely flat, and this is really the name of the game here. The shading is still doing its function, but
now there are some warmer areas which are pushing forward in space a little bit. But what I’m going to do now to start going
back to the still life, looking at the colors that I’m seeing here and then interpreting
where these different shades are going to go. And I’m going to start by… I’m going to tell you, looking at the wine
glass, which to me looks pretty gray, I’m seeing some whites in there, I’m seeing some
dark grays. But a whole lot of that is a kind of medium
or even light grey, so let’s mix up some of that. You can see I’m keeping my brushstrokes very
short, staccato, and parallel. This is a technique that Braque and Picasso
used to further reinforce the flatness, the two-dimensionality of the picture plane. He wants to draw your attention to the fact
that these are individual marks placed right on the canvas flat. We’re announcing this is an object. It’s a flat canvas with little lumps of paint
on it. Well, if this doesn’t sound very complicated,
in a sense it’s not, but it’s gloriously unsophisticated from Picasso here, who really had the more
sophisticated hand. Well, what I’m going to do around that is
just reinforce those lines now, which, of course, are just charcoal. They’re just drawing lines. I’m going to reinforce them with some black,
black paint, I should say. And a nice trick if you really want to make
straight lines with paint is to use a metal edge. So now I’m executing some of these curves
here. I’ve just switched to a smaller brush. Let’s call this the armature or the skeleton
of the painting here. We’ve reinforced those black lines and, in
fact, the grid, right? Up, down, left, right. The grid is very explicit here, so that is
the principal geometric device that I’m using to flatten all of this spatial complexity. Okay. So you can see what I’ve been doing here is
to start reinforcing some of the shading that was originally done with charcoal, darkening
them with some blacks and then some dark grey, and some of this modeling here going from
dark to light. One thing I’m noticing as I’m beginning to
get some of these tensions between the shadows and the hot spots here, you’ll notice also
that sometimes I’m using highlights in white. Other times I’m letting this kind of Naples
yellow bright color peek through, relatively bright color anyway. One thing I’m going to do here is to start
reinforcing some of these lines, some of those black lines I’ve lost. And if you look carefully at Braque and Picasso
paintings, paintings by Juan Gris and others, you’ll notice that those lines are repeated
again, and again, and again, and this is why I’m painting wet-in-wet. For example, this line here, which was a rather
delicate curved line, is now all fuzzy. Why? Because I’ve been using that chattering, kind
of staccato brush work in there, so I’m going to start reinforcing some of those lines,
darkening them, making them a little bit more crisp. I think I’m also going to add a couple more
verticals in here. So I’m going to do that, add a couple more
black lines now. I’m going to start building a couple more
of these mid-tones, these middle grays, which are nice and flexible, because I can either
lighten or deepen them as this painting develops. One thing you’ll notice as I’m painting here,
I’m keeping the directionality of the brushwork quite parallel, and, again, this reinforces
the planarity of the painting itself, the flatness in other words. You’ll also notice that as I’m starting to
do some of this rudimentary shading… I say rudimentary. This is deliberately rudimentary on the part
of these Cubists here, again, calling your attention to the bluntness, the physical presence
of the two-dimensional support here. I’m going sometime from dark to light, and
other times from light to dark. This is wet-in-wet or alla prima painting,
the same kind of technique actually that we explored in de Kooning, wet, wet, wet paint,
but now it’s very quiet. These small, little, staccato brush works
rather than these open end, cursive ones that we looked at in de Kooning’s work. I’m going to start adding a little bit more
color. Don’t get too excited. Just a little bit more color. This is an early Cubist-type painting after
all. But I’m going to start deepening some of these
yellows. I’m also going to start adding a touch of
green in the plant, a touch of red in the apple, some of the kind of peachy color of
the label of the wine bottle, as well as that nice burgundy up there at the top of the cap. All right. So, slowly, some color coming into the equation
here, maybe too much. We’ll see about that. Some of these reds are looking aggressive,
especially that spot right there. I’ve added a couple hints of the red into
the black here as I’m noticing some of the tips of the individual leaf there go to purple
or a dark red, a little bit of yellow in there also. Now, clearly, this is not realism, and there’s
not so much observation of color that I’m doing here. I’m more concerned with form, and space, and
how these things relate to each other. What I’m going to do next, again, is to start
reinforcing some of those blacks, some of those lines that have gotten a little bit
lost in some of this wet-in-wet painting, intermittently reinforcing that armature,
that grid, that framework of the composition before returning to the more elegant brushwork
