Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Inspiration From Artists Wk 157 Bonus Artist: Jack Vettriano
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2
Message
Posted
Welcome to this weekends bonus artist thread , my choice of artist this weekend is Jack Vettriano who past away earlier in the week .
Jack Vettriano 1951-2025.
Was a Scottish Artist born Jack Hoggan in Methil Scotland who went on to teach himself to paint at the age of 21 while working at a variety of jobs including mining and engineering. He change his name in 1987 to his mother maiden name Vettriano.
Despite being rejected from the University of Edinburgh Fine Arts Program, he submitted two paintings to a show at the Royal Scottish Academy Annual Show and both sold . One of those paintings was The Singing Butler (1992)which later sold at Sotheby’s (2004) for 759,000 to become the best selling fine arts print in the UK the time .
Jack is best known for his noir-style erotic painting of men and women, his work employs smooth brushwork, where his subjects appear disconnected from the environment and each other.
Bio via artnet.
I have made several selections to show a variety of his work.
Edited
by Paul (Dixie) Dean
Posted
Jack Vettriano
Skilful and accurate at portraying these somewhat ‘cliched settings - very popular which I get, just not for me generally, although I do like a few of his pieces…
The first post with the umbrellas is a complete horror show, against the guy sitting on the bed, which I find interesting…
Edited
by Alan Bickley
Posted
And in this selection, you see his strengths and weaknesses. He could draw; his palette was characteristic, and in general he painted a world that never really was: but he would have liked it to be. His sand looks more like parquet flooring - he's not even attempted to paint it as it is. The elements of sleaze which some have identified are there - although it's always struck me that without a bit of that sleaze, the human race would have died out long ago; women may well see this differently, some have alleged that he objectified them: well - it's a matter of opinion; Fragonard would have done it with more delicacy and greater artistry, but - he was still doing what Vettriano was doing; though arguably more sympathetically. And Fragonard knew how to model flesh and costume, which Vettriano reduced to symbolic slabs of colour that was either pre-mixed as one shade on the palette, or straight out of the tube.
His own self-portrait is well done, and an unusual, and therefore interesting, approach. That palette, which never really seemed to change much, was not a subtle one: he really liked his reds, golds and blacks - and they were what made his paintings unmistakable: no one else painted like this; some critics have said the equivalent of "well, thank God for that!". I'm much more ambivalent (but then, I'm not an art critic).
No, he was not a great painter; nature is not commonly portrayed in his work; the only character with whom he seemed to make much effort, and that not often, was himself. There's a surface gloss, a superficiality: yup! All that. But the critics who say he was a bad painter - one notorious critic, Jones of the Guardian, claims he wasn't a painter at all, and that seems to me to be just waywardly daft. (It's perhaps necessary to remember of Jonathan Jones that he wrote a viciously scathing review of Maggie Hambling - a less experienced artist would have trashed all her equipment and burnt all her paintings if she'd read it.)
So - was he any good at all? In my opinion, yes. As a draughtsman, he was technically competent; his feeling for paint - and this is what galls some critics - seems to have been entirely utilitarian - for him, it looked to have been just colour to apply to his many figures; the "painterly" element, which many talk about and few define, the rejoicing in the richness of oil paint and its use for its own sake, is absent. His work is both realistic - at times - and fantastic, in the literal sense of fantasy, at others. He crosses over from the world of his imagination into ours, and that would be more disconcerting than it is if his imagination were just a shade less one-track. But once you've seen a Vettriano - you know what it is and you know who painted it. He appealed to a wide audience of people who might say that normally, they don't "get" art, and to some collectors who I don't believe were entirely drawn to him out of investment considerations. Tim Rice, another minor artist but in a different field, understands him pretty well. So there we are, that's my opinion: I wouldn't want a print of his work - the subject matter doesn't appeal to me, nor does his brushwork, what you can see of it, his modelling of forms, ditto, the impression I get from a lot of his work of a harsh yellow light typical of a hotel bar in the early hours. I'm not an advocate for him, but - he had something, even if I'm not sure what; so my review is in the nature of a back-handed compliment, but I don't think he should be ignored or forgotten.
Posted
Vettriano is one of those artist whose work is fascinating, even his more risqué pieces, yet one is never sure if you really like them. There is an element of apparent simplicity about them that makes you wonder if you could paint like that yourself. Here are a couple of his more innocent canvases.
Posted
I did really try to find something of his, original work that I liked, but failed. His wiki page is revealing:
"In October 2005, after the original of The Singing Butler sold for £740,000, it came to light that Vettriano had used the artists' reference manual The Illustrator's Figure Reference Manual to form his figures"
following up on this I found an old bbc article on the topic, and he had admitted to using that source. His Billy Conolly contribution isn't the best, so portraiture isn't his bag.
On the plus side. He has a solid working class background and his philanthropy is excellent. No doubt much of his estate will be used in various organisations he set up.
Edited
by Norrette Moore
Posted
Jack Vettriano, or 'poor Jack' as I think of him. He made the grave mistake of being popular with the general public. How dare he? Beryl Cook made the same mistake, but Beryl spiked all guns by saying she didn't think she was an artist, she just liked making pictures. I've seen a few documentaries about Jack, and believe he was unhappy with the way the art establishment treated him. It seems churlish to me that Jack isn't represented in any of the major galleries, he was enormously popular and that they should treat him as though he didn't exist, gives a slated overview of art.
I don't think he was a great artist, but he was most definitely an interesting one. I see his work as fantasy art, a kind of 1950's feel that only existed in the movies. That's no reason to dismiss it.
I'm going to reprise one of Tony's choices...
I like this, I'd have it on my wall. I freely admit that part of its appeal is the old car...I see these as art on wheels. And I think Jack has made a pretty good fist of this.
He is much copied, and there seems to be multiple AI interpretations of his style. Awful. Here's a tribute that was actually painted...
...it appears several time and is available as a print. Jack's is way, way better by several country miles...but maybe that's just my opinion.
The beach picture made his name, and he returned to beach scenes many times. Here's one I like...
Not everyone will like it, of course. Bright colours and a lot of yellow. Suits me.
I'm surprised the art establishment didn't take him under it's wing. He made a lot of money from his art, and that's what the establishment is about. I like his work ethic, and several of his paintings, so old Jack is OK by me.
I like this, I'd have it on my wall. I freely admit that part of its appeal is the old car...I see these as art on wheels. And I think Jack has made a pretty good fist of this.
He is much copied, and there seems to be multiple AI interpretations of his style. Awful. Here's a tribute that was actually painted...
...it appears several time and is available as a print. Jack's is way, way better by several country miles...but maybe that's just my opinion.
The beach picture made his name, and he returned to beach scenes many times. Here's one I like...
Not everyone will like it, of course. Bright colours and a lot of yellow. Suits me.
I'm surprised the art establishment didn't take him under it's wing. He made a lot of money from his art, and that's what the establishment is about. I like his work ethic, and several of his paintings, so old Jack is OK by me.
Posted
I do like his work, but was really only familiar with his beach scenes - of which I like best the one Lewis has posted above, mainly for its warmer colours. Of his other work that I’ve looked at this is the one that appeals most - both for its more graphic style and limited palette. I don’t find any of his work at all sleazy or offensive. Some of it reminds me of that of Edward Hopper.
Edited
by Jenny Harris
Posted
All interesting points, Lew's and Jenny's especially; second first - yes, Hopper does come to mind. And Lew - yes, I think you've hit the nail on the head - actually, several nails. It's ridiculous that the art world treated him with such disdain, and yes, it did pain him. Quite irrelevantly - although it's not really so irrelevant - I like the trousers! High waisters, with braces - Vettriano wore those himself, as do I when I can get them: it gives the long-legged graceful look which was very important to his style; he liked comfort as well as style - and it's not easy to be stylish if you're not comfortable. Think Fred Astaire - as I know Vettriano did: in so many ways, he DID know what he was doing. OK, he wasn't Cy Twombly,whom the critic I've rather victimized appreciates .... what a shame, eh...? (I'm not knocking Twombly there by the way; just saying there's room for many more approaches than those which critics favour: I do see the technical weaknesses in JV's work, but I just get the feeling that some of the critics who so hated him were just dressing up their dislike in the literary excesses of their craft: I hesitate to call it a profession ... sometimes it is; often it isn't.)
Posted
The whole point of the illustrator’s guide to figures is to be used. If that’s presented as a criticism the world’s gone mad. (Ok, it has, but we needn’t jump in and swim around in that nonsense.)
Jack was very generous with his oodles of money, he set up trusts to help artists, he helped prevent a Welsh gallery being closed, and a whole list of things. He was awarded an OBE for services to art.
‘Cy Twombly?’ Please..puh-leeease!
Jack Vettriano is relevant. I’m not sure art critics are.
Posted
It was less a disclosure more a non-denial. Fair enough, I'm happy to use materials like this. But if I were selling well like himself I'd be inclined to try from life or memory...see the Billy Conolly above.
Apparently there are 6000 images for an illustrator to choose from. Some of these look familiar.
I won't put up any of his offensive stuff Jenny. There's some to be found online.
But each to their own. I guess some of his work reminds me of digital images, even though I know they're not.
(quiet moan, who knew this wretched flu bug would give you 3 days of conjunctivitis. If you see anyone coughing....run a mile)
I won't put up any of his offensive stuff Jenny. There's some to be found online.
But each to their own. I guess some of his work reminds me of digital images, even though I know they're not.
(quiet moan, who knew this wretched flu bug would give you 3 days of conjunctivitis. If you see anyone coughing....run a mile) 
Posted
Popular with the masses so he must be a charlatan, it's just so typical of the pretentious, 'I know better than you', elitist and arrogant Art establishment, it's pathetic. Robert you say you can 'see the technical weaknesses' in his work but so what? Are you able to see 'technical weaknesses' in Hockney's or Van Gogh's work for example? He was obviously a skilful artist but much maligned for the audacity of appealing to vulgar philistines who 'really don't know any better.'
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2