PDA

View Full Version : subjective, objective and local colors


paintbug
03-15-2002, 07:15 PM
Today I got into a discussion over the meaning of the terms objective, subjective and local as they apply to color.

I think that objective is when the artist tries to use the colors as they exsist on the subject as closely as possible. While subjective color is more open and expressive. The best we could come up with for local is a color that appears only in a very limited portion of the painting.

Are these definitions way off base or???:confused:

llis
03-16-2002, 08:08 AM
Local color is the actual color an object is when you look at it apart from outside influences.

This means that a green apple is green, but if it is in a fog it could look gray but the local color is green. If the sun is hitting the green apple, you might see some yellow, but the local color is still green. The green apple could be sitting beside another object of a diffent color and that object might influence it's color, but the local color is still green.


Don't really understand what you are trying to define when you say "objective" and "subjective" as it relates to color. Could you use these terms in a sentence?

paintbug
03-16-2002, 04:36 PM
Thanks llis,
I think local color is pretty much the same way you describe it. That is without being influenced by reflected colors from nearby objects.

As I understood in the conversation I had yesterday, subjective color is when the artist seeks to impart a mood or feeling through manipulation of the color. While objective is to render it as closely as possible as it appears to the eye. Of course we all see somewhat differently, but most people will come pretty close. At least that is the way we interpreted it yesterday. Does that usage help?

Einion
03-17-2002, 05:30 AM
I think your definitions for objective and subjective colour are spot-on paintbug. In representational painting, very realistic work is largely objective and impressionistic/expressionistic work much more subjective.

I don't really like the concept of local colour as it is an illusion, seeing as it's essentially impossible to see an object without outside influence, although I suppose it's a useful learning tool early on. But it very much gets in the way of developing perception later on when many (most?) people have difficulty in abandoning the "this apple is red" concept for the colours that appear on the object - often be very far from actually red!

Einion

paintbug
03-17-2002, 08:11 AM
Thanks Einion,
O.K. It sounds like we are all have objective and subjective down.

Let me try and give an example of a local color as I'm thinking of it. Lets say we have a scene with an old weathered barn and around it are fences that are falling down. The door of the barn is open and the sun is shining in. Basking in the sunlight is a brand new fire engine red tractor. We are not close enough to see details but we can see the color very well. Nowhere else in the scene do we see the same color. This is what I'm calling a local color. I general I agree with what you are saying about local it is just that it was a new term to me and in my beginners way I'm trying to learn as much as I can. The problem is the more I learn the more I find there is to learn. I imagine it will take me another six months to learn everything. ROFLOL:D

LarrySeiler
03-17-2002, 02:34 PM
Some of the peers I have painted with in the wildlife art genre for many many years have extremely realistic imagery which the print market demands.

Yet...after painting outdoors for just about 7 years now and "seeing" what I could not see indoors for obvious reasons, I look at these highly "realistic" works and see that color and relationships in values has been "assumed" and that a working system is incorporated to turn out high degrees of repetitive success.

I'm going to sound a bit philisophical now, because the truth is when you introduce the words subjective and objective, these are philsophical terms.

All art, and the making of art is a process of making the dulling of senses in the individual to come alive.

What appears "objective" and real visually is as far as I'm concerned "relative" to that level of ability for the senses to sense.

My painting students at the beginning of this past semester could not see cool colors in the shadows. To them, they just appeared dark. Out came the black. Out came the mud.

It took a bit of work with them before they actually could begin to sense color. It required to put assumptions and haste aside, and to spend time "looking."

What was quite satisfying to me, was listening in on their private discussions where once in awhile a student would help another or offer an opinion. They were actually beginning to "see" the color. Some even found surprise and say..."What??? You mean you don't see that bluish-purple there?" Others would gather around, some saying..."yeah....I see it!" "uh-huh...me too!"

Now...once the eyes see...and you may argue for whatever reasons such sight might now exist...it is "objective" for that artist to paint it truthfully to what he/she sees. It would be subjective for that artist to paint it otherwise. The artist always has the choice to paint something other than what he/she sees (subjective) if it will be what is needed to bring all the parts of the composition to the cohesive whole.

Objective means..."true truth that is immovable and immutable" it is absolute and constant...not given to yield to change. It can be ignored, or it can be followed. Subjective is a "belief" of that which may be true or "ought" to be true, often thought possible to be true for one person though not for another.

We might look at the Impressionists and assume their response to light and color is "subjective" and to other artists that would be true because they do not see such color that way. For them to paint color in a way that "imitates" what the Impressionists did would be subjective. However, to "see" the way an Impressionist sees is to have developed aesthetic sensitivity to a point where your eyes open up to another world.

When I painted instudio, regardless of all my time spent outdoors hunting, fishing and hiking...I was using my photos as my primary resource and influence. I was being "objective" in my interpretation of color...but it was thru the subjectivity of the ability to be accurate by the camera. My work for me, was more tonalist.

I was being truthful and taking painstaking measures to be as complete with what I could see as was possible. Yet...since the camera denied me an accurate interpretation of a moment caught in time, I was denied the opportunity to see color rightly.

The paintings were good paintings...as any style works where a uniformity, a rhythm, and a harmony all co-exist. Its just that what I see looking at nature now...is different than what I saw looking thru the eyes of a camera then.

Now...with seven years experience painting out of doors...should I limit myself to use a photo reference ...I choose to be subjective in regards to the photo, electing to yield to the objective experience observing and painting color as I saw it live.

So, I disagree that an Impressionist is being subjective with their use of color...with exception to the moment they elect to use a color aside from what they see to make an area do what they want. However, arguably..the emotive expression to make such changes thus aligning with what they "feel" rather than what they "see" would make them to painting at such a moment more as an Expressionist.

Understand that its all really about painting in the limits of your growth. If you see color one way, though others would call it being one particular style...and then paint what you see- you are being objective. When you paint a color other than you see for whatever reason...you are at that moment being subjective.

With that in mind...you might have 70% of your painting recorded objectively...with the support of 30% of your painting done subjectively.

Now...when I look at many incredibly realistic wildlife images of my friends and peers they lack life. I say that, because my eyes are seeing a "life" that I did not see back then. Some lifters have been taken from my eyes.

That's not to say all wildlife images are lifeless, but more and more...I am discovering that those artists whose works are satisfying to me now...are painting more and more themselves outdoors directly from life...and using those experiences to adjust their instudio works accordingly. That would mean they are seeing more and it may be getting "subjectively" added to their instudio commercial productions.

*whew!

Larry

diphascon
03-18-2002, 05:11 AM
Originally posted by paintbug

I think that objective is when the artist tries to use the colors as they exsist on the subject as closely as possible.

"Colours as they exist on the subject:" Unless the subject is a light emitter, the colours that exist on the subject are highly dependent on the light that falls upon it (from some light source and from the reflecting surrounding). In addition, our visual system may well see the "same" colours differently under different conditions (neighbouring contrasts, preadaptation etc.) and vice versa.

The kind of thing that I might eventually call "objective colour" is a reflectivity spectrum of the subject under sandardized conditions (standard white light source, standard white surroundings, standard illuminance, standard spectrophotometer ..), which is not quite relevant for fine art purposes, though.

After all, "colour" as we experience it is a concept of our brain in connection with the properties of our eyes (that isn't yet understood too well), so don't panic!

cheers
martin

paintbug
03-18-2002, 06:57 PM
Thank you lseiler for that very thoughtful response. I'm going to print out this thread and show it to the persons that I had the original discussion with.

Diphascon of course you are correct and your point is well taken, but I was speaking in the fine art sense and not the purely scientific one. After all, anything that an artist does when applying oil based pigments to a canvas in rendering an object is going to be more or less subjective.:)

impressionist2
03-19-2002, 06:45 AM
This is a great thread. Btw, Larry, congratulations on your acceptance into the NAPPAP NYC show!


Mood is so important in figurative work. You can change the whole emotional reaction to a painting with color. I remember in my greener years viewing a show on the effects of colors placed next to each other and wondering why. Now, I know.

Before I came to WC I painted my people in basically local color. Now my people have green skin with dramatic flourishes of either violet or red cheeks, ala Milt or Malcom Liepke. Though I am picking apart their palettes since neither are available to teach, and am in the early stages, not nearly as proficient as my idols, it changes the whole mood of the painting to use color to create mood.

Renee

paintbug
03-19-2002, 08:10 AM
What a great example of a subjective palette!

Since I'm retired (sort of) painting is all about fun and the more I get carried away with color the more satisfied I am with the results.:)

I have never posted an example of my work, but will see if I can manage to attach an example of my subjective color style still life painting later today. First I'm going to have to check out the rules for posting images.:confused:
Oops, I see by the rules for posting images that there shouldn't be more than one image per thread. I'll post it some other time.

LarrySeiler
03-19-2002, 08:30 AM
Thanks Renee....
Only wish I could afford to fly out there and see it in person, and be there for opening. I'll have to have my brother attend for me who lives and works out there.

Larry

Einion
03-21-2002, 07:37 PM
Good post Larry, nothing wrong with being philosophical with regard to colour use, it's almost inevitable in any deep discussion of painting :)

Originally posted by lseiler
Out came the black. Out came the mud.
Spoken like a true impressionist! I know what you mean about seeing colour in respect to your students, an (accurate) eye for colour is not automatic for most people. That, and the subsequent translation into mixed paint, needs to be integrated into the working process to produce good work. I know you know this but black does not automatically make mud, it is your students' use of it that results in dull colour, not an inherent failing in the colour.

For myself, I can look back and see all the incorrect assumptions and simplifications I laboured under for many years (still working on it of course) that hampered better - by my definition, more accurate - colour in my work. In my own case it was not a change in working conditions that provided the key to seeing more clearly, but rather the development of my understanding of colour mixing. This provided a spur so that I looked at the world with a colour-mixing eye, rather than seeing colour divorced from the palette. I use black as needed, more than I did ten years ago in fact, precisely because it is better (and easier) to mix some colours using it than to avoid it. A good illustration of this is in certain mixed dark browns which I might now emulate using the same colours that many commercial Sepias use, black plus a red and yellow earth. In the past I would generally have used Raw or Burnt Umber mixed with blue for a hue of this type and while this produces a range of very attractive colours it not correct in some cases and the former mix often has a better undercolour as well, an important consideration with my painting method.

With regard to what can be broadly called impressionist use of colour in representational painting, for me this is by definition subjective - in the truest sense very subjective - 19th century impressionist painting is extremely stylised in its use of colour (and value), their concern with capturing the transient nature of light, coupled with the availability of many new colours led to work of a very mannered nature. While beautiful in many cases, the impressionist's colour is inaccurate and if one is interested in capturing what is actually there, rather than what one wishes was there, then it is an approach that is fundamentally flawed. This is not to say that either is better, they are merely different, and while representational work easily encompasses many ways of using colour, very realistic painting must be as objective as possible or fail in its goal.

However, to "see" the way an Impressionist sees is to have developed aesthetic sensitivity to a point where your eyes open up to another world.
I think this is flawed argument Larry. You speak of aesthetic sensitivity and equate it with accurate observation when of course the two are entirely separate. All painting includes necessary stylisations in form and colour depending on how tightly one paints, how accurately one matches value and hue etc. I'm not sure how to explain what I'm getting at here but from the painting I have seen impressionist colour tends to go hand in hand with a certain looseness of style - brushwork and a level of abstraction of form that work well together. Given the same use of colour but with much tighter handling (imagine photorealist draghstmanship with Van Gogh's colour maybe) and I can't see it making images that are nearly so successful and it may be a case of the two elements reinforcing themselves - the desire for looser handling making more stylised colour more acceptable and vice versa.