between those lines. You can start to see that this composition
is tightening up. The brushwork is a little bit loose and jagged
in places. Here, this is really, to my eye, very hard
to understand what we’re looking at here. This is, in fact, one shape of that wine glass
and then another reflection that’s in it. But I forged that line a little bit here,
and I changed my mind about the colors, and the reflections are a little bit confusing
here. So that’s going to need some editing, but
what I’m basically trying to do here is knock out all of these areas of the unpainted canvas
of that ground that are peeking through. Now, around the edges, not such a concern. In fact, you’ll notice that most of my black
lines on the grid, I stop short of the edges. Now, some do go through, but a lot stop short. This is a really characteristic device of
early Cubism where they kind of fade out or get a little bit fuzzy toward the edges. Otherwise, this becomes very, very, rectilinear. In fact, an artist who took this idea and
ran with it is Piet Mondrian, someone who maybe we’ll look at in another video sometime
who took that implicit grid here and made it explicit and basically made an entire career
out of that. So what I’m going to do is go back to that
middle dark gray and start to knock out some of these areas that are a little bit ambiguous
at the moment. All right. So a nice stopping point here. Some things I like, some things I don’t. What do I like? I like how we’re starting to build some interesting
contrast between the density of forms here and some of the looseness and the space around
the still life. But the Naples yellow that I find kind of
all over the canvas, remember that was actually the very first thing that I put down over
the drawing, it’s a little bit too everywhere, meaning that this composition is kind of all
over, and I have a hard time differentiating the still life from the space around it. Now, as a matter of fact, this is exactly
the direction that Picasso and Braque pushed in a little bit later. Here I wanted to have a little bit more difference
between the space of the still life and the space around it. And as I’m looking more at it, there’s a couple
things I’m noticing. The tablecloth, if you will… First of all, I haven’t added any of the blue
color in. I’ll do that. But it’s also quite light, and these light
areas are where I knocked out the canvas with this Naples yellow. It’s the wrong color. It’s not really light enough down here, so
I’m going to start adding a lot more, you know, light grays and some grays, light blues
here. Meanwhile, as I’m looking behind the still
life, there’s a lot of empty dark space back there, so I’m going to start pushing this
a little bit further back, in other words, making a little bit more dark gray, a little
bit more black, up in this upper register of the painting. All right. So let’s do it. Actually, this is probably a good time to
shift into my clean turpentine since I’m going to start working with some lighter colors. Okay. So I’ve effectively knocked out a lot of that
Naples yellow down at the lower margin of the painting here. Now, I like that color when it’s peeking through,
but I think we agree it was a little too strong before. I’ve knocked out a lot of that. I’ve lightened up this foreground. I’m now going to do the opposite to the upper
register of the painting. I’m going to deepen this space, this kind
of empty dark space around this still life here. And, again, I’m going to knock out these Naples
yellows, but I’m going to push them back a little bit rather than pulling them forward. All right. So the space is starting to push back a little
bit at the top and come forward a little bit at the bottom like I was hoping for. However, predictably, I’ve lost the grid again,
so I’m going to go back and reinforce those lines once more. All right. Things are starting to come together nicely
here. A couple things are sticking in my eye. Again, I have a little bit too much of that
Naples yellow peeking through although one of them is the label of the wine bottle, which
is rather close to that color and lightened up a little bit. Also, the textures in here are not as refined
as what’s going on around the edges. I haven’t spent as much time on them, in other
words. So if you come in and look here, you see there’s
this nice feathery touch, right? So all these little chattery brush strokes
are quite small and vibrating up against each other. Contrast that with some rather flatly painted
areas, like this black is a little chunky in here, this red is a little bit chunky as
well. So I’m going to switch to a smaller brush
and get some of that chatter and quality back that you see in some areas, but not other
ones. By the way, this is how a lot of paintings
work, right? When you strengthen one area of the painting,
other areas that didn’t seem like they were a problem before suddenly look weak in comparison
and need to be corrected. All right. Things coming along rather nicely here, I
think. One thing you might notice here, it’s a subtle
one, but it’s an interesting game that Braque, and Picasso, and other Cubist artists used,
these lines this last time they’re not black. They’re black with a lot of amber mixed in,
so they have a little bit of kind of a dark burgundy, yeah, I got wine on the mind, I
guess, color here, which gives it a nice, you know, rhyme, if you will, with some of
the black. Just a little bit more optical into it and
a little bit more food for the eye, so to speak. What I’m going to do now is take care of the
edges a little bit. You might say, “Well, what’s wrong with the
edges? They’re so nicely painted areas, the edges.” I think so, but I think what I’d like to have
happen is really to start focusing more on the still life and less on the space around
it, both the foreground and the background. So the way I’m going to go about doing that
is literally to remove some paint from around the edges. Now, to do that I’m just going to use the
rag that I’ve been working with here. I’m going to get it a little bit damp with
turpentine, doesn’t need much, and then I’m going to start scrubbing a little bit around
the edges. Okay. So a subtle effect, but I’ve started to blur,
and blend, and weaken, and fade, etc., around the edges, which I think does focus our eyes’
attention back on the center of the work a little bit. I wanna shift gears back to the center of
the work now. I’m going to add a little bit more light,
a little bit more space, a little bit more white back into the work, and then I’m going
to add a couple blue bits. Okay. Let’s see what a little blue does. So kind of a playful idea summarizing the
kind of polka dot pattern there. Braque and Picasso, for all the seriousness
and the gravity of Cubism, all the braininess and the several qualities, they always had
a sense of humor, sticking in these little visual jokes like this, polka dots that are
totally flat where they don’t belong. Of course, if I’m trying to paint this perspectivally,
it’s going to be rolling every way, and those dots are not even dots to begin with. They’re all kind of organic shapes, anyway. But I’ve just kind of superimposed them very
childlike, very playfully over just a couple zones. Maybe I’ll add a couple more, but let me hold
that thought for now. I’m now going to reinforce the black lines
around those again. So getting pretty close to stopping point
here. Now, again, this is an oil painting. It’s nice always to work wet over dry. You know, this kinda paint is going to take
three, four days to dry, so always nice to have that extra recourse to additional painting
that oil paint affords. But some of the things that you can see that
I’ve done here are to really accentuate the center of the painting here, not only with
these design motifs, these polka dots, etc. The strongest colors we have in the painting
are towards the center, but to make it related to everything else, I’ve brought some of that
blue out and brought it just a hint of it here, and a hint of it here, a hint of it
down here. This red which you see coming from the apple
and also the orangey, you know, planter is also mirrored up here in the cover for the
cork of the wine, a little bit of the reflectance here in the glass. So it’s nice to bring these elements elsewhere
in the painting to really make the center, make the subject related to everything else
in the painting. So we have this kind of balance. We’re not really center-heavy here. The center of gravity is not really anchored
in the center, because it is distributed elsewhere. Then, again, the center does have a little
bit more density of the lines. You know, the shapes, the shards, if you will,
are much smaller, much tighter. So there is something pulling your eye down
here, which, guess what, is right in the center of the still life. I’m just putting a couple of touches on here,
you know, just to give a little bit more interest to some passages that maybe aren’t as interesting
as others here. And as you’ve definitely seen by now in this
video, this kind of painting, this kind of analytical Cubism is all about fussing, right? So it’s about looking and adjusting, etc.,
composing, but then about fussing with every little brushstroke, every little texture,
etc. So, as you saw in the beginning of this painting,
I was doing a whole lot of looking at the still life itself. As the painting grows, as it lives, you start
looking a lot more at the painting itself, what does it need, not what does the still
life need. It’s already really fulfilled its role. In fact, turning our back on the still life,
as you’ve seen me do a couple times in the video, is something that Braque and Picasso
did increasingly in 1910, 1911 as they’re moving forward towards that next huge essential
jump from analytical Cubism, as I’ve been working in the style of today, to synthetic
Cubism, where no longer is a still life even necessary to look at to actually compose one,
or better said, to create one. Interesting to note that for all the radical
painting that Braque and Picasso did, all the experiments, all the innovation of Cubism
between the two of them they never made a single abstract painting. They came this close, but they let a horde
of other painters, really their followers, many of them take that plunge into abstraction. We’ll talk about that another time.  So click on Subscribe. Make sure you don’t miss any future videos
like this, In the Studio or How to See, another great series we have here at the Museum of
Modern Art. Actually, we’re at my house, but, you know,
bear with me. Also check out our course on Coursera that’s
free and has a whole lot of information like this. So thanks again for watching. See you next time.

100 thoughts on “How to paint like Pablo Picasso (Cubism) – with Corey D’Augustine | IN THE STUDIO

  1. Tune in for a live Q&A with Corey on Wednesday, February 7 at 3:00 p.m. EST! He’ll be answering any questions you might have on artists, materials, and techniques.

  2. Great. It's a pity Braque was so overlooked relative to Picasso. Did he really look from many angles or imagine them??

  3. I’m experimenting with incorporating de Kooning techniques I have learned from you into my plein air painting. It’s reenergized my creativity. Now I’ll no doubt attempt to take some of this analytical cubism stuff too, since it now in my head. These vids are an absolute treasure and, in my opinion, indispensable for visual artists. More! More! More! (Please, and thank you.)

  4. One of the most important tenants of analytical cubism that Corey demonstrates but that I did not here him explicitly discussed and is often misunderstood is that the linear structure of the picture is left open the lines never create actual shapes, if a linear structure does become closed off in the picture the shading always crosses over the enclosed lines from shape to shape to reaffirm the flatness of the picture plane.

  5. If it weren't for this video, I'd have never even bothered what Cubism really was. I loved the video and it inspired me to experiment my own art as well. Heck, it even inspired me to read art books and find out what goes on in and out. The world is getting fucked every single day, and I'm just happy watching all the In The Studio videos, and applying a few things I found interesting in my art.

  6. i love this painting and how it grows, but in the end I dislike those blue dots. One of my techers the late Ted Goerschner would have placed some pure color spots here and there like pure cerulean and cadmium red to make it more interesting. In the end you are just a wonderful teacher.

  7. I enjoy a ton these videos, but I hadn't noticed that you look like David Schwimmer from Friends and that's awkwardly pleasing.

  8. Formalist nonsense, he hasn't even looked at Les Demoiselles, he just thinks he has. Look again!

  9. These are some of the most insightful artist videos on youtube. I love all of the MOMA videos, but these are by far the most interesting. Please continue to make more.
    I'd be fascinated to see one on Francis Bacon.

  10. Bravo!!! I’m an artist and I’m learning so much from you that I feel a deep level of gratitude towards you. Please, in the future, consider demonstrating painting like Monet. Bravissimo, this is so much needed.

  11. This is extremely calming and also educational. I had no idea how Picasso achieved the “cubism” style…and your explanation really opened that in my mind. Now it makes sense and doesn’t just seem arbitrary or random. This painting is wonderful!

  12. I also see a wolf when I look at the whole painting from a distance. Only his right eye is visible. I know that’s not the intent…but it’s what my mind created.

  13. Please +MoMA, you need to post again videos like this! They are simply the best.
    Corey D'Augustine is like the Bob Ross of Modern Art. I have learnt so much from these videos. I used to judge the modern art without knowing a thing.
    This series has to come back!

  14. This is such a good painting – one of the best from the In The Studio series. Where is your personal work available?

  15. Here is my classroom worksheet for everyone and anyone who might be interested in using this in the classroom (or flipped classroom) so that the artists are even more engaged in the video.

  16. This is an amazing series. I'm not a painter but I learn so much about art through these videos. I am thrilled to have stumbled onto it. Thank you. I would like to see programs about how Georgia O'Keefe both simplifies and romanticizes her subjects; the various styles of Picasso's work prior to cubism. Also two contemporary artists I like but don't understand — Frank Romero and Tobi Kahn.

  17. I like very much Mr D'Augustine's videos, but think he's quite off here. For what it's worth, I worked abstractly for many years, studied the Cubist approach for a year as a student with well known abstract painter, the approach in this video differs significantly from the textual evidence… and just looking closely at the works themselves. First off, the drawing while moving about the room is a bit of a myth, the shifting glance was more idea than practice, and was achieved by imagining the shifts from a basically fixed position. Second, far more important than fragmentation was achieving a rhythmical (and gestural) passage from one region of the canvas to another, those broken contours worked to either slow eye movement or quicken it. It was the effect of visual vibration overwhelming solidity that excited them, and why the Analytic phase maintained a dead palette. Third, Mr Augustine rushes into the initial painting, basically filling-in all over, when the evidence (looking at unfinished works, sketches) is that they began at center and worked their way out to the edges.

  18. Can you do Elizabeth Murray, Joan Mitchell, Alice Neel, Lee Krasner. Paula Monderson Becker, Frida Kahlo, Alma Thomas.

  19. I enjoy your knowledge as well your presence! You are convicted as well as quick to think, keep up the good work!!

  20. are you making the finished product look like the style of painting of those artists.. like how do you know how they painted it..


  22. I really love your “paint like” series. I just googled surrebral but it’s a joy to learn and also understand better what some of my favourite artists were thinking. I want to copy some styles but not cubism. Can I request the “Fauve” style and maybe Andre Derain? Thanks all the same you’re brilliant.

  23. This is amazing ! A real painting lesson both technically and theoretically. Please do more of these with any major artists! Van Gogh, Matisse?

  24. Thank you for this amazing video series! This was so inspirational and educational. I really enjoyed watching the whole series. I wish there would be more!

  25. That's fascinating; I never knew that about Cubism before. I.e. that it is based on sketching the subject in a continuum of lines from different perspectives. The demonstration is further edifying.

  26. two comments asked him to do de kooning,,,that gives you an idea of the mentality of some of the "what ever the hell they are"

  27. "CUBISM" ?? I don't think so. E for effort, F for failure. End result, no spacial integrity, no modeling, just a mass of clutter. You
    can't do Picasso, and Braque ie; 1910 cubist stills without understanding the composition is "IN MOTION" Game Over ! BYE !

  28. Amazing videos, I dont even notice the time passes by, probably because you give insights which are on point and your charism! love it 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *