Ep 13. Three iconic watercolour paintings that inspired the world with lasting impact.

Why are there so few, if any, iconic or standout watercolour artworks in the history of art? Or am I wrong? Let's see. Oil. Oil. Oil. Mixed media. Mixed media. Acrylics. Acrylics. Oil. Mixed media. Oh, and spray paint. So where are the watercolour paintings? Today I want to challenge my own and what I believe is a commonly held assumption that the art world's most iconic art has never or at least rarely been created in watercolour. So in this video, I went on a hunt for the art world's most iconic watercolour paintings. And at the end of this video, I think we'll prove something surprising. And maybe I'll even prove myself wrong. Let's dive in. Hello and welcome to How to Create an Icon and Make a Deeper Creative Den, the show where we explore and get inspired by artists, designers and creative works that have managed to have a deeper impact than the rest and have become timeless visual icons that shape and sometimes even change our world. I'm Matt and I'll be your host. Look, I'm not trying to be controversial for the sake of it. No. Today's topic really started when an artist friend of mine asked if I could make a video about watercolour since his sister had started painting in this great medium. Anyway, it made me think how can I make a video about watercolour when this channel is about the icons of the art world? But then I thought perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe there are some iconic watercolours out there and maybe I just don't know about them. Let's right up to bat just establish that I'm not suggesting that watercolour somehow is a lesser medium. No. And although most of us are introduced to watercolours as usually the first paints we use, perhaps it's that Christmas gift from grandma or we use them as kids in school or kindergarten. This of course does not mean that watercolours themselves are somehow lesser or just for beginners or hobbyists. No. Watercolours in many ways are the most advanced fine art medium of all. Most of us have probably experienced firsthand how incredibly unforgiving they can be either because we can't handle wet and wet techniques so it ends up running all over the place or because they're so fast drying that there's no way of altering anything. Now the truth is to master watercolour fully requires a huge degree of skill and practice. No doubt about that. So no it's not the skill of the artist I'm talking about in this video. We know there are lots of incredibly well-known artists that painted amazing watercolours and yet these paintings rarely represent their most significant works. The stuff they're really famous for. And that's the bit I'm questioning. Why are there so few iconic watercolours in the museums and galleries? Could it be a question of scale? Watercolours tend to be smaller. Or is it fragility of the paper versus canvas? I know museums have to rotate watercolours on show because of the fragility on paper. Or could it be that because watercolours are easy to transport and so quick to dry that they've traditionally often been used as an ideal medium for travel and sketching? Or to make quick inexpensive studies where the artist works things out, you know, kind of what you paint before you paint the real painting with oil on canvas? Or is it sort of a snobbery in the art establishment? The fact that watercolours were often used for scientific documentation and later in illustration perhaps created a distinction between what we'd call today commercial images and proper fine art. And thus in the art establishment eyes watercolours became a bit of an underdog. To find out and hopefully prove myself wrong I asked Google to find me three of the most iconic watercolour paintings in western art history. Let's have a look. Google tells us to start with Turner and his watercolour the Blue Reedy. This is interesting because at the time Turner was an artist watercolours did have somewhat of a poor cousin's reputation. And if you don't believe me it's actually quite well documented. You see in 1804 a group of really really angry watercolour painters got together in the Stratford Coffee House in Oxford Street, London. And in this meeting there were about 10 of them. And they were fuming at the Royal Academy of Art whose yearly exhibitions much favoured oils over watercolours. In fact watercolours were so looked down upon by the academy that they were often hung in the library and other places away from the other exhibited artworks. Meanwhile oil paintings were always heroed in the best places. This angry meeting resulted in a group forming a society that exists still to this day and now they're known as the Royal Watercolour Society. And to this day they put on shows to promote watercolour painting. So it is true that some people at some times in history did consider watercolours somewhat of an underdog. But even though this is the cultural climate Turner finds himself painting in. Interestingly he doesn't care because he doesn't see watercolours as lesser than oils. Even when the Royal Academy did. Instead Turner sees the heroic potential. Potential for light. And this helps explain why Turner was such a very prolific watercolourist. Apparently for every oil he painted he'd paint four watercolours. It's also true to say of course that Turner especially since he travelled a lot would have appreciated the practical aspects of watercolours such as portability, the ability to dry quickly and so on. But really it's the potential of the medium that he sees. The potential to achieve that free undetailed style he's so known for. Let's have a look. Painted in 1842 this piece shows the sunrise over Mount Rigi as seen from Lake Lucerne in the Swiss Alps. It feels delicate. Almost fleeting. Perfect for the romantic era we're in. In Turner's hands the nature of watercolours become not a limitation but a strength. These soft washes create atmospheric light that he might not have been able to create in oil. The transparency give the sky a glowing almost spiritual quality. And the entire image feels like it's dissolving. Sort of melting into light. And to a large degree it's the watercolours that allow for that wonderful mood. Now compare that to Turner's oil paintings from the same period. The oils are more dramatic. They feel heavier don't they? More monumental somehow. And they're great but the blue rig is immersive in a completely different way. Now let's not forget that during the romantic era the main purpose of a painting was to evoke an emotional response in the viewer. And for Turner, the master of life, these thin coloured washes was ideal to recreate nature's own spectacles in a sort of turbocharged way. And I think it was Constable that tried to cut Turner down by calling his style coloured mist. Now Constable of course was a man of detail so he disapproved of Turner's misty style. But if coloured mist is what we need to bring out our emotions in the romantic era then what better medium than watercolour? Because what is watercolour if not coloured mist compressed into a little block just waiting for water and a soft brush to bring it to life? So most of us agree I'm sure this is a great painting but can we say that it's truly significant? Does it have that broad public appeal that the greatest art pieces of all time have? And what did it do for Turner himself as an artist? Well it turned out that the blue rig was so loved by the British public that when a private buyer abroad almost I think bought it for 5.8 million in 2006 I think, the UK government put a temporary export ban in place to stop it from leaving the country and to give Tate Britain and the Art Fund time to raise I think it ended up being 4.95 million to buy it the year after. But the thing is these massive amounts was raised by the public most from individual £5 donations meaning hundreds of thousands of Brits cared enough to put their hand in a skyrocket to fish out the Lady Godiva. And for those not quite up on their cockney rhyming slang that means they reached into their pocket to fish out a £5 note. Now that to me proves the broad appeal of this painting. And for Turner it is a defining piece of work. So humbly I admit defeat in round one, watercolour significance one, my assumption nil. Next up John Singer Sargent. Now most people know Sargent for his oil paintings, incredibly polished, often featuring the lead, technically absolutely brilliant. But then we have this Gondolier Siesta from around 1904. It's a watercolour that shows a Gondolier resting in Venice. And it's completely different from his usual stuff. It's loose, very immediate, it's effortless. Whereas oil paintings usually feel a bit more controlled and formal, this feels so much more spontaneous doesn't it? But here's the thing, this isn't just a casual sketch. This is a finished artwork. And Sargent's watercolours were apparently hugely celebrated in his lifetime, exhibited internationally and collected with great passion. And like with his oils, admired for their technical brilliance, apparently many critics argue his watercolours are more modern than his oils. Why? Because they capture amazing light and this snapshot movement and a momentary experience in a way that feels closer to photography somehow. No one would argue against Sargent's mastery of oils, he is technically so gifted, but his oils do feel part of their time era. Whereas his watercolours do, at least to me, feel more timeless. And for that reason, perhaps to some feel more relevant to them. So again, the question is this less iconic because it's watercolour, or is it more significant because of what the watercolour allows it to do? And when I read that the Gondolier that was estimated at $2.3 million at Christie's auction last year, then I realized there are indeed highly significant and passionately collected watercolours out there. Not because I think art is all about money. No, that's not what makes it significant. But the fact that the public care about it does. So that's another round loss for me and the heroic status of watercolour up one notch. Okay, now I hear some critics say, but watercolours are suited to landscapes and seascapes and small figurative paintings. Surely they have no role to play in modernist or even abstract art. Well, the third and final artist is Vasily Kandinsky, one of the pioneers of abstract art. And he loved using watercolour. In previous videos, we've discussed automatism, but Kandinsky had his own sort of earlier version of this. He called these paintings his compositions. And it was a way of painting inspired by his wish to emulate the emotional and abstract power of music, as well as the power of beauty of the inner spirit. And because of this, he aimed for absolute abstraction where bold colours would be used as a psychological tool. Now let's look at one of his most significant works, first abstract watercolour. It's created around 1910. And it's often considered one of the very, very first fully abstract artworks in Western art. And it's not in oil. It is in fact, a watercolour. So let's consider that for a moment. A watercolour helped launch abstraction in art. So why watercolour? Because watercolours allowed Kandinsky to capture immediate emotional reactions. Perfect to deliver on that idea of his of compositions without the more laborious and slow process of oil painting. He also really liked the luminous effects achieved by layers and layers of paint and white paper, which then enhanced his vision of colour as a form of energy or an inner sound. Watercolours for him also enabled a more structureless, ethereal and dreamlike quality. And so these paints then allowed Kandinsky to break away from representation and fully move in to abstraction. Again, watercolour wasn't a limitation here. It was the perfect tool. Compare this to his later oil paintings, which are more structured. This feels raw, experimental and revolutionary, as indeed it was. And that's precisely why it's iconic. So round three goes to watercolour as well. But let's go back to the original question. Why are there so few iconic watercolours in museums? And now perhaps we can see the problem. It's not that they don't exist. But it is probably that they are displayed less often. They are physically smaller. And maybe even in a way, we've been trained to overlook them. So the real answer is my starting assumption was wrong. Watercolours can be and sometimes are iconic, not despite their medium, but interestingly, often because of it. And in just three examples, we've seen watercolour arrive like the cavalry just at the right moment to heroically save the day. And so maybe the question shouldn't be why are there so few iconic watercolours? Maybe it should be how can you use watercolours in your development as an artist? Because I think the biggest revelation in this video is that none of these artists we've covered used watercolours exclusively. No, but nor did they use them as just a study or sketch medium. No, their watercolours in many ways represent the pinnacle of their achievements. Turner's atmospheric mastery of light, Sargent's immediate and most fluid brushwork, Kandinsky's move into complete abstraction. And so there's absolutely nothing underdog about any of these art achievements. And so the next time you're in a museum or gallery, don't skip the watercolours. They just might show the very best of an artist. Do you see yourself as a watercolourist, or an oil painter, or an acrylics painter, or this or that? Then perhaps it's time to let go of these self-imposed labels. Perhaps it's time to just be a painter, or an artist, or a creative. And by moving through all the mediums, find your true sweet spot. Find that thing that is the true you. The thing that perhaps one day will become the pinnacle of your art, and as a consequence, your artistic deep dent. I hope you found this video inspiring. If you did, please hit subscribe and like. If you do, it means I'll make more videos that hopefully can help you be a more inspired artist and creative. Thanks so much for listening, and I'll see you in the next story.