PDA

View Full Version : Painting into neutral mud...


LarrySeiler
03-28-2007, 08:55 PM
went out and painted last night...last hour of light...sun going down fast. Ice finally showing signs in Wisconsin northwoods of opening up and melting off.

9"x 12" oil...

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/27-Mar-2007/532-nippylastlight72.jpg

Decided on an interesting twist of the pigment soup strategy I've experimented with in the past. Instead...I mixed up a pile of a neutral mud, about midvalue. In essence, it could have been left over paint from a previous painting scraped to the side.

I used a large brush, liberal use of turps and my copal medium, and loosely blocked in the masses. Then I mixed up a dark value and painted wet on wet into the neutral mud block in...then mixed up lighter values with purer color, and painted that in. A natural harmony ensued...

My palette was limited...one blue, one red, one yellow...Naples Yellow and white...

With the very limited time I had...I was quite pleased how quickly it fell into good form, and felt like I lost nothing of the drama happening so quickly with the light...in short, had fun!!!

Susan_G_Shaw
03-28-2007, 11:24 PM
This is beautiful Larry. Did you use the mud in the whole background, or just the tree/ground/reflection part? I would think that it would be difficult to cover the mud background to create the light in the sky when working wet in wet.

Susan

Einion
03-29-2007, 03:47 AM
Nice painting Larry. I've often painted on a grey ground myself and quite like it in some ways; makes a change from working on white at the very least :) One of the things I enjoy in the process is working lighter and darker from about a middle value.

You can't really do it in oils (let me rephrase, one shouldn't) but I do think it's fun to work on a black ground sometimes too.

Einion

LarrySeiler
03-29-2007, 07:39 AM
This is beautiful Larry. Did you use the mud in the whole background, or just the tree/ground/reflection part? I would think that it would be difficult to cover the mud background to create the light in the sky when working wet in wet.

Susan

hey Susan...thanks...appreciate the comments...

Covering the whole panel would basically be a full undertoning of the board. I do that often..but with turps and usually reddish brown to excite color painted on top. I allow bits of the undertone to show thru or hints even in the sky as a means to create a color rhythm and harmony that unifies the whole painting...however,

...in this case...it is just the positive elements or main masses blocked in with the mud...and not such a soup as to completely absorb in the ground. It is more painting wet into wet quite literally.

LarrySeiler
03-29-2007, 07:44 AM
Nice painting Larry. I've often painted on a grey ground myself and quite like it in some ways; makes a change from working on white at the very least :) One of the things I enjoy in the process is working lighter and darker from about a middle value.

You can't really do it in oils (let me rephrase, one shouldn't) but I do think it's fun to work on a black ground sometimes too.

Einion

yep...I never paint on a white ground, especially outdoors. The feeling would be starting off well behind what the light is doing. IT is difficult to judge a color stroke against a white ground as a final brushstroke because its eventual intention is to be surrounded by other strokes of paint, thus many artists go back and continously fix and fiddle to adjust color. Counter productive outdoors where limited time is concerned.

For many years I added black paint to my gesso to have a little lighter than a midvalue gray for the whole panel or canvas. That way light brushstrokes show their presence immediately as well as do darks.

The other option is as I explained to Susan...is to tone the whole panel a reddish brown...or a complementary undertone to what I intend to be painted over it. This too allows every stroke to count and move the work toward a finishing from the get go...

I imagine painting on black is a bit like those old velvet Elvis paintings we used to see sold on street corners years ago...;)

take care

Einion
03-29-2007, 10:12 AM
IT is difficult to judge a color stroke against a white ground as a final brushstroke because its eventual intention is to be surrounded by other strokes of paint, thus many artists go back and continously fix and fiddle to adjust color.
I can see how that might be. Only if the intention is to have that white shining through just thin paint over it, for maximum eye-popping colour, does working on pure white 'gesso' really make sense to me; as in the work of some colourists.

For many years I added black paint to my gesso to have a little lighter than a midvalue gray for the whole panel or canvas. That way light brushstrokes show their presence immediately as well as do darks.
Yeah I know what you mean, that's sort of like the way I think it works. Not quite the same in detail, because I tend to paint so thinly, but the end effect of working on grey/neutral is about the same colour-wise.

...or a complementary undertone to what I intend to be painted over it. This too allows every stroke to count and move the work toward a finishing from the get go...
This is something I have to say I don't really like the idea of after a few experiments with complementary underpainting - in acrylics especially because they're relatively transparent there's a lot to fight against. However, painting more thickly than I tend to, and with the intention of leaving some of that underpainting to peek through here and there, I can see it working a lot better.

I think I might try it again myself with those two things in mind, especially as I want to work on my brushwork and landscapes such as you've posted here a few times lately seem to be a natural fit in terms of subject matter.

I imagine painting on black is a bit like those old velvet Elvis paintings we used to see sold on street corners years ago...;)
:lol:

Let me assure everyone, not quite the same method or intention :)

Einion

bigflea
03-29-2007, 11:15 PM
Nice Painting Larry, and I can appreciate the satisfaction you felt from using the neutral mud technique. Painting wet in wet, and seeing the forms emerge, that is part of the joy of painting.

In addition, this composition is very satisfying, in the proportions between masses.

What jumps out to me though, is the similarity of coloring between masses that represent recessional planes. The color scheme is limited to a tonal variation representing darker and lighter versions of the same pigment mixture. Eg. the foreground trees in shadow are the same hue, but deeper in value, as some very distant trees in the background in shadow. Trees more in the light plane are the same hue as the trees in shadow, but with paler value notation.

Ofcourse tonal value painting is based on that very concept of pigment mixtures. A color, (almost any color, according to some teachers and painters, such as Gruppe) can be made to work pictorially, as long as the value gradations are indications of changes in intensities across the composition. That idea is fundamentally false, in terms of light keys, but true in terms of making pictures. Ie., a picture works even without any color indication, and we can even begin to believe that grey charcoal has color qualities in it if the value gradations are convincing enough.

I make these comments not to be critical of your painting, which I feel is quite successful and satisfying, but to attempt to clarify how a colorist approach to composition of masses is different than a tonalist approach.
Ken

FriendCarol
03-30-2007, 12:08 AM
One of the library books I've been reading recently speaks of maintaining the 'integrity of the planes' or some such thing. Apparently, in landscapes, colors used in bg, middle, and fg should always be distinct! First time I ever heard that rule. Interesting, though, since I do tend to find 9 colors have been mixed on my 'greens' palette when I'm out on plein air; it does seem to end up being at least 3 colors for each 'plane.' :lol:

It seems as if a lot of w/c painters recently have started to 'tone' their paper with pours, before doing any actual painting. These are usually Winsor yellow for sunny areas, Winsor red for warmth or something, and blue for shadows (some very different authors chose these same colors, apparently independently). I don't find it necessary myself, but it seems to be a trend. Some just tone the paper with yellow; most of these seem to be painting florals. I wonder if it's a fad, or a real movement in w/c.

Einion
03-30-2007, 05:13 AM
What jumps out to me though, is the similarity of coloring between masses that represent recessional planes.
As opposed to saturated, generally high-key hue distinctions, with little tonal variation, I presume?

The color scheme is limited to a tonal variation representing darker and lighter versions of the same pigment mixture.
:lol:
My palette was limited...one blue, one red, one yellow...Naples Yellow and white...
That's not to say that the hue range is as compressed as you're implying and for a fact it's certainly not done with value distinctions only as you've stated.

Eg. the foreground trees in shadow are the same hue, but deeper in value, as some very distant trees in the background in shadow.
Regardless of how Larry chose to paint here had you considered that maybe there is a certain amount of uniformity automatically, because of the very nature of the subject matter?

A painting depicting a mass of conifers would have to be pretty uniformly 'green' in appearance, just as the sky is generally varied shades of blue, a basket of red apples are going to be mostly reds etc. ;)


One of the library books I've been reading recently speaks of maintaining the 'integrity of the planes' or some such thing. Apparently, in landscapes, colors used in bg, middle, and fg should always be distinct! First time I ever heard that rule.
Well yeah, the colour should be. Presuming they meant exactly what the words say that's pretty much automatic if you think about it, although I don't think it would or should show a clear division into three zones - where does the foreground end and the middleground begin anyway?

Einion

LarrySeiler
03-30-2007, 10:39 AM
I can see how that might be. Only if the intention is to have that white shining through just thin paint over it, for maximum eye-popping colour, does working on pure white 'gesso' really make sense to me; as in the work of some colourists.

As did for many masters with various techniques...
I know that lead primer is favored by some with oils, as it allows a lot of wiping that will allow wiping right down to the pure white if one so wishes. A lot of control.

For me, my many years of acrylic work favored a process of working dark to light. I worked only on pure white surfaces if the end was a vignette...


This is something I have to say I don't really like the idea of after a few experiments with complementary underpainting - in acrylics especially because they're relatively transparent there's a lot to fight against.


agreed...my use of this palette strategy has been restricted primarily to oils, and it works wonderfully..
I tend to revert back to my split-primary palette when I paint with acrylics...

Patrick1
03-30-2007, 12:35 PM
Apparently, in landscapes, colors used in bg, middle, and fg should always be distinct!
One doesn't have to do that, but it's something I do enjoy seeing. And not just in color (hue value & saturation) but also in contrast, sharpness, edge treatment.

I found that a picture that employs three (or a similar small number) of distinct distance/color planes works well. If you have one plane, you lose sense of depth. Taken to the other extreme, if you have one smooth contiuous gradation, or too many smaller distinct gradations, I find it lacks 'punch' or visual dynamics (as a newb, a common impulse is to strive for smooth, linear color gradations/progressions/steps). It's similar to a rule that the main tonal structure in a painting should be based around three general value areas; light, middle and dark. I'm weary of rules, and that one may or may not serve the purpose of portraying something with the most literal realism, but I think it does have some promising potential benefit for composition and aesthetics.

Nice painting Larry, thanks for sharing. I like the unifying cohesion that the grey provides, and the way the purer colors sing over top (this has sometimes been called 'mouse power').

LarrySeiler
03-30-2007, 02:38 PM
Nice Painting Larry, and I can appreciate the satisfaction you felt from using the neutral mud technique. Painting wet in wet, and seeing the forms emerge, that is part of the joy of painting.

In addition, this composition is very satisfying, in the proportions between masses.

thanks Ken...



What jumps out to me though, is the similarity of coloring between masses that represent recessional planes. The color scheme is limited to a tonal variation representing darker and lighter versions of the same pigment mixture. Eg. the foreground trees in shadow are the same hue, but deeper in value, as some very distant trees in the background in shadow. Trees more in the light plane are the same hue as the trees in shadow, but with paler value notation.

Of course tonal value painting is based on that very concept of pigment mixtures. A color, (almost any color, according to some teachers and painters, such as Gruppe) can be made to work pictorially, as long as the value gradations are indications of changes in intensities across the composition. That idea is fundamentally false, in terms of light keys, but true in terms of making pictures. Ie., a picture works even without any color indication, and we can even begin to believe that grey charcoal has color qualities in it if the value gradations are convincing enough.

Thing is...I rarely ever just use white to lighten, I'll use a complementary to take some juice out of the color, a bit of Naples Yellow to keep it from too pasty white.

But...I think this one called for a neutrals driven mindset. Like that Schindler's List movie scene where the little girl walking out of the Polish/Jewish getto wearing a red coat...where that red sang against the background of the black and white, grays of the black and white film.

One can use complementaries and color to bounce off each other...one can orchestrate that color will be quiet (and yes, values will play a greater importance) so that where the drama is intended to be will find a greater visual voice.

To be honest...I spend more time in studio...where time is not an issue, to let many options weigh out. Outdoors I elect to an approach, then allow my experience and gut hunches to take over. I did this painting in under one hour's time...a 9"x 12" and it felt like I was flyin'...
so, to put it the way I've heard others say it...my concern was to...just paint! :)

I started with the neutral mud blocking. I mixed up about a half-dozen piles of color and values I saw...(note..."saw"...thus, optical) and then let it fly.


I make these comments not to be critical of your painting, which I feel is quite successful and satisfying, but to attempt to clarify how a colorist approach to composition of masses is different than a tonalist approach.
Ken

No problem, Ken...
I think of myself more on simple terms...a painter. I might appear more a tonalist one painting, more colorist another...pushing one palette, challenging myself to another. I want to exhaust the possibilities in experimentation..but go expecting when I set up on a location, I'll have a gut hunch and let er fly.

That way...I feel like aesthetically I am allowing nature to have its influence on me. I want to feel out in what way that influence is having on me. I find it fun...and one night I could pay attention to the drama of the shore...another night, the sky. Perhaps the wildlife hangin' out...whatever, and the moment, the focus all sort of dictates the way its going to go.

take care... :)

LarrySeiler
03-30-2007, 02:49 PM
That's not to say that the hue range is as compressed as you're implying and for a fact it's certainly not done with value distinctions only as you've stated.

well...funny, Kevin MacPherson tells students that are a bit intimidated with a limited palette to take time to use the three primaries to premix up a green, violet, orange...and various ranges in piles of paint on the palette to suddenly feel as though there are many colors!

He also calls a limited palette a "liberated" palette...for which I having used such for the past couple years would agree with. At least, that's been the experience for me as has been for others....

But, true...Einion...I am only as limited as my darkest dark and lightest light giving me options for a potential value range. My Utrecht French Ultramarine Blue is a very rich dark blue...and that extends my possibilities beyond the limitations the use of a different blue might, for example.


Regardless of how Larry chose to paint here had you considered that maybe there is a certain amount of uniformity automatically, because of the very nature of the subject matter?

and that is so true...and to me the essence really of why opting to paint on location to begin with. To commune with the moment, respond and react in accordance to ones direct encounter and aesthetic experience...but yes, nature's light is a harmonious one, naturally...and painting from life solves many questions quite often simply by observing correctly.

there are times I choose a specific palette...such as a split-comp palette which deems to set a particular mood. When I do this...I am thinking more in terms of what I wish nature were doing...and not painting optically.

:)

LarrySeiler
03-30-2007, 02:50 PM
appreciate the comments, Patrick..thanks! :)

bigflea
03-31-2007, 12:17 AM
Larry,
you make an interesting point, re., how you feel about color development of a painting can change, which in turn may expand or restrict a palette of pigments. That is certainly part of the territory a painter stumbles into. The beauty of different kinds of painting almost demands that some understanding of how those works are attained be gained by practice. And beyond that, there is a great sense of freedom in expanding or restricting how we go about solving a particular painting problem, simply because we can choose to do so.

Don't know who made the comment re. uniformity of subject matter. What has to considered, as a painting problem to solve, is not the uniformity of individual forms, such as a large stand of conifer trees of the same species eg., but the relationship of masses of light (ie. direct sunlit areas), and how these compare to shade masses. A harmonic unity exists in nature, between sunlit (planes or) masses and shade massses. However, this harmonic unity is not a tonal unity. Tonal unity is a pictorial convention. The painting problem in part is to establish and maintain a unified surface of masses of light and shade areas that have differing chromatic values ( not tonal values, which have no hue differences).

Winter landscapes are a perfect time to study the problem of coloring differences in neutrals. With bare deciduous trees eg., where so much local coloring tends toward a neutral , one can analyze howthe light effect on neutrals alters masses. A large mass in the middle ground of a painting can be seen to have subtle but distinct hue differences laterally across a composition.

The harmonic unity present in daylight comes from the chromatic relationship between masses of light and shade. If a painter applies the same value scale to different hues, the harmonic unity does not work. So, masses of sunlight have to be related harmonically to masses of shade across a composition for a unified effect where hue differences are indicated.

Kevin MacPherson generalizes color . A limited palette of primaries still gives you a limited palette of secondaries. When the painter has only one yellow to use, every mixture you make is going to be limited to the inherent character of that yellow. The fallacy, as I see it, in the limited palette concept is that one pigment of yellow,(or blue, red, etc.) suffices for all possible yellows. In my experience of yellows, (and all other pigments used for mixing) one yellow does not equate to what is visually present in daylight. Nor does any other pigment. And I feel Kevin's work shows the limitations inherent in the limited color palette. Ie., his work is very generalized color. It tends to be a kind of pale coloring, with dull neutrals, ( ie., darks that appeartoo leaden, or dead).
Ken

Einion
03-31-2007, 03:38 AM
well...funny, Kevin MacPherson tells students that are a bit intimidated with a limited palette to take time to use the three primaries to premix up a green, violet, orange...and various ranges in piles of paint on the palette to suddenly feel as though there are many colors!
I'm not sure if you recall but I've done exactly the same thing myself the few times I've painted with just primaries, just made sense to do so. In my case I did it mostly for the low-chroma stuff - simulated earths - but it's the same basic principle. I also mixed one or two complements for the primaries, to give an immediate way of dulling each of them down without having to work so hard maintaining balance for practically every colour mixed (because of the phthalo blue).

But, true...Einion...I am only as limited as my darkest dark and lightest light giving me options for a potential value range.
Yep, makes sense. With any primary palette (regardless of type) all hues can be mixed - it's a given. You're just restricted in the brilliance of certain areas and in how dark certain mixtures can be.

Even with a decent CMY palette I don't personally think you can go dark enough in some areas, this is even with Phthalo Blue GS on the palette, purely because the yellow paint lightens the mixtures that require any yellow. One way around it is to use one of the really transparent yellows but I'd just use black since I don't want to have that much transparency in any mix where the yellow is strongly represented (the palette is already more than transparent enough to cause headaches!)

Einion

Einion
03-31-2007, 03:55 AM
And beyond that, there is a great sense of freedom in expanding or restricting how we go about solving a particular painting problem, simply because we can choose to do so.
Interesting comment to contrast to the above, and what follows.

Don't know who made the comment re. uniformity of subject matter.
What Emerald Green is it you use again Ken? ;)

What has to considered, as a painting problem to solve, is not the uniformity of individual forms, such as a large stand of conifer trees of the same species eg., but the relationship of masses of light (ie. direct sunlit areas), and how these compare to shade masses.
"What has to be considered, as a painting problem to solve, is the uniformity of individual forms, such as a large stand of conifer trees of the same species, and within them the relationship of masses of light - direct sunlit areas and how these compare to halftone and shadow areas."

A harmonic unity exists in nature, between sunlit (planes or) masses and shade massses.
Yes indeed there is, it's called the dominance of local colour.

Question: the sunlit side of a red rubber ball, is the hue still a red?

However, this harmonic unity is not a tonal unity. Tonal unity is a pictorial convention.
Eh? Tonal unity would mean little of no value distinction.

...that have differing chromatic values...
In other words they're different colours. Why use a simple word when an esoteric, cool-sounding term is just so much less clear, eh?

The harmonic unity present in daylight comes from the chromatic relationship between masses of light and shade. If a painter applies the same value scale to different hues, the harmonic unity does not work.
Ken, that second part is your opinion. Come on, in all seriousness how many times do we have to cover the same ground? You don't view colour the way that the majority of people do, artists included!

So, masses of sunlight have to be related harmonically to masses of shade across a composition for a unified effect where hue differences are indicated.
English translation anyone?

When the painter has only one yellow to use, every mixture you make is going to be limited to the inherent character of that yellow. The fallacy, as I see it, in the limited palette concept is that one pigment of yellow,(or blue, red, etc.) suffices for all possible yellows.
I think it's important at this juncture to point out the obvious - almost no painter using a limited palette is going to make the claim that their four paints is capable of accurately producing all colour; I can only think of one in fact and of course he's mistaken.

And I feel Kevin's work shows the limitations inherent in the limited color palette. Ie., his work is very generalized color. It tends to be a kind of pale coloring, with dull neutrals, ( ie., darks that appeartoo leaden, or dead).
That's obviously MacPherson's deliberate intent; it's by no means inherent to work done using a limited palette:
http://www.artistshouse.com/images/art/_E/art4133_E.jpg
http://www.artistshouse.com/images/art/_E/art4076_E.jpg
http://www.methvinfineart.com/past1.html

Took me a while to find one of these; last but by no means least:
http://umassmag.com/Fall_2005/images/983/close_310x310.jpg

Einion

LarrySeiler
03-31-2007, 09:36 AM
Larry,
you make an interesting point, re., how you feel about color development of a painting can change, which in turn may expand or restrict a palette of pigments. That is certainly part of the territory a painter stumbles into. The beauty of different kinds of painting almost demands that some understanding of how those works are attained be gained by practice. And beyond that, there is a great sense of freedom in expanding or restricting how we go about solving a particular painting problem, simply because we can choose to do so.

Yep..
I guess one could make one's presence known oust amongst nature and declare, "I am a painter and I paint THUS...and therefore predictably what is now here before me which I see shall conform to my way."

Nothing wrong with that...there is great confidence and efficiency in working one way. What is interesting about understanding a number of ways is that nature can speak with more than one language or tongue, and to the ear that hears...understanding more ways to speak a language equips one to be something of a conduit. The quietness of one scene may speak to me one way. Go back to that same place another night with a morning's sun...and something entirely different is speaking. One moment it is mood and a relative bathing of light that is preeminent. Next, one is struck by the contrast of values and another strategy is best employed. Still...high definition and interest in a focal point may call upon texture and color contrast to command the eye. But...it is kinda fun setting up and inviting the moment to speak to you. Go within yourself and get a hunch of the best way to get what was spoken across visually. A moment of tangible celebration, living and experiencing God's wonders...with paint the full expression of that joy.


Don't know who made the comment re. uniformity of subject matter. What has to considered, as a painting problem to solve, is not the uniformity of individual forms, such as a large stand of conifer trees of the same species eg., but the relationship of masses of light (ie. direct sunlit areas), and how these compare to shade masses. A harmonic unity exists in nature, between sunlit (planes or) masses and shade massses. However, this harmonic unity is not a tonal unity. Tonal unity is a pictorial convention.

Thing is...problems exist to be solved. The human spirit and mind are complex. Some approach the problem convergently and analytically, (left brain)...some divergently and with a degree of synthesis (right brain), some having a good balance of both.

A person might think (or be trained) to note groups of masses and have some understanding they need to relate for a unifying continuity to pull things together and thus rightly be called a painting. Another might well learn s/he can trust the eyes and judge color of light alone as it hits masses. And yet pictorally...both can come to succeed in pulling all together such that it reads as a working and thus successful painting.

Some artists need a grid to accurately see and draw objects, a figure and so forth. They develop methods...some having a soft kneadable eraser at hand, and sneak up to the drawing. Particular frustrations that lie just beneath the surface make considering any other way to go about it unthinkable. Having resolved how to get a thing to look proper with great turmoil of learning makes consideration of a new learning curve unthinkable. The person commits to a degree of closed mindedness knowing his way will work...and getting it to WORK is what it is all about.

Another learns to see shapes and that there are geometric shapes and freeforms. Having lightly sketched shapes, s/he has developed a keen sense of the masses/objects relationships to negative space and is enabled easily to orchestrate. From there...use of line families help to define contours accurately. Because it comes of ease...there can be a degree of impatience toward the one that must use a grid.

I've seen artists prop their chin on a stand to keep their head still, have a vertical frame with black thread spaced off within it...and their drawing tablet or paint panel all sectioned off.

Different minds, different spirits are inclined to different ways...and this leads to unique works of art that speak of the human reaction to our world visually. Not one better necessarily...but yes perhaps what is best for that person.

So from that standpoint...a "convention" which you speak of pictorally...is really a convention that has a human dynamic...a human convention. In which case all of art is that. It works when it works...and works because it works, and if it is working...then that is well enough for most.

I love it when a half-dozen skilled and seasoned painters have their easels lined up in an area to paint. Fun to take a break and walk. Different elements have spoken to each artist, seeing the world thru their eyes. The painting might tell us more about the artist...it might tell us more about the world we live in. It might even tell us something about ourselves, the viewer.

I think there was an easier time to discuss art, what works best..what needs to be...for example when there were particular movements in the landscape painting interests between 1840's and 1900...and a work would be recognized as from this camp of thought or school or that one.

Now...even when critiquing...I find I first have to ask a bunch of questions, unless I pretty much know what they are asking. If seeking to paint realistically, in what way? Hyper realism? I even have a category I sorta have evolved to argue for, describe and such when I sense a person's heart wishes to portray nature more accurately...because they may have a misgiven notion that all painting of realism will accomplish that. But I'm sure you know...there is a HUGE difference between realism that comes off stagnant, lifeless and thus is anything but real where nature is concerned, and that which looks and feels to possess REAL'ness.

There must be that certain spark, spontaneity, light, color that testifies the artist indeed experienced the moment. But...when I say "must"...I am speaking of what must be to gain my fervent eye, heart and soul if it were to hang on my wall. I cannot argue against those whose satisfaction begins and ends with stagnant detail/realism that does not strike them as stagnant.

It is difficult to fully address these things without inviting debate, stepping on toes...but, it is much easier that we understand convention to be what it is, that which is human, IMHO...




The painting problem in part is to establish and maintain a unified surface of masses of light and shade areas that have differing chromatic values ( not tonal values, which have no hue differences).

I might agree...but to be the devil's advocate...you are setting a mandate for what must be for others when really you are describing what trips YOUR trigger.

It is possible to relegate 3/4's of the painting to tonal values...but have the focal point sing in Chromatic dynamics, and indeed a viewer will walk away believing they have just experienced a very fine painting.

I could argue a painting works when it commands the viewer's eye and manipulates it to the stage of the painting that demands attention. One could paint entirely monochromatically...but have intent to bring one area and one area only to a degree of finishing.

I just experimented with such myself. Granted..the focal area doesn't have a good deal of color this time of year...so I beefed up values which then allowed me to beef up chroma intensity without appearing unnatural...

Here was one I just finished..still wet, hanging on my wall at this time... 30"x 36"...

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/30-Mar-2007/532-fumeedone72.jpg

In working this out...I was thinking of some of Scott Burdicks and Schmid's portraits that will finish an area of the sitter's face..then gradually work out from the face to where garments lose color and take on the undertone..the background washes out and so forth. An interesting effect...

Granted too...this is not a plein air, nor was I attempting to pull off a work in studio that came off feeling like a plein air. I was after a more classical look, a touch of drama. I was thinking too of some of Thomas Moran's work, and was surprised when I saw them in person to see he used a brownish undertone and some glaze to pull parts together.

Thing is..one device that the painter can employ is that of priority and denial. If one denies an area color...one can pick and choose where the eye will find priority of emphasis and intrigue.

I have lived the past 12 years to paint a convincing sense of REAL'ness outdoors...but painting isn't defined by only that one thing. Neither am I as an artist defined ultimately by what I experiment and toy with.

I chose areas of priority and denial in my neutral mud landscape...and created drama to emphasize what spoke to me while observing and painting. My concern was to paint...not to pass muster or consensus. :)

IF the painting works for reasons it works, then it exists to say it need not work for reasons other paintings work. That's really a simplistic way to say it, but I hold that to be true... ;)


Kevin MacPherson generalizes color .

not to be contentious, but we all generalize everything...that is the finite mortal plight.

The moment we believe something works for us...and the instant we think the good thing we pulled off could happen once more for us on a new project, we have generalized.



A limited palette of primaries still gives you a limited palette of secondaries. When the painter has only one yellow to use, every mixture you make is going to be limited to the inherent character of that yellow.
[/QUOTE[

Or, every mixture you make is a liberated mixture that will do precisely what you wish it to do. It if does what you wished it to do...that is not limited, that is liberation!!!

I paint with a liberated palette...

I think that will be my new mantra!!! :D

[QUOTE]
The fallacy, as I see it, in the limited palette concept is that one pigment of yellow,(or blue, red, etc.) suffices for all possible yellows. In my experience of yellows, (and all other pigments used for mixing) one yellow does not equate to what is visually present in daylight. Nor does any other pigment. And I feel Kevin's work shows the limitations inherent in the limited color palette. Ie., his work is very generalized color. It tends to be a kind of pale coloring, with dull neutrals, ( ie., darks that appeartoo leaden, or dead).
Ken

Well...let's bring it on home and make it personal...
how, IYHO...has the fallacy negatively affected my own work? Tell me (step on my toes...no problem) after going thru a number of months on my blog... how I committed a disservice to myself from keeping the possibilities of becoming a much better painter out of reach?

Explain how adding one more yellow...or a different red would have resulted in much different and BETTER results.

Thing is...you would be treading on subjective grounds wouldn't you?

Larry

LarrySeiler
03-31-2007, 10:01 AM
I think it's important at this juncture to point out the obvious - almost no painter using a limited palette is going to make the claim that their four paints is capable of accurately producing all colour;

Einion

what's important in the final analysis...is that the painting is convincing, and the viewer FEELS no lack!

The relative relationships of the limited palette is that the pigments are going to harmonize much more naturally with each other, for one, in that each pigment is used in part in the routine of mixing up color.

I would take great pleasure and delight to stand to the side and observe the painter with 16 to 24 tubes of color put out on his palette attempting to paint a painting start to finish during that last hour of light.

The efficiency of using the limited palette keeps one on top of and ahead of the game, and thus serves to help the artist put his focus where it need be, on the subject and the light...and not staring down at his palette muttering, "oh my....oh me....umm, er....ppplease...something here's gotta work...umm...."

then finally figuring it out, mixing it up...looking back up at the scene and..."Huh??? WWwwhat?...where did that color go?"

the light changed...

Sorry...but a combat scenario comes to mind.

When a very important enemy's military leader is known to be in an area...one could attempt to approach with heavy armor (hope that exists in having many pigments of color on hand), many troops and a full scale attack. In essence, a war or battle. However, that enemy's important leader very likely will be escorted out. You may win the battle but lose the objective/war.

OR......you take your best marksman...strip him down of a backpack and heavy gear. Give him ONE rifle..and one clip of ammo...and he begins to crawl two miles on his belly, sleeps thru the night...crawls the last 200 yards and at 800 meters takes the guy out.

Its called EFFICIENCY to get the job done.

This is the thing that strikes me so odd that so many seem not to get. When painting outdoors you will need to eliminate options so that the main objective of responding to an elusive moment is not missed.

You can have all the pigment piles out you want...but if you fail to get the moment, you fail.

You might be able to point to one nice unfinished part of the painting and say, "hmm..hey, but a nice spot of color there, no?" :)

You don't need full out war where one sniper will accomplish the mission.

Then...get this...

over time, one develops deft, skill, capability...and the limited palette reveals options in relationships that you might not otherwise have understood had you been able to avoid that learning process simply by putting out all kinds of colors.

As I have argued in other threads...one can quickly learn to suggest a color spot to be more than what it is. One can use an adjacent area in terms of value and color to imbue and influence that spot of color to take on a whole other character and personality. We know that a large area of green wishes to make an adjacent color area appear more red. We all know that.

The limited palette with time spent on it is in part liberating because it opens up not only avenues of efficiency where limited time and opportunity exists, but it exposes you to demanding and thus getting more out of the color that you DO use...

Who should ever need to mend clothes when one simply tosses them out after two or three wearings because they believe they can afford to? Yet, there is a skill in mending and a love that goes into the care of one's clothes. One learns more about the colors they limit themselves to over time, and quite frankly...I've been quite selective about what brands and colors those will be. They had to suit my needs because I am on a crusade for my paintings. I am not on a crusade for a limited palette. If the limited palette I have chosen did not work on my crusade...I would abandon it in a heart beat.

Expediency...

If my work painted on location has some sense of maturity or accomplishment at all to it...it has been more that ability to expedite on the spur of the moment, on the fly...and being able to do this is what will make or break a painter of light.

I'm not speaking of those places of the world (such as Arizona deserts) where light is constant, weather the same day in and day out so that a canvas could be set up same time same place for weeks on end. Sure...enjoy all the time in the world in such a case and all the pigments one wishes. That is not the nature of the beast here in the northern midwest, I can assure you of that.

Canadian frontal weather systems...Lake Superior and Lake Michigan affects. WE have a saying here in northern Wisconsin. If you don't like the weather, wait around fifteen minutes! It can be hot...sunny...dark, cooling and suddenly snowing before you know it, and that in the month of May.....hahaha true true true!!!

Having said all this...please, I don't believe plein air is the only proper way to paint. I'm speaking of what I do...what works for me and is important to work for me, and why. That's all...

take care....I've enjoyed the discussion. Thanks all...

peace

Larry

Mario
03-31-2007, 09:26 PM
Nice painting Larry.. a generous size too, and done in an hour...wow!

I painted this Spring for three weeks with Giovanni Casadei (http://images.google.com/images?as_q=&hl=en&output=images&svnum=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=giovanni+casadei&as_oq=&as_eq=&imgsz=&as_filetype=&imgc=&as_sitesearch=&safe=images)
He has the same passion for nature that you do and interestingly an opposite view of the pallette. To Giovanni each different pigment has a different feel as between earth colors and dyes. He uses a foldable pallette (Jullian) and his 14 nuts of paint are already laid along the edges. He claims that he dosen't have enough time to do a lot of mixing and would rather have the different colors already laid out to choose from. So in this way you fellows are using different methods of solving the same problems. I'm just happy to be able to learn from you both.

Mario
03-31-2007, 09:33 PM
Hi Einion, I was wondering whose work at the artist's house gallery you were using as examples? thnks
I want to express my own opinion that although I enjoyed Macpherson's book "filling landscapes with color and light" and his looseness of paint, I do not like his color. I've never seen his work in person and so it could be just the reproductions but there is a sameness to the color of all the paintings in that book that disturbs me.
I sure wish that five or six tubes would do it all and I continue to search for them...lol true

Mario
03-31-2007, 09:47 PM
Decided on an interesting twist of the pigment soup strategy I've experimented with in the past. Instead...I mixed up a pile of a neutral mud, about midvalue. In essence, it could have been left over paint from a previous painting scraped to the side.

I used a large brush, liberal use of turps and my copal medium, and loosely blocked in the masses. Then I mixed up a dark value and painted wet on wet into the neutral mud block in...then mixed up lighter values with purer color, and painted that in. A natural harmony ensued...


What this thread is mostly about, for me, is painting wet into wet. Of course all alla prima landscape painting is wet into wet but here we are adding what I believe is an intentional "painting into the soup". Is this an expression that you have in mind when starting out the way that you did Larry? Is there a simple way to state what was done? We've gotten so complicated on this thread that I would like to go back and hear how Larry started this painting as I think that the innovation was mostly in how it was started.
I have noticed how my best painting is done about an hour into the work. How the edges and strokes just seem to meld into each other and create a flow and relationship that is beautiful. Perhaps, Larry is creating the same situation from the beginning. That is; instead of waiting for the better part of an hour, for the middle tones and mud to build into and around the painting, he is intentionaly placing them there right from the start, and using their 'magic' to accomplish a harmonius and atmospheric work thruout.
...just my guess.

Einion
04-01-2007, 03:44 AM
Hi Einion, I was wondering whose work at the artist's house gallery you were using as examples? thnks
If they look familiar it's because they're by Mark Brown :)

I want to express my own opinion that although I enjoyed Macpherson's book "filling landscapes with color and light" and his looseness of paint, I do not like his color. I've never seen his work in person and so it could be just the reproductions but there is a sameness to the color of all the paintings in that book that disturbs me.
Oh I'm sure the reproductions in the book are accurate enough.

I sure wish that five or six tubes would do it all and I continue to search for them...lol true
That size of palette is not for everyone, that's for sure.

Einion

LarrySeiler
04-01-2007, 04:59 PM
That size of palette is not for everyone, that's for sure.

Einion

Oh...and I'm quite sure that much depends on where one lives. I imagine the color, the angle of the sun lighting in Hawaii...the vegetation that grows, water and so forth appear much differently than trees, vegetation, water and such here in northern Wisconsin...so what colors might be chosen and found to be proficiently may indeed vary. Nature determining that...

Larry

Mario
04-01-2007, 06:25 PM
If they look familiar it's because they're by Mark Brown :)
Einion

yes, Mark uses a very limited pallette..four colors plus Permalba white and sometimes Burnt Sienna added. Colbolt blue was his blue as I remember.
Amazing still lifes and he told me years ago that he has a 'system' that he would like to teach. He lives a few hours drive from me, though.:( near Harrisburg, Pa.

bigflea
04-02-2007, 11:32 PM
Einion,
the restriction in regard to brilliance is a pivotal point in a discussion about palettes and chromatic values. Painters choose larger palettes, in part, because the greater number of pigment choices, increase the range of chromatic brilliance that is possible in pigment mixtures. (That is my reason for a larger palette.)

If a painter strives to imitate work, eg. Corot, that is itself extremely limited chromatically, the idea of a limited palette may work well for the intended goal. On the other hand, if one wishes to attain lifelike visual daylight effects of color, in which the spectral effect of daylight on the local surface (or object) color is described, it becomes an issue which pigments are capable of making the hue and chromatic relationships that are visually present.

The spectral effect, or the effect of light, and of the atmospheric filter on light, on the local color of forms, is often overlooked, and dismissed , in work intended to describe outdoor light.

Ken

bigflea
04-02-2007, 11:54 PM
Larry,
Personally, I do not equate the speed of a work with its success or quality. If I do something in an hour, to me it does not have more value as a painting than something that may be smaller but took several sessions to work out. It may be less successful or fulfilling to me, not because of the time involved, but because the potential of the composition, including the way harmonic color variations are used and completed, is less interesting, than some work which has been given more effort and time.

So, in general, I do not subscribe to the fad of quick paintings representing the best that art can do. Yet, I understand the fascination and the satisfaction one can feel when the alla prima quick study works as a complete statement of one's experience visually . Studio works often fail in regard to the feeling of a visual experience. So I am not an advocate for studio production either. Mainly, I feel the best results come from observing a scene over several sessions, and from the gradual refinement of the color harmonies used to describe the form and the light effect on forms and space.

To me, it comes down to chromatic harmonies. All values are chromatic relationships. Ie., relationships of brilliance/dullness/dark/light. Saturation is an effect of the light and atmospheric effect. It is part of the chromatic harmony for a particular key. What are the hue differences within the scale of chromatic value?

Interpretation involves, in part, how notes are painted on the surface. Are they massed in carefully as a shape,eg., or are some notes made as a mark of the brush or knife? What rhythm will I try to emphasize, and why?
Ken

LarrySeiler
04-03-2007, 12:18 AM
So, in general, I do not subscribe to the fad of quick paintings representing the best that art can do.
Ken


well...thanks for reducing my passion to attempt to touch a fleeting moment with whatever skills I might possess as simply this...a fad. Though I have often said five minutes after dirt is tossed over my grave, I'll be forgotten as will we all...

...guess you'd rather not wait to toss the dirt? hahahaaa.... :lol:

here's another then you can laugh at...

I heard we are going to get hit with blast of cold tomorrow and very likely a good amount of snow. Heard it on the evening news.

I should have known grabbing my gear and flying out of the house after hearing the weather forecast to take some advantage of the sun tonight would not have been ample time to finish a painting...but I so enjoyed engaging the moment at a nearby river...

I'll have to finish in studio....but this was my meger faddish attempt....

9"x 12" oil....and again...using the mud midgray block in approach...

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/02-Apr-2007/532-april07_ratriver.jpg

I only wish that painters regarded the use of a photograph as a fad, and a poor one at that. They might learn to observe nature...but so long as paintings are judged poor if the attempt to execute them in a small window of time is the case...they are guaranteed a long long honored prestige.

Thing is....and I'll remain adamant about it...painting can be a means to see more deeply. Forget about whether or not the painting has to turn out to be a good one!!! There is much merit in seeing more deeply even those scant few special moments of nature.

If a person carried the weight of the world of worry on their shoulders that they dare not attempt a painting unless it could meet some high standard, think of what understanding that comes of seeing more deeply thru paint would be missed...

such potential to see more deeply should never be reduced to being called a "fad" IMHO....that's just plain sad. Elitist...


Larry

Einion
04-03-2007, 04:24 AM
Einion,
the restriction in regard to brilliance is a pivotal point in a discussion about palettes and chromatic values.
Yes indeed it is. What you said above about this painter's work, about the nature of it being an automatic feature of that size of palette, was wrong though.

Painters choose larger palettes, in part, because the greater number of pigment choices, increase the range of chromatic brilliance that is possible in pigment mixtures. (That is my reason for a larger palette.)
It's my reason for preferring a larger palette too. But that's not what I was getting, as I made very clear.

"The fallacy, as I see it, in the limited palette concept is that one pigment of yellow,(or blue, red, etc.) suffices for all possible yellows."

"And I feel Kevin's work shows the limitations inherent in the limited color palette. Ie., his work is very generalized color. It tends to be a kind of pale coloring, with dull neutrals, ( ie., darks that appeartoo leaden, or dead)."
These are your opinions on the subject, which the examples I posted clearly show not to be correct statements about painting done with a limited palette.

The spectral effect, or the effect of light, and of the atmospheric filter on light, on the local color of forms, is often overlooked, and dismissed , in work intended to describe outdoor light.
That is practically the entire point of painting out of doors; I submit that virtually every painter is seeking to do much like, even exactly, as you've described. Just because people don't speak about it in the same way as you doesn't mean that it's not what they're doing - or, for that matter, describe said effects in paint the same way. The issue, for you, is that they don't do it the way you think is accurate, which is an entirely different kettle of fish.

On the other hand, if one wishes to attain lifelike visual daylight effects of color, in which the spectral effect of daylight on the local surface (or object) color is described, it becomes an issue which pigments are capable of making the hue and chromatic relationships that are visually present.
The sunlit side of a red rubber ball, is the hue still a red?

Einion

FriendCarol
04-03-2007, 05:32 AM
I recently read a book (put together for an exhibition, after Wallace had contributed money to restore the gardens) on Monet at Giverny. Some very interesting facts emerged: For some years, Monet continued to describe all his work as performed only on site, responding precisely to the moment, although in fact he typically finished work in the studio at that time. He had reviewers and friends connive at this lie, too.

Later he not only admitted to working in the studio, but also noted that he was no longer attempting to reproduce (in that 'scientific' manner of the early Impressionists) the exact colors he saw. "Monet's Years at Giverny: Beyond Impressionism" ('by' Metropolitan Museum of Art), 1978. After he worked in studios abroad (around 1900) Monet said this: "Whether my cathedral views, my views of London and other canvases are painted from life or not is nobody's business and of no importance whatsoever." Of course, by then he had been painting from life for many years, must have had a store of observations on which to draw.

LarrySeiler
04-03-2007, 10:02 AM
I'm not against painting in studio Carol...but I can attest that I began painting near 17 years instudio first...with no outdoor painting on location. My exodus outdoors was about a ten year experience before I began to paint indoors again.

I have experimented myself painting scenes I could picture in my head, made up...to see if from my experience observing and painting outdoors if I could paint a painting that might be convincing, and I believe I have. I do not believe I could have done that by any means prior to my outdoor experience.

I know a number of artists having had a good share of painting on location outdoors experience, that now have developed the practice of going to a location and do nothing but meditate the scene. Commit it to memory... and then return home to paint from their memory in studio.

I believe I just read Kevin MacPherson talking about doing some of that himself.

This eliminates the unessentials and gets at the rudiment 2 or 3 necessary elements that moved the aesthetic impulse in the artist.

I think the problem for Monet was that his reputation got bigger than life and he no longer owned it. It owned him as well as the expectations that come along with accolade.

Our goal is simply to make good paintings...but one has to develop a knowledge base. For myself...I had a life full of outdoor experiences and felt that I was clever enough and skilled enough as an artist to produce good paintings using photographs, a few sketches. In fact...I had won my share of important state and nationally recognized competitions to substantiate that illusion of being quite the painter. However...I had no idea prior to painting outdoors what it was that I did not know. One does not know what they do not know, and what I didn't know standing there with an easel and paint at the ready outdoors struck me as somewhat a shock. An embarrassment. An overwhelming sense of ineptness. I felt as though I knew very little about painting at all.

It is a good feeling now to take an idea and do something with it. Like that near black and white painting I did of a snowy river, used a split-comp palette and painted. In fact, here's the link to that thread...it begins with a painting I did in December not far from my house I called, "The Back Twenty"...observing the last light, using a split-comp palette...and then as you scroll down the thread you can see I took this somewhat blah blah black and white photo unrelated to the back twenty acres, and applied what I had discovered painting outdoors the night or two before...
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=387341

I'm afraid that if painting from life outdoors with an aim to learn is relegated to simply being a "fad"...and the fear of having one's works or attempts judged as poor...many would choose to not take the risk and would miss what nature could teach the painter. Every attempt to respond in paint to the moment, to see more deeply is a step forward.

I agree that "plein air" has become vogue...the thing to do, a bandwagon to jump on. A number of us outdoor painters used to be wildlife artists of reputation from the late 70's thru early 90's...and we saw that genre die due to so many poor painters wanting to wear the mantle of reputation undeserving. No doubt snatching photos out of outdoor magazines...painting a pair of ducks that looked like bowling pins with wings attached so they could sell 'em at the local outdoor art fair for $35...

I can't think of a better bandwagon for the low achievers to jump on though, for nature throws a lot of lumber at you standing there trying to paint it, and whatever their motivation for wanting to attach "plein air painter" to themselves...observing directly from life and trying to paint it will stretch and cause one to grow.

Now...before we get off in some other argument reading something into my words I'm not saying...I am not suggesting painting from life outdoors is the ONLY art form worthy of being art. I do believe it will teach you a thing or two about painting!

FriendCarol
04-03-2007, 10:23 AM
I'm not against painting in studioNo, of course you're not, but I believe Ken is. ;)the problem for Monet was that his reputation got bigger than lifeApparently, the real problem (reading this book) was that Monet was about to embark on (or had just?) the huge waterlilies canvases. They are so big he had a third studio built for them -- far too unwieldy, they think, to have them taken on location, even though special wheeled easels were built to hold them. (Sometimes he wheeled the paintings on the easels around a visitor, to help him get the full effect.) He had already promised to give the French government 4 of these huge canvases, and a special room was built for them! Of course, one close friend was Clemenceau.

Anyway, at this point, although his reputation was great and his prices extremely high, he was nowhere near stopping. He was still working and planning new work 26 years later when he died!

FriendCarol
04-03-2007, 10:38 AM
So, I just discovered a brand new method of cross-posting! :lol: (I posted as Larry searched for the link, apparently, and subsequently edited.)

Yes, I'm sure plein air teaches all sorts of useful things, though I think I've learned from it what I can (or need or want to?). I learned 'accurate' color mixing quite easily, in fact, from a few still life paintings I've done. When I go out to paint now, it's basically to get outside, as a break from painting in my new small 'studio' apartment.

But I vividly remember going to Central Park with my gouache pans twice a year, always ending up totally frustrated by my complete inability to match any color I saw. (Those pan paints did not mix!) Those were almost the only times I ever tried to paint anything actually visible around me; only once I took up transparent watercolor did I finally understand why it was impossible then.

LarrySeiler
04-03-2007, 11:12 AM
Yes, I'm sure plein air teaches all sorts of useful things, though I think I've learned from it what I can (or need or want to?). I learned 'accurate' color mixing quite easily, in fact, from a few still life paintings I've done. When I go out to paint now, it's basically to get outside, as a break from painting in my new small 'studio' apartment.



if one's goal is to paint better...one can take from it or how much from it one wishes...the beauty of the independent artist! ;)

On the other hand...I also paint outdoors to encourage my spirit. AS nutso as this world is and seems to be worsening, I get more centered that something (or Someone) more transcendent and bigger than my worries, bigger than the kind of day I had up until that point and so forth can be entered into. Living as I do in a national forest area...lakes, rivers, forests abound...and having had my fill of urban living (for 26 years earlier in my life)...its just too practical not to embrace it...

Makes little sense from where I work and live to paint indoors ABOUT the outdoors...except that I am finding when I experiment and push indoors, (at this stage of my artistic maturity)...I am discovering further strategies to employ outdoors and vice versa. Still striving to paint well....but outdoors, it is more a celebration of the spirit.

If I painted more stilllifes, it would be silly for me perhaps to expect to find that opportunity outdoors... :)

LarrySeiler
04-04-2007, 02:26 AM
I am working on a piece that I'm donating as this year's Ruffed Grouse Society host artist...my fifth time for that honor. Much fun at the banquet...and I find a joy that such work can raise decent monies for habitat improvements, management and so forth.

Thought I'd share this one here as well in this thread topic, opting on a waterfowl subject, but using the plein air painting from the other night as my reference.

For this work, I stretched heavy canvas over heavy 2" thick stretcher frames I made from 2"x 4" studs...19"x 29"

...then I heavily textured the surface prior to gessoing..

I then referred to my sketchbooks and sketched out some large gestures of mallards that I cut out, and taped in various places around the canvas working up to a suitable working composition...

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/03-Apr-2007/532-mallardsratriver_mockup1.jpg
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/03-Apr-2007/532-mallardsratriver_mockup2.jpg

here is the canvas with the ducks painted on with mud oil (left over scraped neutral paint from prior paint sessions...and turps, plus copal medium-

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/03-Apr-2007/532-mallardsratriver_ducksdrawn.jpg

for my palette, I have decided on a mud midvalue block in of masses, then working darks and lights wet into wet...
here the ducks surrounded by the masses blocked in with the mud neutral oil...(turps plus copal)...

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/03-Apr-2007/532-mallardsratriver_mudstage.jpg

Here is the work after a couple sessions and a couple closeups..
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/04-Apr-2007/532-mallardsratriver_endsessionthree.jpg

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/04-Apr-2007/532-mallardsratriver_closeupducks1.jpg

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/04-Apr-2007/532-mallardsratriver_closeupducks2.jpg

It seems to me that this surely is a twist or version of the pigment soup palette I have experimented with quite a bit this past summer, and one of the strategies I taught in my Alaskan workshop. With "pigment soup" you mix a color...or a neutral into each of your varied piles of pigment, premixing them... and the color/neutral added is then a common ingredient to each thus creating a natural harmony.

But...here, instead of adding the neutral to the color sitting on the palette first, the color is mixed wet into wet into the neutral sitting on the canvas surface. I find it quite suitable and accomodating. I could see it easily becoming a fad... ;)

I have the feeling I'll be working a bit of lighter value into the landmass, taking the punch down just a bit so that the darks of the ducks will be just a tad more impacting...

Larry

FriendCarol
04-04-2007, 07:30 AM
the color/neutral added is then a common ingredient to each thus creating a natural harmony.After I think this over for awhile, I may rush a copy over to the thread on Limitations/Applications of Color Theory. :D

LarrySeiler
04-04-2007, 10:14 AM
hahaa.....just peeked in on that thread...now I understand!!! :D

bigflea
04-05-2007, 12:22 AM
Larry,
I know alot of painters, (include me), with as much passion and enthusiasm as you have for the 'moment' of painting, when all one's energy and focus goes toward a particular moment that is fleeting. The difference between my idea and yours is that I will be out there maybe 20 times developing the same painting, provided the light and atmosphere and seasonal changes allow me. My enthusiasm and passion for the moment of a particular effect in nature is the same whether I am happy with the quick painting done in one session, or a more developed painting done over a period of weeks.
The idea that all paintings can be one session paintings is , to me, a fad, that has emerged in the last 5 years. I feel it leads to generalizations about color development that overlook or dismiss important visual differences between light keys.

Einion,
the sunlit side of a red rubber ball is painted in the context of what is around it, and in the context of the lighting condition. In addition, the sunlit side ought to have several divisions of color, which will not be the same hue. Eg. the highlight, the 1/2 light, the full or direct light, before going into shade. The shade mass and lit mass ought to be two entirely different hues, and further variations of color within either mass ought to pertain to those differences as the key to the harmonic development,assuming you are addressing a strong outdoor spectral light effect on any form. (Subdued indoor, indirect light is the only situation where local color remains visually descriptive.)

Ken

LarrySeiler
04-05-2007, 12:42 AM
Larry,
I know alot of painters, (include me), with as much passion and enthusiasm as you have for the 'moment' of painting, when all one's energy and focus goes toward a particular moment that is fleeting. The difference between my idea and yours is that I will be out there maybe 20 times developing the same painting, provided the light and atmosphere and seasonal changes allow me. My enthusiasm and passion for the moment of a particular effect in nature is the same whether I am happy with the quick painting done in one session, or a more developed painting done over a period of weeks.
The idea that all paintings can be one session paintings is , to me, a fad, that has emerged in the last 5 years. I feel it leads to generalizations about color development that overlook or dismiss important visual differences between light keys.

Ken

we might not be able to agree to disagree...but I'll just disagree. It is my full plate that I am subject to eat from...and do not have access to your plate to eat from.

As I have said often before, it would be lovely to live where one could go out day after day...or in a relatively short period of time to continue a painting. I would love to set up a 40"x 50" canvas for one and paint larger.

Thing is...as I have explained a number of times the Canadian fronts, the Great Lake effects we experience here in northern Wisconsin and upper Michigan from two great lakes...simply do not afford the convenience. If your condition is you're not going to paint unless...well, then you wouldn't be painting. At least not outdoors.

As I have said a number of times, we have a saying here..."if you dont' like the weather, wait around 15 minutes." As you say, provided that the the light and season allows...well, don't bother moving here because you would find the conditions perhaps rarely favorable to paint.

If you wait a number of days here for conditions and light to be the same...it is likely you would have missed early spring growth...or the color of the fall...and I'm not going to move to another part of the world where light is more constant to prove I'm capable of being a good painter by your estimations.

What is funny now that you mention this...is that I was flown up to Juneau, Alaska last summer to teach two painter's workshops.
Do you realize that in the summer it rains 70% of the time there? Between setting up tarps...finding a place to stand under or just PAINTING FAST...apparently in your opinion this part of Alaska would be undeserving of an outdoor (plein air) painter. Egads...I would have been poor in spirit to have not painted there, and yet thankfully and joyfully I managed to paint 24 paintings in the three weeks I was there. If I were to heavily consider your opinion here...I'd not have bothered to have packed my paint box!

A good painter can do incalcuable much with 300 hours, sure. Amazingly well with 100 hours...perhaps notably fine with 20 hours time. A skilled painter should be able to learn to nail the essence and spirit of the place with practice, lickety split if that is all that is given to him. It is called human convention. Don't count a man out when the want to is big enough.

Its not a cold shoulder, but I guess we don't have much left to bother saying to each other on this issue. I'm not finding myself the least bit convinced nor finding I need to second guess my motives. While interesting to see how different artists might work, opinions themselves are a bit like armpits. Everyone has at least two...and most stink. That will include my own opinons I'm sure! ;)

take care

bigflea
04-05-2007, 12:43 AM
FriendCarol,
Au contrare, actually, I feel painting interior lighting can help understand differences between plein aire and subdued interior color effects. First off, anyone should note that local colors are more dominant in the interior, or subdued light situation, while outside, en plein aire, local color is "destroyed" by spectral and atmospheric conditions.

What I differ with is the idea that picture making is done by following conventions that have little to do with nature and the light effects of sunlight. Painters are taught conventions that were based in the academic system of picture making, and little discrimination is made between what is academic and what is visually descriptive. When a painter uses the same dark mixture in every painting, it makes me question how much they are comparing one visual situation to another. (Assuming they intend their work to describe daylight effects.) When painters argue that local color is the dominant character of forms in sunlight, I have to wonder what happened to the sunlight in their part of the world. Everywhere I have been, sunlight alters local color, often entirely eradicating it as a descriptive element. Monet demonstrated this in his works. Any impressionist painter knows that his works had to have taken months if not years to complete. It is naive to believe otherwise. Yet the substance and harmonic content of the works represents a moment in seeing.

Ken

bigflea
04-05-2007, 12:54 AM
Larry,
I know what you mean. Wish I had more time available. Have a spring morning effect, only 16x24, that I have tried to develop over the last 2 weeks, or is it 3? Anyway, the effect I wanted to study, before the green leaves emerge, but with some of the yellow buds emerging, in the morning sunlight at about 7:15 to 8:00, has already changed into something else. Was happy with the first effort, and felt more could be, needed to be, done, to show the harmonic theme, or for me to unravel the harmonic theme. This week started a late afternoon of the same composition, showing the sunset effect. Now some of the spring green is out, (but it still looks good, haha).

Anyway, it is always a problem with time. For that reason alone, small quick paintings can be a painter's best friend. Just wish I could do them better, or be happy with the results.

Ken

Einion
04-05-2007, 03:42 PM
Einion,
the sunlit side of a red rubber ball is painted in the context of what is around it, and in the context of the lighting condition. In addition, the sunlit side ought to have several divisions of color, which will not be the same hue. Eg. the highlight, the 1/2 light, the full or direct light, before going into shade. The shade mass and lit mass ought to be two entirely different hues, and further variations of color within either mass ought to pertain to those differences as the key to the harmonic development,assuming you are addressing a strong outdoor spectral light effect on any form.
Well thanks for that I guess, but I can't help but wish you'd answered the actual question I asked. I even underlined deliberately to make sure there was no way to misconstrue. Although this from a later post gives plenty of suggestion:
...outside, en plein aire, local color is "destroyed" by spectral and atmospheric conditions.
I wanted something more definite about exactly what you hold to be the case, for those following this thread. It was a very simple question that only really required a very simple answer; a single word - yes or no - could have sufficed in fact, even if bulked out with additional detail.

Einion

LarrySeiler
04-05-2007, 08:31 PM
Here's another, painted tonight...

9"x 12" oil on pumice panel...

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/05-Apr-2007/532-ctyp_peshtigoriver72.jpg

dang...the sun was so inviting...had to get out...but EEEeyowww was it a chilly....er, um...NO...it was downright ccc COLD!!! :eek:

Forgot to grab my fingerless wool gloves...heh, its not supposed to be winter!

I had polar fleece gloves with a mitt pullover and half the time I had to paint with the full mitt. That wind was something else.

Said it was 22 degrees....but with that wind and the windchill it had to be in the single digits here.

Painted for about two hours...then half my body started complaining, saying..."C'mon....we gotta go!!!"

I kept saying shut up...just a little bit more, but then I got this argument I could possibly touch up a bit in studio if I needed to.

Well...whoever it was arguing, he finally won out...and I had that heater just blastin' away on the ride home... yikes!!!

The landscape tonight just kept gettn' purtier and purtier as the sun was going down...what a lovely...well, beautiful night.

At any rate...I decided the heater in my car definitely has "fad" potential...

to begin this one...I used a reddish gray midvalue mud to block in my masses. I figured the reddish leaning would excite the greens of the pines...and warm up the painting as a whole...

Just wish it had warmed me up painting it!!! :D

Mario
04-05-2007, 11:03 PM
Very nice work! It has a vibe to it.

LarrySeiler
04-05-2007, 11:14 PM
appreciated, Mario.... :thumbsup:

stoney
04-06-2007, 01:30 PM
Canadian frontal weather systems...Lake Superior and Lake Michigan affects. WE have a saying here in northern Wisconsin. If you don't like the weather, wait around fifteen minutes! It can be hot...sunny...dark, cooling and suddenly snowing before you know it, and that in the month of May.....hahaha true true true!!!

peace

Larry

Exactly. I recall two years here in S. Oregon where we woke up to .5-1.5 inches of snow on the fourth of july.

When I did my three months of mess cranking on that drydock in a Scotland winter quick change weather was noted. Two of us were hauling one of those huge 50 gallon trash cans some 400 feet to the skid box {bin/dumpster} at a time. Empty it and carry it back and down one deck.

From the time of descending a ladder with an empty and climbing it with a full one might be, what, two maybe three minutes? The weather went from clear, to fog, to rain, to clear again. The change was with each ascenchion.

Decidedly different.

LarrySeiler
04-06-2007, 01:42 PM
funny how that can happen, and I can see why some painters throughout history opted to relocate to paint and live. Might have been for a better market...for better light and conditions...for an ideal subject. Most often they were single, did not have a family to care for...or did not care for the family they started!!! So they moved where they wanted affecting only themselves.

One might think life wonderful to paint seining or fishing boats...but to opt for SE Alaska to do that is difficult, because it is a rain forest region. So one might opt for Massachusetts...Gloucester perhaps...

But...SE Alaska took my breath away. Would I then not be allowed to be considered a serious or even good artist were I to live in SE Alaska? Had better not tell the plein air painters I have met there that!

Heh...if you are twenty yards away from someone wanting to swing a fist at you, you're reaction and time to react is significantly different from someone two feet away.

So...you follow your heart, learn by convention to adapt and modify and do your very best.

Some refer to this as a fad...and in areas of the world where it is all cushy cozy and sweet to paint all well in fine perhaps where faddish types might gather. I would argue, it takes a bit of a different underlying motive at heart to willingly subject oneself to times of a minus 13 degrees temperature, sleet, you name it. Instead...it would be right to accuse an artist of having a love for the moods of nature and those moods and conditions themselves being worthy to represent as an artist. It is not just fair weather that carries such a right, IMHO...

perhaps those that enjoy painting day after day till the painting is completed could be called, "fair weather artists!" ;)

hahhaaa....just kidding on that last suggestion.... :lol:

stoney
04-06-2007, 02:21 PM
funny how that can happen, and I can see why some painters throughout history opted to relocate to paint and live. Might have been for a better market...for better light and conditions...for an ideal subject. Most often they were single, did not have a family to care for...or did not care for the family they started!!! So they moved where they wanted affecting only themselves.

One might think life wonderful to paint seining or fishing boats...but to opt for SE Alaska to do that is difficult, because it is a rain forest region. So one might opt for Massachusetts...Gloucester perhaps...

Yes, it would be difficult. I'm aware the area is rain forest, intellectually, but I have a feeling of 'contradiction' about it as it gets copious amounts of snow. The emotional reaction concerning rain forest and snow is, for me, jarring. I find the silly feeling mildly amusing.



But...SE Alaska took my breath away. Would I then not be allowed to be considered a serious or even good artist were I to live in SE Alaska? Had better not tell the plein air painters I have met there that!

That or duck! :evil:


Heh...if you are twenty yards away from someone wanting to swing a fist at you, you're reaction and time to react is significantly different from someone two feet away.

So...you follow your heart, learn by convention to adapt and modify and do your very best.

Some refer to this as a fad...and in areas of the world where it is all cushy cozy and sweet to paint all well in fine perhaps where faddish types might gather. I would argue, it takes a bit of a different underlying motive at heart to willingly subject oneself to times of a minus 13 degrees temperature, sleet, you name it. Instead...it would be right to accuse an artist of having a love for the moods of nature and those moods and conditions themselves being worthy to represent as an artist. It is not just fair weather that carries such a right, IMHO...

I would think the bodilly discomfort would come through on the painting, increasing the works impact. Painting in the conditions you sometimes do isn't something I can do. When your hands won't work its difficult to accomplish something. Shades of having frostbit hands a couple of times. Manure Occurith.


perhaps those that enjoy painting day after day till the painting is completed could be called, "fair weather artists!" ;)

hahhaaa....just kidding on that last suggestion.... :lol:

I know, but why not? A formula could be cobbled together indicating as the barometer falls so does the number of plein aire artists! ;)

LarrySeiler
04-06-2007, 02:24 PM
have to admire Sydney Laurence for his paintings of Alaska...
he and a number of others are sure loved up there

peace

stoney
04-06-2007, 07:48 PM
have to admire Sydney Laurence for his paintings of Alaska...
he and a number of others are sure loved up there

peace

Took a quick look at some of his work and bookmarked the site. That 'Sunset on Mt. McKinley' is awesome. It's so rich and there's lots to see.

bigflea
04-06-2007, 10:30 PM
Another good one, imo, Larry, works well. It has a richness overall, and that quality is certainly one of the ' inspiring' motives when we see the landscape. It makes us want to paint it.

Einion,
if you require a yes or no answer re. the color of a red rubber ball in sunlight, to me that means you are not asking me what my observations might be, or what my painting/mixing solution might be.

Anyone familiar with your posts would understand your position that the local xurface color, and its value as a dark or light, is the dominant coloration for any painting solution/problem.

I have stated my disagreement with that position often enough in our exchanges. In my answer I attempted to clarify how any painter could paint a solution to the problem for themselves, simply by studying the variations in the modeling of the form, especially with respect to the sunlit mass as it is seen against the shade mass.

Red, which we all can agree is one possible primary color, (magenta being another choice), is a good choice for a discussion of this question, because an object with a red local/surface color, can also become a secondary lighting source in a composition. IOW, a red sphere, in a compositional arrangement, will reflect its surface coloring into more neutral surface colors, in addition to the spectral light, and the atmospheric effect on the whole arrangement.

A simple answer is that, rule of thumb for me, never assume the local surface color is the dominant pigment in a mixture for a form. Observe the color relationships, first , what hues do you see, second, the chromatic scale of bright to dull/dark to light, relationships, and the saturation/neutrality relationships. When working with outdoor lighting, to me it helps to think of everything as an effect of light, (ie. it has hue, chroma, saturation, on a scale), and even areas that are darks are actually indirect light.

If color modeling, (as opposed to doing a quick sketch of a light effect), a painter has to determine where the local color of a red is actually most saturated and brilliant, and construct their masses and variations accordingly.

If you are out painting a field of dead grasses, and trees where all the leaves have fallen, since it is late winter/not yet spring, and suddenly someone kicks a multicolored beach ball into your composition, does it change the way you see all those beautiful subdued neutral colors?

Ken

Einion
04-07-2007, 02:50 AM
Anyone familiar with your posts would understand your position that the local xurface color, and its value as a dark or light, is the dominant coloration for any painting solution/problem.

I have stated my disagreement with that position often enough in our exchanges.
I wanted something... for those following this thread.

In my answer I attempted to clarify how any painter could paint a solution to the problem for themselves...
Yes, but it didn't address the central point of my question: hue, not colour.

Colour changes are a given (even if the value alone changed that's automatically a change in colour). Work with effectively only one colour would have to be like Yves Klein's monochromatic series, e.g. Monochrome bleu sans titre or Grand Monopink:

http://www.centrepompidou.fr/education/ressources/ENS-klein-EN/images/m/3I01549.jpg http://www.centrepompidou.fr/education/ressources/ENS-klein-EN/images/m/MP16.jpg

(Yes, for anyone that doesn't know Klein's work these are paintings... just not as we know it Jim.)

What we generally refer to as monochromatic work, whether 'black and white' (greyscale) or done using a single paint (so it's "one colour") there are still colour changes, it's just the hue that doesn't alter, much or at all. As in Fight Over A Waterhole or Frank:

http://www.sbmuseart.org/collection/american/large/fightOverWaterhole.jpg http://www.artsmia.org/mia/e_images/11/mia_11909e.jpg

Working in full colour, whether the hue is considered to change - and by how much* - between sunlit area, halftone and shadow zones is a lot more relevant to the nature of your position and how it contrasts to that of painters who don't follow a neo-impressionist ideal.

*Enough that the sunlit portion is no longer a red in hue, i.e. whether the hue can/does alter enough in sunlight for something to go from red to orange (or even to yellow) in this case; from green to yellow for foliage (and green to blue for the shadows in foliage) and so on.

Einion

LarrySeiler
04-07-2007, 10:00 AM
well...I'll say this, those are both impressive pieces of work Einion!!!

where'd you find these? From what I've gathered, his work was all abstract in nature...

Einion
04-07-2007, 11:29 AM
well...I'll say this, those are both impressive pieces of work Einion!!!
The non-Klein ones? :D The Klein pieces I have to say do zero for me as art, although I'm sure I wouldn't mind something like it purely as a decoration on a wall.

Anyway I agree, both good painting, I also liked that they were so different from each other in colour and excecution for the purposes of illustration. The one on the left is a Remington - new to me, found it doing a quich search for the post (I'd love to see it in the flesh, check if the colouration in this reproduction is accurate) - the one on the right is by Chuck Close.

Trivia titbit: Frank is probably from one of those years Close talks about where he used a teaspoon of black pigment, total :eek:

Einion

bigflea
04-07-2007, 12:30 PM
Einion,
I would not expect a tonal painter to use color modeling in the way it was taught by Hawthorne and Hensche, and others. In that concept (tonal)of modeling, the form color is usually thought of as changing in value gradations indicating plane changes around the form. The effect of spectral color ( daylight) is not given the emphasis in the color development of the painting. Chase is an example of a tonal painter who attempted to adapt impressionist ideas but never developed form modeling emphasizing spectral light effects, but retained the concept of the form color as "the" color of the form.

But it is not a cut and dried issue for a colorist like myself either. Part of the choices a painter has before them includes whether to emphasize the particular form, or the effect of daylight color on the local color of the forms. While the ideal may be to do both in the paint mixtures, it is not always possible. If the form is more important to the painting solution, a painter may choose to allow the local color more emphasis, and downplay the spectral effect.

Extremely brilliant local colors, such as flower petals, red rubber spheres, traffic light signals, seen at close range especially, can dominate the paint mixture, and be visually dominate.

I think the painter has to resolve hue, chroma, and saturation as the substance of the mixing problem. Hues that are extremely saturated, or extremely bright and saturated, are examples where the local color can become more dominate in a mixture. But even these are altered by the spectral, and atmospheric conditions. Light and shade hues of these are not going to be the same hue, visually. The direct light mass will have hue changes, such as the highlight, and a hue change in the 1/2 light area, while the one area of the light mass will appear most saturated.

Fall tree colors are an example of how a bright local color is only saturated and brilliant in a particular plane of the form. A careful modeling study of that problem can show that.

In the monochrome paintings shown above, there is no form modeling that I detect, and the image exists in a flat plane only. It is a different problem, one of a color design such as an interior color scheme for an architectural design.

Landscape painting is not the same concept, to me, as interior color design, where local color IS used, and adjusted for the particular effect of the room lighting. In landscape the painter is dealing with recessional space and forms, and the color changes are often intended to describe that visual effect.
But these days alot of painters do not use color to describe aerial recession, or form in the landscape, but use color design, and develop color themes which are more expressive than they are descriptive.

Personally I feel one can learn alot about color by studying color modeling in various light keys. It can expand a painter's mixing and control of color.
Ken

bigflea
04-07-2007, 12:42 PM
PS
The Remington looks to me somewhat unsuccessful in regard to the recession space. I get it, but it looks more 2 d than 3 d, I feel. Also, I believe it intends to represent bright light, but the shadows are too dark for bright light. Maybe it isn't supposed to be bright light?
Ken

Einion
04-07-2007, 05:55 PM
I would not expect a tonal painter to use color modeling in the way it was taught by Hawthorne and Hensche, and others.
Exactly. So why do you insist on using that 'standard' to judge the work of everyone???

Just as the work of the Cape School is largely or completely incapable of standing up to scrutiny based on a more mainstream viewpoint, work that is not intended to be neo-impressionistic should not, CANNOT, be judged by those lights.

In that concept (tonal)of modeling, the form color is usually thought of as changing in value gradations indicating plane changes around the form.
Because another painter doesn't paint like a latter-day impressionist doesn't mean they're automatically a tonalist. There are many different shadings of colourist work, just as there is with true tonalist work; and the majority of representational painting today which could fall somewhere in between.

In the monochrome paintings shown above, there is no form modeling that I detect, and the image exists in a flat plane only.
Oh for goodness sakes; value is the dominant force in vision. That's simply the way it is, there's no opinion involved. You might as well try to prove black is white as try to dispute this.

You want to know what a lack of form modelling really looks like? Here you go:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/07-Apr-2007/3842-Water_Taxi_No_Value.JPG

Now try to tell me the above 'works' visually as well as this:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/07-Apr-2007/3842-Water_Taxi_Value_Only.JPG

You could do the same thing a thousand times with a thousand different images and it'll ALWAYS work like this.

This can work so well in fact that you could do it with well-known images, even iconic ones, and with all the value differences stripped out most of the time nobody would be able to identify them. I'm perfectly willing to prove this with examples if you believe any different.

Personally I feel one can learn alot about color by studying color modeling in various light keys.
The point you fail to grasp Ken is that is exactly what almost all plein air painters are seeking to do, perhaps even nearly every painter that works from life - accurately capture the quality of light and how it affects how things look, to them, when viewed directly. It's only that you don't think they're doing it right.

Einion

stoney
04-07-2007, 06:31 PM
Exactly. So why do you insist on using that 'standard' to judge the work of everyone???

Just as the work of the Cape School is largely or completely incapable of standing up to scrutiny based on a more mainstream viewpoint, work that is not intended to be neo-impressionistic should not, CANNOT, be judged by those lights.


Because another painter doesn't paint like a latter-day impressionist doesn't mean they're automatically a tonalist. There are many different shadings of colourist work, just as there is with true tonalist work; and the majority of representational painting today which could fall somewhere in between.


Oh for goodness sakes; value is the dominant force in vision. That's simply the way it is, there's no opinion involved. You might as well try to prove black is white as try to dispute this.

You want to know what a lack of form modelling really looks like? Here you go:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/07-Apr-2007/3842-Water_Taxi_No_Value.JPG

Now try to tell me the above 'works' visually as well as this:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/07-Apr-2007/3842-Water_Taxi_Value_Only.JPG

You could do the same thing a thousand times with a thousand different images and it'll ALWAYS work like this.

This can work so well in fact that you could do it with well-known images, even iconic ones, and with all the value differences stripped out most of the time nobody would be able to identify them. I'm perfectly willing to prove this with examples if you believe any different.


The point you fail to grasp Ken is that is exactly what almost all plein air painters are seeking to do, perhaps even nearly every painter that works from life - accurately capture the quality of light and how it affects how things look, to them, when viewed directly. It's only that you don't think they're doing it right.

Einion


Is not the prime factor what avenue(s) provide the sought after results rather than a specific mechanism?

bigflea
04-08-2007, 12:37 AM
Einion,
Have to disagree with your fundamental premise, re., value ( as in monochromatic value) is the most important aspect of visual experience. You present this concept as indisputable. To me, that translates to you judging art and all work by a standard you feel inclined to impose, based on reasons that are your own .

I don't judge artwork by my own intent in producing a work. Work that is not a study of a light key, eg., has interest and merit for other reasons. Mainly, the beauty of a particular work requires anyone who sees it take it in and enjoy what it has for us to enjoy.

Your accusations and negativity toward my positions has to do mainly with your subjective position against impressionism, and your promotion of a point of view that you feel is "right" pictorially. You have no more valid a position than I do, or anyone, and if you cannot tolerate critiques of works that fail by standards you do not agree with, that is your own choice. It does not mean I am judging a work unfairly.

Alot of plein aire painters are interested in suggesting a light effect, but very few distinguish between light key effects, mainly because no one teaches them how to do so. This is a topic that could be explored in this kind of forum, except for the fact of the kind of resistance to it that you seem to enjoy propagating.

IOW, to a great extent, you support or tolerate points of view that agree with your own, or do not challenge your own, but go to great lengths to undermine ideas that you do not understand or accept as valid.

In contrast, I have never dismissed the tonal value concept, or the works of tonal painters, but have clearly stated how the approach Hensche taught differs from such an approach, and why it can be of value to a painter interested getting more vibrant color effect into their work.

As far as I know, you have never attempted to use the color modeling approach I have described, but you have a long , unending list of reasons why it does not work. IOW, you have no experience with the method, but have worked it out in your head, apparently, that it is wrong and of little value for color awareness.

In contrast, everything I have said about color is for painters who may sincerely wish to try the approach Hensche developed. I would not expect someone like yourself, with no interest, and with a clearly stated anti impressionist color position, to be able to learn or understand or accept anything about the idea, or to understand why I would make a particular criticism of a tonal painting ( like the Remington, eg.)

In short, my comments are really not for you, but for anyone who may be interested in a non tonal color approach to form and light. Your criticisms of the ideas I present, seem, to me, designed simply to discredit what you do not yourself understand or acknowledge .

Regarding the two images, it seems to me a ridiculous comparison. Perhaps you thought it up for that reason?

Obviously, the two images work differently. One, the lower, value image you would judge as "correct", because it obeys your "directive" about value. IMO, the values are wrong for the forms. The image does not work, as a photograph.

In the second image, the upper 'high keyed' color version, the chroma is wrong for the forms to read.

IOW, both are wrong, imo. And both are ridiculous as a comparison.
Ken

Einion
04-08-2007, 06:01 AM
Is not the prime factor what avenue(s) provide the sought after results rather than a specific mechanism?
As far as the work of each painter goes, yes. But that's distinct from things like the dominance of value in vision, which simply is the case, plain as that.


Have to disagree with your fundamental premise, re., value ( as in monochromatic value) is the most important aspect of visual experience. You present this concept as indisputable. To me, that translates to you judging art and all work by a standard you feel inclined to impose, based on reasons that are your own .
As I said there's no opinion required. If there were some medical condition that would make someone incapable of seeing brightness differences overnight, only able to perceive hue and saturation, it would for all practical purposes make them blind.

They couldn't tell whether they were looking at a white circle on a blue wall or at the sun, but for the warmth on their skin in the latter case.

I don't judge artwork by my own intent in producing a work.
Yes you do. You've done it above in this very thread for goodness sakes - read your own words. And you've done the same in virtually every other thread here over the years where you've commented negatively on the colour in a painting; you're viewing the paintings through your own filtering system, whether you realise it or not.

Your accusations and negativity toward my positions has to do mainly with your subjective position against impressionism, and your promotion of a point of view that you feel is "right" pictorially.
No it doesn't, it has to do with things being the way they are versus the way you claim they are; some things are not about interpretation and not about subjective experience. I have no axe to grind with regard to how people choose to interpret things when they paint, a point that has been made, directly to you I believe, more than once.

If they try to claim however that their subjective view of the world is the way things are - I'm not being unfair here, a neo-impressionistic portrayal is clearly of great subjectivity - in contrast to accepted, generally-held views to the contrary (some of which have nothing to do with art, but are about physics or biology) then that's when you'll get a problem.

Alot of plein aire painters are interested in suggesting a light effect, but very few distinguish between light key effects, mainly because no one teaches them how to do so.
That's your interpretation :rolleyes: Those same painters we're imagining won't agree that you've captured the light in a given scene correctly. Your personal concept about "color modelling in the light key" is not how other artists working in the same vein perceive things, it's even quite distinct from that of Hawthorne or Hensche, as well as the work of the handful of other Cape School painters that I've seen! So don't try to claim that light key effects, whatever they are, are some kind of independent truth of the appearance of things.

This is a topic that could be explored in this kind of forum, except for the fact of the kind of resistance to it that you seem to enjoy propagating.
What do you mean except for? What do you think you're doing in this very thread?

You have been exploring this very thing, right here, at length, over many years. I've been doing my own version of the same thing; same with every other member that chooses to post.

IOW, to a great extent, you support or tolerate points of view that agree with your own, or do not challenge your own, but go to great lengths to undermine ideas that you do not understand or accept as valid.
I challenge views that I don't believe are right or know to be wrong. Whether you characterise either or both as 'undermining' is your concern. It's no different in principle to you arguing your case with someone who posts a painting where you don't think the "light key" is captured.

In contrast, I have never dismissed the tonal value concept, or the works of tonal painters...
Please don't make me go look for quotes.

As far as I know, you have never attempted to use the color modeling approach I have described, but you have a long , unending list of reasons why it does not work.
Yes, the first and foremost reason being that it doesn't look anything like the world does out through my eyes, or the eyes of virtually every realistic representational painter, who see the world 'normally'. That's sufficient reason right there.

In short, my comments are really not for you...
Just as mine are not entirely for you; something clarified above and re-emphasised at the top of post #52.

Regarding the two images, it seems to me a ridiculous comparison. Perhaps you thought it up for that reason?

Obviously, the two images work differently. One, the lower, value image you would judge as "correct", because it obeys your "directive" about value. IMO, the values are wrong for the forms. The image does not work, as a photograph.
Sorry, I probably didn't make this clear enough if you're not familiar with this type of thing: those two images in post #57 are of the same painting. The top is basically the colour with all brightness information removed; the bottom is, loosely, the value information only.

For anyone interested in more on this, see this page (http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/color11.html) on the Handprint site.

In the second image, the upper 'high keyed' color version, the chroma is wrong for the forms to read.
It's not the chroma. There is, pretty literally, nothing wrong with the hue and saturation information; it's that there's no value to speak of.

Einion

LarrySeiler
04-08-2007, 01:01 PM
The non-Klein ones? :D The Klein pieces I have to say do zero for me as art, although I'm sure I wouldn't mind something like it purely as a decoration on a wall.

Anyway I agree, both good painting, I also liked that they were so different from each other in colour and excecution for the purposes of illustration. The one on the left is a Remington - new to me, found it doing a quich search for the post (I'd love to see it in the flesh, check if the colouration in this reproduction is accurate) - the one on the right is by Chuck Close.

Trivia titbit: Frank is probably from one of those years Close talks about where he used a teaspoon of black pigment, total :eek:

Einion

well...I know Remington's work...but didn't recognize this one...and Close, and thought perhaps it was a work someone else did influenced or similar. Just didn't want to say because I wasn't familiar with Klein...
explains now why I didn't find such works when I googled him. Okay...makes sense now...

LarrySeiler
04-15-2007, 09:06 PM
Today was one of those lovely days...

I got together at 1pm today with my high school athlete golfers for a practice, and we put in nine. My first nine of the year, and shot a 39 which was par for the course. That felt good.

Then...at 5pm...I thought the day was just too lovely to let go by, and grabbed my El Greco Trident half-box easel and a 9"x 12" panel...and headed to one of our nearer and favorite haunts for painting, the Mill Pond lake...

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/15-Apr-2007/532-millpondapril07_72.jpg

To help me tackle this last minute late light...I went once again with the neutral mud midgray value block-in again for my main masses, then mixed in color to create dark and light neutrals and built this up to a pretty decent harmony. This approach seems to take on a lot in short order for me...


Larry

LarrySeiler
04-23-2007, 11:42 AM
another neutral mud experiment from painting outdoors this weekend...
9"x 12" oil on a textured panel...

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/22-Apr-2007/532-millpondmarshapril07donewc.jpg

Mario
04-23-2007, 11:58 AM
Some lively browns there, Larry. Do you remember how they were mixed? and I llike that little patch of green and orange in the foreground.

stoney
04-23-2007, 01:07 PM
Today was one of those lovely days...

I got together at 1pm today with my high school athlete golfers for a practice, and we put in nine. My first nine of the year, and shot a 39 which was par for the course. That felt good.

Then...at 5pm...I thought the day was just too lovely to let go by, and grabbed my El Greco Trident half-box easel and a 9"x 12" panel...and headed to one of our nearer and favorite haunts for painting, the Mill Pond lake...

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/15-Apr-2007/532-millpondapril07_72.jpg

To help me tackle this last minute late light...I went once again with the neutral mud midgray value block-in again for my main masses, then mixed in color to create dark and light neutrals and built this up to a pretty decent harmony. This approach seems to take on a lot in short order for me...


Larry


A 39 'right out of the box?' Cool! My golfing/bowling days are over with carpal tunnel. Not that they were great. Vertigo and double-vision are not game enhancers.

Nice works. I'm 'itching' for things to warm up so I can go out and paint.

LarrySeiler
04-25-2007, 07:57 AM
yeah...its been a relatively good year for me...
tougher course last night for my JV's...
we coaches that aren't hosting, get together and go off the opposite nine. The host coach runs the show for the night, marshalls and so forth after getting things off.

I hit a 41 last night...so, I've been playing close to par golf...which for me with the little I get to play is satisfying. Once summer comes, my golf will pretty much be reserved for when I visit my son who is assistant superintendant of a dandy course...two 18's and one 9....but otherwise, my summer is too busy teaching painting, painting...shows, events...traveling to galleries.

Hope it warms up for ya soon enough... :thumbsup:

stoney
04-25-2007, 02:40 PM
yeah...its been a relatively good year for me...
tougher course last night for my JV's...
we coaches that aren't hosting, get together and go off the opposite nine. The host coach runs the show for the night, marshalls and so forth after getting things off.

I hit a 41 last night...so, I've been playing close to par golf...which for me with the little I get to play is satisfying. Once summer comes, my golf will pretty much be reserved for when I visit my son who is assistant superintendant of a dandy course...two 18's and one 9....but otherwise, my summer is too busy teaching painting, painting...shows, events...traveling to galleries.

Hope it warms up for ya soon enough... :thumbsup:

Thank you. Warm weather's right around the corner. :)