top of page

I am working on a series of Mastercopies, the purpose being to learn more about the "great" artists’ techniques and so, by attempting to copy these, to extend and improve my technique.  I found that in researching the original painting, I managed to also improve my knowledge of the history / story of art and how developments influenced the way in which artists worked. 

​

I initially only chose works that interested or attracted me and mainly tried to avoid the obvious “famous” paintings.   On completion of each painting, I tried to write an objective evaluation finishing with a few “note to self”. 

​

The following pages show a reproduction of the original painting in the left and my copy to the right.  Reproductions are often poor quality with dumbed down colour, overly-exagerrated colours and even distorted sizes.... but that's another story!

It is difficult to compare my colours with the original as the reproduction images vary so much. Even the size (original ratio of width to height: 1.2) vary in reproductions! My copy has a ratio of 1.28 but has an extra cm or so “made up” on the right to allow for the difference. I used a limited palette with no greens or warm blues which severely inhibited me from getting the exact colours, particularly in the greens in the foreground. It appeared to me that Cezanne painted the trees and then painted the paler background of sky and sea. He also used a thin grey line to edge the trees and houses which gives his work a style more akin to cubism than impressionism in my opinion. The sea is a riot of colours – blue, mauve, pink and green can be seen in the original. Unfortunately this differs significantly in reproductions. Similarly, some reproductions appear to show smoke coming from the chimney, which is not apparent in others. I found it difficult to distinguish the buildings from each other. Some are obvious either from their shape or from their distinct colour. Others, particularly towards the right of the painting, are almost abstract. The “path” in the foreground is frequently cropped from reproductions. This is easy to understand as it is difficult to see as part of the painting with the trees and bushes finishing abruptly on its horizontal line. I struggled with getting it anywhere near right as Cezanne’s brushstrokes appear to be horizontal, but this resulted in a speeding motorway appearance, so I softened it with some vertical strokes, although I feel that now looks a bit like a reflection!

View of L’Estaque through the trees

Paul Cezanne

Self portrait of Renoir

Renoir

I didn’t pre-draw the composition before painting and I was surprised by the accuracy I achieved. Renoir uses quite intense colours with visible brushstrokes. However, he doesn’t define the edges of faces and in some places – such as the woman’s chin – there is no clear difference in tone or hue between the sleeve of her dress and her chin. The lower left edges of her face are also soft, even against the darker tones of her hat. This seems to be the evidence of classical technique. I worked with a very limited palette – Zorn plus cerulean blue, which made it very difficult to achieve the colours correctly. He used short brushstrokes to get the texture of the man’s hat and the woman’s bonnet which is missing from my copy. However, I was pleased with the effect I achieved with the woman’s blouse, particularly on the sleeve.

Dance at Bougival

Renoir

Rembrant Self Portrait

Rembrant

I produced my copy using the same type of pencils and attempted to copy the order in which she appeared to use the pencils – Sanguine first, then the darker charcoal with final highlights. However, the tightness of my copy is significantly different from the vibrant luminous drawing that she produced. The lively loose drawing was possibly completed in a very short time and was never intended as a finished work – so copying it laboriously was not a good idea!

Portrait of Paul Scholfield

Dame Laura Knight

This was my first attempt at an oil mastercopy and probably completed with insufficient consideration of the technique used. The background is a pale yellow, but with several areas of darker and lighter tones. However, the figure stands out from the background on all sides with the black clothes providing dramatic contrast. My copy was slightly narrower and shorter and I “shortened” the hat to fit it in! (Sorry!) Manet appeared to have made large blocks of colour with subtle changes to indicate the form and I attempted to do this particularly on the lighter left side of the face. I was pleased to capture her likeness to some extent.

Portrait of Berthe Moriset with violets

Manet

Without doubt, I did not make the house wide enough! I started by painting the house and distant hills, then the trees to the right. It was only when I put in the central band of flooded trees that I could see the error in the house width. Sisley used short brushstrokes for the water which appear to be a pale warm blue base with dashes of creams, olive green and yellow ochre highlights with fewer dark brown/grey relflections. The house reflection appears to be a yellow ochre base with highlights and low lights forming the ripples. The sky is far more blended than the sea, but there are still obvious brushstrokes. Depending on the reproduction, the sky is a significantly warmer hue than I achieved with my palette. Similarly the distant hills are a deep violet/blue hue which I left as a dark grey/blue. Its almost impossible to distinguish what the central band is depicting, but in the other paintings Sisley did of this view, there is a house on the end of the band of trees.

Flood at Pont-Marly

Albert Sisley

I love the vibrant colour and the exhuberance of the original but felt that copying the whole painting at a size I could manage, would make it so reduced in size as to be a worthless exercise. So I took the main dancer and a few of the bystanders – ignoring the pink woman entirely! Initially I thought it looked like a very simple copy… how wrong can you be! The seemingly cartoonish characters are very complex with a multiltude of tones and hues. None of the colour matching was helped by the variety of copies available online; ranging from almost completely beige to an range of hot colours more reminiscent of Gaughin! I worked for a prolonged period on the shapes and colours of the composition, forcing myself to leave the brown/red/grey outlines until I was satisfied I was as close as I was going to get. I’m not unhappy with the result, but its no where near an accurate copy with the floor failing really badly!

The dancer at The Mouin Rouge

Henri Toulouse Lautrec

The unforgiving nature of silverpoint means that mistakes cannot be rectified! The most noticeable flaw is that the head of my angel is not tilted sufficiently and therefore there is more of the eyes visible. Silverpoint doesn’t permit the achievement of a black background which meant that the tones had to be significantly different to the original and even where they could be shown against a paler ground, silverpoint doesn’t allow the depth of dark tones.

Detail in Virgin on the Rocks (London version)

Leonardo da Vinci

I took part of the original painting for my copy, but even then, I ran into the problem that Degas gave no detail to the upper body of the dancers in the background. As these detracted from the section I was attempting to copy, I used a blue glaze to push them back. The “sea” in the background also caused problems in the cropped view. Getting the perspective of the dancer was difficult especially as I didn’t draw it first, but went straight in with paint. I think my dancer is seen from higher above than in the original – I extended the tutu to allow for this in her top right. Degas appears to have blended the stage floor to achieve the different tones that prevent the background in the original from being bland. However the sea in the right top corner appears to show bold brushstrokes as does the rockface that goes across the top of the painting. I found the floor colour and texture very difficult to emulate with my palette. The dancer is extremely pale and it is the use of contrast that makes her shine. Her tutu is painted in numerous shades of white which enhances its luminosity. This was difficult to copy as it could easily have become a rainbow skirt!

The Star

Degas

I made a deliberate decision to complete the mastercopy in one sitting, although some obvious errors had to be corrected in a brief second session. I also measured the size of the paper to ensure I had the correct composition/layout/ratio. The original appeared to have been painted straight onto a white background – which is visible in some areas, so I painted straight onto a piece of white paper. It appeared to me that there was little blocking, but that the paint had been applied in bold brush strokes; mixing on the palette and on the canvas. The sky has obvious brushstrokes which indicate the clouds and although I attempted this, I returned to add more tone when trying to get the parasol to show up against the sky. The palette appears quite limited with a warm blue / mauve, white with a blue hue, sand painted from yellow ochre and a muted Prussian blue sea. The woman on the right appears at first glance to be black, but in fact, her parasol is a deep green and dress is Paynes grey with some black tones. The white highlights are the cherry on the cake of the original – looking spontaneous and bold. I don’t think my copy has this same sparkle which I feel is inevitable! I also think he may have used a more opaque white as it glows far more than my Titanium white despite using it straight from the tube. The woman on the left (Camille Monet) appears slightly more sunk into her chair whereas she is more upright in mine, but other than that, I am quite pleased with the compositional copy.

Beach at Trouville

Monet

Paul Scofield

Button

Paul Scofield

Button

Paul Scofield

Button

Mastercopy Reviews. 

suebains.com

bottom of page