Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 63 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #987730
    MikeN
    Default

        In regards to a recent thread here in CT&M:

        I noticed the term “Realism” used frequently when attached to an accurate style of painting. I find the word as ambiguous as descriptions like “temperature” or even “tone”.

        I thought I would bring the topic up for discussion. For starters I am curious about WC member’s thoughts and definitions of the term. I ask what, for you, is realism? Specifically, how is color used “realisticly” in a painting or work of art? Is it merely transferring colors that are seen to a canvas with the upmost precision? Is it something more sophisticated? Possibly, suplementing what is seen with knowlege of a more truthful view? Do you feel that using color “realistically” is a mechanical act, or is it an informed expression?

        I look forward to your thoughts.

        Mike

        #1112411

        If you are using a colour picker, then how could it be anything else but a mechanical act.

        An art which isn't based on feeling isn't an art at all. Paul Cézanne :)

        #1112464
        wal_t
        Default

            My feeling is that even in the most realistic painting (wether it is a work of art or not, but that is another discussion :-) both value and color are just simplified approximations of what one sees in nature. We cannot paint the exact same – infinite – values and colors we see …. I think.

            Regards, Walter

            #1112424
            MikeN
            Default

                If you are using a colour picker, then how could it be anything else but a mechanical act.

                Is a color picker a machine by chance? I don’t know of any painters who use one. The question may be more directed towards those who don’t use such things.

                M

                #1112412

                Is a color picker a machine by chance? I don’t know of any painters who use one. The question may be more directed towards those who don’t use such things.

                M

                I was referring to Munsell and their chips where you hold up a chip to copy the colour you think it is or closely resembles the chip. Carder method comes to mind as well.

                I can not see this anything other than a mechanical means. Which is okay of course; if this method of illustrating what’s in front of you to the canvas is what you want but hardly can be considered the finearts.

                An art which isn't based on feeling isn't an art at all. Paul Cézanne :)

                #1112425
                MikeN
                Default

                    My feeling is that even in the most realistic painting (wether it is a work of art or not, but that is another discussion :-) both value and color are just simplified approximations of what one sees in nature. We cannot paint the exact same – infinite – values and colors we see …. I think.

                    Regards, Walter

                    I happen to agree with you Walter. I would also add that if we could paint exactly as we see (which we cannot), there is no promise that the visual information from single vantage point is helpful in regards to communicating the view two-demensionally.

                    So what is “realistic”?

                    #1112452
                    nit-wit
                    Default

                        I can not see this anything other than a mechanical means. Which is okay of course; if this method of illustrating what’s in front of you to the canvas is what you want but hardly can be considered the finearts.

                        This can probably be considered as much of a discipline as anything else. And as with anything else some will be able to make an art of it and most won’t.

                        I used to have a friend who sat with me in mathematics lessons at schools, and he could do the sums in his head faster than I could on my pocket calculator. This makes me think of the Munsellists.

                        Andrew

                        #1112426
                        MikeN
                        Default

                            I was referring to Munsell and their chips where you hold up a chip to copy the colour you think it is or closely resembles the chip. Carder method comes to mind as well.

                            I can not see this anything other than a mechanical means. Which is okay of course; if this method of illustrating what’s in front of you to the canvas is what you want but hardly can be considered the finearts.

                            I agree that chip matching is a mechanical means. It in itself may or may not be art, but that’s not exactly what I was looking for :) Is matching colors on our canvas to what is seen (by mechanical means or other) the most realistic way of depicting a scene or object?

                            (for anyone else)
                            Are there ever cases where what is seen is spatially confusing or seemingly obsurd? In such cases, could altering help communicate the truer sense of what is before us? Is this kind of abstracting helping the work become more or less real?

                            #1112465
                            wal_t
                            Default

                                It’s always so difficult to try and define these things. Show me 2 paintings and the reference scene and I can probably instantly tell you which one is more realistic in color, value, shape or whatever – for me that is, maybe not for you – but asking me to define it in language …. I cannot; maybe in Double Dutch but certainly not in English. I am not at all convinced that trying to copy nature as accurate as possible will give the best realistic painting as end result, I don’t know.

                                I saw in this thread a reference to the Carder method. I saw that too and at least when he uses that method (with a very limited palette) it results in what I would call realistic paintings (but I am not sure about the color as that seems much less important then shape and value approximations to achieve something “realistic”).

                                Regards, Walter

                                #1112444
                                gunzorro
                                Default

                                    I’m not an expert in realism, but I know it when I run into it. ;)

                                    #1112413

                                    What is real?

                                    Reality is transitory, therefore— Linear is transitory, colour is transitory, value is… so the best and only real you can achieve is your own perception of it.

                                    Cézanne compared reality to looking at a bird in flight in which you see the bird in the sky and pretend to grab it in flight and when you think you have it its gone because that’s the nature of reality it’s in constant motion and you can not hold onto it any more than you can with colour etc. So what is left then …well simply ,,,ART Begins at this point.

                                    An art which isn't based on feeling isn't an art at all. Paul Cézanne :)

                                    #1112427
                                    MikeN
                                    Default

                                        I’m not an expert in realism, but I know it when I run into it. ;)

                                        thats one for the quote books lol :lol:

                                        #1112416

                                        In regards to a recent thread here in CT&M:

                                        I noticed the term “Realism” used frequently when attached to an accurate style of painting. I find the word as ambiguous as descriptions like “temperature” or even “tone”.

                                        In all fairness, it’s clearly nothing like either term.

                                        Tone, used in one way, is merely another term for value. So it’s hardly ambiguous per se (yes, it can be used differently to this).

                                        As far as ‘temperature’ goes, see other thread :)

                                        Realism, alone, is fairly vague it must be said – it does mean different things to different people and there are degrees of realism, where photography might be considered the pinnacle. However there are ways of referring to it that are a little clearer and there tend to be qualifications and clarifications within the writing of a thread such as you refer to above that make the position of the writer more evident. So taking issue with the use of the word Realism out of such a context is actually not much use.

                                        Specifically, how is color used “realisticly” in a painting or work of art?

                                        Like the colour actually is :cool:

                                        Einion

                                        Do you know if your colour is off in hue, value, chroma... or all three?

                                        Colour Theory & Mixing forum WetCanvas Glossary Search Tips Advanced Search Acrylics forum Acrylics - Information Kiosk

                                        #1112417

                                        If you are using a colour picker, then how could it be anything else but a mechanical act.

                                        Is that a rhetorical question or do you actually want someone to try to explain otherwise?

                                        What’s mixing colour on the palette with a knife if not a mechanical act? Since that’s an everyday artists’ activity I don’t see that something being mechanical is a bad thing anyway ;)

                                        I can not see this anything other than a mechanical means. Which is okay of course; if this method of illustrating what’s in front of you to the canvas is what you want but hardly can be considered the finearts.

                                        Don’t be ridiculous :mad: I’m not going to allow you to malign work done in a more-thorough way with colour – rather than the ‘seat of the pants’ way I believe was established to be your preference. They’re different; doesn’t make either less ‘fine art’ than the other.

                                        What is real?

                                        Reality is transitory, therefore— Linear is transitory, colour is transitory, value is… so the best and only real you can achieve is your own perception of it.

                                        This is not a philosophical thing to most people Doug and I’d prefer if we tried to stick to substantive points. Just because a moment in time is transitory doesn’t mean there aren’t better ways (closer, more accurate) of representing it rather than something more impressionist, expressive of the artist’s individual colourspace or whatever.

                                        Similar to a point made above: show 100 viewers a scene (even a really good photo of it) and two paintings of it, one done by a High Realist and the other done in any sort of impressionist way and I don’t think there’s a lot of doubt about which piece would be picked by 99 or 100 of those people as being ‘more realistic’.

                                        Einion

                                        Do you know if your colour is off in hue, value, chroma... or all three?

                                        Colour Theory & Mixing forum WetCanvas Glossary Search Tips Advanced Search Acrylics forum Acrylics - Information Kiosk

                                        #1112449
                                        Shadia
                                        Default

                                            Interesting topic, for sure!
                                            At that point on my learning curve, I consider “realistic” a painting depicting three dimendions on a two dimensions support.
                                            meaning: representing what light does to the thing I want to paint, using the effects of lights and shadows. This can be done in a very painterly / loose , or in a very tight style, but will still be realistic.
                                            Just my opinion, for what it’s worth!
                                            Keep painting!
                                            Shadia

                                          Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 63 total)
                                          • The topic ‘Color and Realism’ is closed to new replies.