What struck me so forcibly about Velasquez's work was the incredible sublety of his handling of edges. By this I mean internal as well as external edges and the result is a breadth of handling which has rarely been matched and I would venture to say never been surpassed. Of course I am speaking principally of his later work, the earlier pieces, especially those done before he went to Madrid, have many qualities but are of interest to the painter because they show Velasquez searching for and developing this unity of focus. Some of the early portraits contain several rather hard edges and strong, rather spotty highlights which tend cut up the picture a little and have a distracting effect. This unity is most clearly seen in the late masterpieces such as the glorious head of the Pope and the last head of Philip IV. In these every touch, (and close up the touches are surprisingly easy to read) is made with the end view in mind. The end view is that breadth and oneness which gives such a nobility to his painting, no detail is allowed to get in the way of the overall impression and this done not by smudging or fudging as with so many of his nineteenth century (and later) admirers but by a total command of his brush and a wonderfully acute awareness of the way we see.
In my own work I have slowly (very slowly!) come to realise the important lesson that Velasquez teaches us. The lesson is that the parts must be subservient to the whole. Obvious really, when we look at a friend's face, we dont check the alignment of the eyebrows or notice if one nostril is larger than the other we take in an overall visual impression. Velasquez knew and understood this fact and it is no accident that he has been called the first impressionist. The problem is that when we learn to paint portraits, staring at nostrils to check the relative size is exactly the sort of thing we do do, with the result that nostrils get painted as though they were an essential fact of the face, hard edged and emphasised, and then on we move to the lips and so on. The trick, I am getting to realise, is to glance at the nostrils, record the visual impression and then paint THAT, it may be with a couple of quick strokes of the brush, it may be with nothing, if the surrounding area is painted in a certain way or it may be with careful glazes, the technique is not the thing that matters it is always the result that counts.
Apparantly Sargents' master Carolus-Duran used to say to his pupils "think always of Velasquez" and it was this breadth of handling that I am sure was foremost in his mind. It was certainly the thing that Sargent took to heart along with Velasquez's skill in handling values. Nowadays value (or tone) of a picture is not much regarded, colour (ie hue) is considered the thing and painters are lauded as "good colourists" if they splash bright cadmiums and pthalos unmixed onto their canvas. Bright colour is confused with good colour as if nature gave us nothing but raw primaries. Velasquez of course having only colours provided by nature, couldn't have made such a mistake even if he hadn't been blessed with an innate good taste and understanding of value. Nonetheless it is his use of value which marks him out even amongst his contemporaries who worked with the same restricted (by our standards) palette. His head of Pope Innocent for example looks almost as good in black and white and this tells us that Velasquez was thoroughly in control of his values, both to describe form and as part of the overall design.
In summary then a great painter and one who provides anyone who cares to look with a mutitude of painting lessons. I have never been too keen on expecting painters to be paragons of philosphical wisdom, no doubt there is sensitivity and affection even in Velasquez's many portraits of Phlip IV, there is certainly a penetreting gaze. But can we say with any certainty that we "know" Philip because of Velasquez?, do we learn anything of his character? I think not, neither do I think we should judge a portrait primarily in those terms. Any opinions on Velasquez's 'insight' can only remain hypothetical whereas his skill at manipulating paint on canvas is a matter of record, it is there for all those that have eyes to see to see and for all painters to profit from.
