Paul Ingbretson Talks about Holbein No. 94

An assessment of the work of Holbein comparing to the artists preceding him in Northern Europe and then with Bellini. It also compares his drawings to Ingres, Degas and the Boston School.

In response to Zoran

[zoranarizanovic]

Thanks Paul for filming this I will share it with my students, especially glad you mentioned earlier master like Van Eyck. In February in Ghent, Belgium opens the biggest ever retrospective of Van Eyck!

[Princeteradeth]

Thanks so much for taking the time to shed some light here....really appreciate your video on Degas as well.

[DiamondCutter]

Referring to the Holbein portrait drawings, there isn't a single one in the collection that wasn't adulterated in one way or another by a second artist's hand over the years. Some more than others.

[edwinmoreton]

It looks very much to me that the drawings, with their flatness, distinct contours/outlines and shallow perspective, were made with an optical device such as a camera lucida.

[christophedevos]

I'm egally fascinated by the elegance of the Holbein drawings as well and apparently he took this 3 crayon technique (so I learned from a recent discussion with someone here on youtube) from the French painter Clouet. Anyway, thank you for this interesting video, the name of The Idiot is Myshkin by the way. 😊

[cathyjohnson]

Inspired me to see the show in New York

[Moesmakendehakker]

6:45 I think he painted that skull with some sort of reflection..

[evasantus]

Camels twilight? It is impossible to make out the name of the book he refers to. Anybody out there caught the title?

[danfengzhan-zqes]

hello I bought 2 Holbein sketches in New Zealand and I'm curious to know if they are authentic

[JACover-bykp]

Well, OK — thanks (as it were) for the heavy dose of (i) autobiography, along evaluative dimensions, mixed with rather to much art-historical and art-theoretical handwaving, with the crude misnomer of the ubiquitous “cutout” — only to take it back by halves (in allowing for beauty in the simplicity of the Holbeins “simple” lines [for which da Vinci, say, would have praise in terms of the mirror and verisimilitude generally]), whilst quietly suggesting that the later impressionist program was an improvement in values and color (rather than something else again, under some rubric of “what one sees”). It’s just a puzzling mix — for neophytes like myself who do not enjoy, or suffer, whatever is driving the verdicts of latter-day art-critics in their retrospective judgments. What was the point, the purpose, the aim, of all this? One would be hard pressed to say, frankly [again, from where I sit: apologies for missing whatever is excellent and revealing, here].

[EmmaFre-Haack]

Michelangelo is not Leonardo Da Vinci.:.😊

[kenboydart]

came here to hear more about Holbein, instead this gut says " I " or " my ' more often than Holbein