I think I know what you're getting at with regard to many wildlife and landscape painters and their formulaic approach, both to the subject matter and its handling, but I would have to say that this is not a given. Studio painters do not necessarily produce inferior work, any more than working out of doors automatically produces superior work. I have in mind the likes of Richard Bateman, Daniel Smith and Carl Brenders, all of whom produce studio work of the highest calibre that is full of life, very realistic and not in the least sterile.

Einion

DanaT
03-21-2002, 08:47 PM
This thread has been very fascinating because it has to do with the human perception of light and color.

I have to agree with Larry on the Impressionists. When Monet painted the 'L'Impression de l'Autoume' - the first Impressionist painting, he wasn't interested in the emotional or creative response that artists have in response to color. He basically wanted to reproduce the colors and the forms exactly as the human eye would see them at that time of day.

In the mid morning sunlight, the human eye can see very distinct nuances of color that stay attached to the individual forms they're supposed to, but at dawn and at dusk, sunlight comes at us at such an angle that colors are naturally distorted to the human eye in intensity and to the human eye they don't even stay on the form they're supposed to. They bounce around and even blur the edges of some forms.

In fact, the first time I saw a painting that gave me the response, "Oh my god, I've seen this!" was an early morning kitchen scene by the watercolorist Charles Reid who flooded the painting with yellow light to the extent that you couldn't distinguish some individual forms. I HAD seen something like this when I had walked into my Grandmother's kitchen in the early mornings as a child.

This effect of light and color on the human eye was so well known that Kimon Nikolaides instructed his students not to render the light, shade, and color they actually saw because doing so would destroy the sense of the form! Nikolaides, like the Renaissance Grand Masters was interested in the realism of the form. The Impressionists were interested in the realism of light. They are both realistic but they are looking at two different things.

LarrySeiler
03-21-2002, 09:18 PM
Van Gogh, just to make a correction...was more correctly a "post" Impressionist. His use of color was greatly due to an emotional and spiritual driven need of expression...and nearly, "expressionist" in that regard.

So it is understood....yes, if correctly used (Sargent comes to mind), black is used without destroying a work or color. I don't believe personally most people use black rightly, and for the most part because their eyes have not yet learned to see well.

As for studio painting producing works that have an inferiority...I think of it in terms subjectively for myself objectively...

The style produced indoors is a legitimate style of art, and certainly not inferior. What I believe is "inferior" is not the art or style...but what one limits oneself to see and experience, thus what he/she is left to work with. If one limits themselves only to see the world thru a photograph...that is inferior to seeing life directly and responding directly. However, the artist might produce a nice work of art from an inferior means of seeing.

To sum, when the Impressionists first began painting on location...they were impressed with the color and the light and attempted to record it. In time, the painters gave way more to evoking emotional responses to light and color with lead to more expression. This brought on the post-Impressionist movement and eventually expressionism.

It is my opinion, and anyone can take it as they wish (I mean no offense), that the American Impressionist movement produced far superior works. Credit the French schools and movement for bringing many American artists to Paris to learn...however, the schools and groups that rose from that period in the late 1800's and early 1900's in America produced some fantastic works.

Now, having said all that...I am bit by bit myself learning to see beyond what is visually literal to seeing.

Let me see if I can explain that. Hhmmm...one can learn to write a song..count the measures...write notation, and lack feeling. There are song writers that perform without such trappings, sensitive to feeling it.

As I look at what I paint...and as I paint more and more and more...I am coming slowly to a point I have been striving for. I have learned to ignore the unessentials not just for composition sake, but because they themselves are distractions and not part of the essential elements that make up the "ah-Hah!" or the spirit of beauty inherent in the scene that grabbed me and said, "YOU must paint me!"

One plateau reached often reveals a view unexpected, and you realize there are still more heights to climb. You try to explain it to others but realize they'll have to experience it themselves and then will understand. As you gain competency to copy or put down the literal visual detail of what is there..bit by bit you hear whispers...you sense secrets. A life exists in that scene that also is real that others thinking only in the visual have been missing. I am learning that by using color in certain ways... what I felt standing there looking at the real scene suddenly seems to touch a similar chord. I can feel suddenly the wind I felt, the squirrels that chattered, the leaves that clapped, the sun that was warm, the flying insect that buzzed in my ear.

I don't want to go beyond a work looking realistic, yet so many realistic works come off dead, flat, stale, lifeless to me. They seem like an obituary rather than a testiment of life. How else can I explain it other than that color somehow releases life. And with that said, I suppose its up to analysis of others to determine what I am and what I am becoming.

Definitely interesting reading thru all this though, and I better appreciate each and everyone of you more! Peace...

Larry

impressionist2
03-21-2002, 11:14 PM
Dana wrote:"In fact, the first time I saw a painting that gave me the response, "Oh my god,
I've seen this!" was an early morning kitchen scene by the watercolorist
Charles Reid who flooded the painting with yellow light to the extent that you
couldn't distinguish some individual forms. I HAD seen something like this when
I had walked into my Grandmother's kitchen in the early mornings as a child."


This is exactly why I just love Ken Auster's paintings. He is the finest figurative impressionist ( not to mention his city and sea scapes) I have seen. His faces have no features and yet there they are, alive and well. He floods his rooms with light and his paintings sparkle. A true impressionist.

Renee

DanaT
03-21-2002, 11:23 PM
Renee,

Do you have a link to any of Ken Austere's works? I'd like to check them out-they sound marvelous!

impressionist2
03-22-2002, 08:26 AM
Dana, Here the link, hope it works:http://www.galleryamericana.com/auster_show.htm

"Sourdough" is the one I was referring to re: the faces and the room filled with light. I am going to attempt to copy one of his paintings soon to see if I can understand how he's doing this. I have loved this style forever and I never can "get it". It doesn't help that he is basically a blue/orange guy and I am a green/red.

He has new work on his website:
www.kenauster.com/home.html

and links to all the galleries he's in.

OFCOURSE, he teaches his workshops in Laguna Beach and Colorado Only, so once again I will not be able to take one. ( Yes, I know I will have to fly there eventually, but we already have our flight allowances spoken for this year) Has every great living artist moved west?:(

Renee

impressionist2
03-22-2002, 08:48 AM
Larry wrote: "One plateau reached often reveals a view unexpected, and you realize there
are still more heights to climb. You try to explain it to others but realize they'll
have to experience it themselves and then will understand. As you gain
competency to copy or put down the literal visual detail of what is there..bit
by bit you hear whispers...you sense secrets. A life exists in that scene that
also is real that others thinking only in the visual have been missing. I am
learning that by using color in certain ways... what I felt standing there looking
at the real scene suddenly seems to touch a similar chord. I can feel suddenly
the wind I felt, the squirrels that chattered, the leaves that clapped, the sun
that was warm, the flying insect that buzzed in my ear.

I don't want to go beyond a work looking realistic, yet so many realistic works
come off dead, flat, stale, lifeless to me. They seem like an obituary rather
than a testiment of life. How else can I explain it other than that color
somehow releases life. And with that said, I suppose its up to analysis of
others to determine what I am and what I am becoming. "




Larry, Right there, if I am understanding you correctly, is the essence of what makes one artist improve over time, while another artist's work looks the same twenty years later.



You said:

"color somehow releases life", and when you understand that, the forms you use to convey your message get simpler and the "color" takes over the job that "detail" used to have. This is why people who don't get this say, "I wish I could get loose". They sometimes think it's all brushstroke, when really it's so much more the color doing it's magic.

I rememeber the first time I saw Hopper's "Cape Cod Morning" in person. I was so confused. The strokes were so simple, almost primitive in style. Just clapboards on the house , one big swush of paint, no big detail at all. Then I stood back and thought, "what did he do here, how did he get this incredible impact I am feeling?" It was all color. Someone else could easily have drawn the scene, placed the woman ( his wife, Jo) in the window and wound up with what Larry calls: "dead, flat, stale, lifeless to me.", yet Hopper brought a crunching emotional impact to this piece. His use of color ( he loved Vermeer) and his skill at rendering emotions through the color is the main skill worth striving for.

Larry check out the above Auster sites and see how his detail is gone and his color tells the story.

Renee

LarrySeiler
03-22-2002, 06:21 PM
I've been familiar with Auster's work for sometime now, and first came across his stuff thru his membership with PAPA or Plein Air Painters of America online....many good painters part of that group.

I wish they called it, PAPC though..."Plein Air Painters of California" ...as you cannot become a member without invitation and as much as I admire and respect the talent there...the group hardly represents what's happening in plein air across America. Doesn't seem right that an artist has to make his pilgrimage to California (Mecca) to be taken legitimate.

Of course....that's off topic, and takes nothing away from Auster's work. Very cool stuff. His bold use of color is a challenge! No doubt intimidating to some....off base to others, yet it rings of a truth of "being" there...doesn't it?

I appreciated your reponse my post, and was glad to know that before it got ripped on and apart...someone knew what I meant.

Again, its not that I'm saying other work is inferior...only things that limit seeing are inferior to taking full privilege to see.

I just revisted the PAPA site...
http://www.p-a-p-a.com
and featured currently was artist Joseph Paquet. Check his work out too and others. I enjoyed just the beginning of Paquet's artist statement which says this-

"To make you see what I have seen is part of my objective; but to have you feel what I have felt is the ultimate goal. Capturing an effect is capturing the emotion of a place, time or a moment, the more singular the emotion.

Nature is selective about to whom she reveals her secrets. You can't be an egotist and conduit at the same time. I believe the depths of nature can only be plumbed through humility. The moment your ego overrides humility, the door to truth and understanding shuts. "


Larry

DanaT
03-22-2002, 07:59 PM
Lots of good artists links here! Thanks, Renee and Larry. I especially liked Auster's street scene and Kevin Macpherson's "If it's Tuesday, this must be Arles"

Now that the two of you are complaining about California, I'm wondering if New York is the wrong place to be if you're an artist!

impressionist2
03-22-2002, 09:19 PM
Larry, I had no idea that PAPA was by invitation only, not being on the plein air scene except through observation. I know Sovek lives in the northeast so I guess a plein air painter just has to go out there and paint for awhile. He's on the road doing workshops all the time, so i guess it wasn't a big deal for him to motor out there. Unless he pulled up all his roots and moved for good.

I love Paquet's "Golden Silence", so in my case he achieved his goal of having the viewer feel what he was trying to convey. ( Dana, did you see his view of Brooklyn?)

Dana, Yes, MacPherson's "Arles' is so beautiful and so is the girl in the restaurant.I think our living impressionists can hold their heads up high next to the historical greats. I can see MacPherson's work hanging in the great halls of the Met in a hundred or two hundred years.

Well, Dana, all I can tell you is it seems that it is still the big thrill when an artist shows in NYC. So, I think we are in the right section of the country if we are lucky enough and good enough to reach the level where they'll let you into the galleries in the Big Apple.

My gripe is that the teachers who can really help us achieve that goal all seem to be on the other coast. At least the ones that I think are worth paying for.

Btw, there is nothing more difficult than successful impressionism, since all you are painting is light effects. I heard Leffel criticize the impressionists on a video saying that they weren't very good, but I did not agree with him and when you actually try to pull off that technique, you will see what a very difficult thing a Successful impressionist painting is.


Renee

LarrySeiler
03-22-2002, 11:48 PM
Well...if I'm not mistaken, New York is still considered the art capital of the world right now...and with that in mind, I'm excited because of number of members in NAPPAP "National Academy of Professional Plein Air Painters" just got accepted in a show in New York...and I am one of them. You may have noticed that I mentioned that on the plein air forum. Hoping we'll have some success there.

Glad you folks are enjoying the viewing of works on that site. Some good stuff there!

Larry

impressionist2
03-23-2002, 08:27 AM
Larry, Location and dates of your show, please. Is the gallery ( ies ) in the National Arts building in Gramercy Park? I took pastel classes there with Christina DeBarry, PSA pres. a few years ago. It's a gorgeous location.

Renee

LarrySeiler
03-23-2002, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by impressionist2
Larry, Location and dates of your show, please. Is the gallery ( ies ) in the National Arts building in Gramercy Park? I took pastel classes there with Christina DeBarry, PSA pres. a few years ago. It's a gorgeous location.

Renee

Perhaps you can fill me in Renee...since I'm unfamiliar with New York. I'm hoping if I can attend the opening...to stay with my brother who lives in Brooklyn. WE just got notice from our president of NAPPAP of our acceptance, and now they are going thru the process of contracts (which each artist participating has to sign), and scheduling. I guess you have to see if a gallery will have you first...would even consider an exhibition, and then when they do...a process follows for scheduling. That's where we are at right now...so, I'll let everyone know when that date arrives. The gallery is the Gregg and Marquis gallery...and artists that will be participating are-

Deborah Chapin
Richard McDaniel
Dawn Whitlaw
Karen Vance
Frank Lalumia
Kate Starling
Ivan Kelly
John Bellinger
Saim Caglayan
Larry Seiler
Rick McClure
Janice Yow Hindes
Kathleen Newman
Robert Ferguson
Fran Ellisor
Glen Knowles
Brian Reynolds
James Trigg

Have you heard of the Gregg and Marquis Gallery??? Look at this distinguished list of artists. I'm honored to be a part of this.

What would be fun would to be able to attend and meet a few Wetcanvas artists as well!

At this point though Renee....I'd say we strayed from the topic here of this particular thread, and I'll copy and move a copy of this post over to the plein air thread where I announced the New York show. What that means is...this post will stay here, but any further discussion on this topic should be there. Thanks for everyone elses indulgence and patience.

go to-
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=366855#post366855

Larry

DanaT
03-23-2002, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by impressionist2


I love Paquet's "Golden Silence", so in my case he achieved his goal of having the viewer feel what he was trying to convey. ( Dana, did you see his view of Brooklyn?)



:( No, unfortunately! I wish I had! If you hear of any other impressionist shows in New York, can you PM me? If our schedules jive, maybe we can meet up at one.

Originally posted by impressionist2


Well, Dana, all I can tell you is it seems that it is still the big thrill when an artist shows in NYC. So, I think we are in the right section of the country if we are lucky enough and good enough to reach the level where they'll let you into the galleries in the Big Apple.



So there's hope for us yet! Yippee! Actually my school has panel discussions with former students who are now showing in galleries. I missed the last discussions but hope to get around to it next time. It should be enlightening!

Originally posted by impressionist2


Btw, there is nothing more difficult than successful impressionism, since all you are painting is light effects.



You're so right about that! Just make a mistake and all you've got is a colorful blob! Several of mine have ended up like that!

DanaT
03-23-2002, 03:28 PM
Larry,

I already said it in the other thread but, congratulations on exhibiting in the Big Apple. Hope to see you there!

I dug up the contact info for the National Arts Club that houses the gallery; the info is in the other thread (don't want to cross post cuz Scott may have my head!)

I talked to the weekend receptionist and she didn't have a date for your show but she suggested to call back during the week.

Again congratulations for an honor well deserved!

Scott Methvin
03-23-2002, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by impressionist2

This is exactly why I just love Ken Auster's paintings. He is the finest figurative impressionist ( not to mention his city and sea scapes) I have seen. His faces have no features and yet there they are, alive and well. He floods his rooms with light and his paintings sparkle. A true impressionist.

Renee

Hi Renee,

I have talked to Ken several times over the last few years I have lived here in Laguna Beach. His work struck me when we first moved here. He always puts great atmosphere in his paintings.

The amazing thing is how fast he paints. He says he likes to do at least one painting a day. Sometimes more. His basic technique is using warm and cool grays to build his paintings. (From what I have heard.) I am posting a photo of one of his paintings that my wife and I bought a couple of years ago. And a detail to show his texture.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/23-Mar-2002/MVC-007F.JPG

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/23-Mar-2002/MVC-008F.JPG

LarrySeiler
03-23-2002, 08:25 PM
wow....now I'm jealous!!!! Pretty neat Scott....and I'm not surprised the opportunity came your way out there to meet him. Thanks for posting it....

Larry

impressionist2
03-24-2002, 07:18 AM
Larry wrote: " I'll copy and move a copy of this post over to the plein
air thread where I announced the New York show. What that means is...this
post will stay here, but any further discussion on this topic should be there."


Larry, I know. This is fun, but we've drifted. I'll see you over at the plein air forum.

Dana, I used to go into Manhattan all the time, just hop on the LIRR and spend the day, shooting photos in Central Park, get the subway and head down to the village galleries, etc.. Haven't been in since September, except to take visiting family in for the Christmas holidays. I am anxious to get back to the Met and also see some galleries around Spring Street. I'll be away next week but when I get back perhaps we could go gallery browsing ( soon as it warms up- brrrr). That would be fun.

Scott, What a great painting. Thanks for the closeup. I am not surprised at how many strokes there are and how they make no sense until you back up and then they make perfect sense! I thought to myself the other day, while trying to figure out his technique, that he must be using hundreds of strokes to get that effect.

So, let's see, You live in Laguna Beach And you have access to Auster! Okay, I am turning a lovely shade of green. :D The warm and cool greys are similiar to Sovek's approach. Did you hear any info on whether he primes the texture on the canvas befoe he starts or is that all paint? That is a lot of texture. I appreciate your sharing that with us.

Renee

Scott Methvin
03-24-2002, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by impressionist2
So, let's see, You live in Laguna Beach And you have access to Auster! Okay, I am turning a lovely shade of green. :D The warm and cool greys are similiar to Sovek's approach. Did you hear any info on whether he primes the texture on the canvas befoe he starts or is that all paint? That is a lot of texture. I appreciate your sharing that with us.

Renee

No, I don't think so. I know he uses the cheapest brushes you've ever seen and that liquid glove stuff. I think he primes a 50% gray before he starts. His paint does has a thick quality about it. Not sure what he uses as far as a medium. He'd tell me more if I took a class.

He has a background in graphics and silkscreen. He's been in Laguna for many years and does quite well.

DanaT
03-24-2002, 10:51 AM
Renee,

That sounds great. Let's touch base when the weather gets warmer (and stays that way) and see if we can catch up with each other the next time you're in the Big Apple.

Scott,

This painting you showed us is awesome. It reminds me of a Titian portrait that our drawing teacher showed us. He was trying to show us the difference between the Old Masters Realism and the new photorealistic technique in vogue now.

When we looked close at the face in the photorealistic portrait it looked pretty much the same as it did from far away. But when we looked close at the Titian, it looked like a wonderful abstract with brushstrokes seemingly randomly thrown everywhere.

It was neat! Your Auster painting reminds me of that.

Another painter I like is Lucy Willis from Great Britain. If you've done watercolor, you're probably familiar with her from the Watercolor Pocket Palette book she put together. A lot of her work is also in the Watercolor Solutions Book by Angela Gair. Whatever she does is full of light and color. In fact seeing her watercolors for the first time is what inspired me to do watercolor.

I found her website last night and learned some interesting things. She's painted extensively in India and was appointed twice to positions as Artist-in-Residence in Her Majesty's Prisons. (interesting job for an artist!) She has a way with architecture and the way light falls on it.

Here's the link to her site:

http://www.lucywillis.f9.co.uk/

paintbug
03-25-2002, 09:43 AM
Umm has this thread gotten a little off topic???:confused: