WetCanvas
Home Member Services Content Areas Tools Info Center WC Partners Shop Help
Channels:
Search for:
in:

Welcome to the WetCanvas forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit our help center.

Go Back   WetCanvas > The Learning Center > Composition and Design
User Name
Password
Register Mark Forums Read

Salute to our Partners
WC! Sponsors

Our Sponsors
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61   Report Bad Post  
Old 04-05-2007, 12:50 AM
MikeN MikeN is offline
Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,131
 
Hails from Abu Dhabi
Re: Why is value so important?

Quote:
Originally Posted by madster
This

At this point, you either "get it," or you don't... Maybe you have perceptual problems, maybe you're just too stubborn to accept factual evidence, but regardless, the main perceptual theory propelling this is Contrast, which is the corresponding Principle of Value, not Color, which has the corresponding Principle of Harmony.

~M
If you consider contrast a corresponding principle to value alone, then how would you describe this spatial effect? (according to your recent statement) Do you consider it an example of Harmony? In actuality it is also contrast but through the variation of INTENSITY!



The circles according to my imaging program are nearly identical in value and hue (feel free to desaturate them). They only differ in intensity which is the SOLE spatial trigger in this example. The closest circle to us is the most gray which is the opposite of what you have stated earlier. Keep in mind it is still a long way from being 0% saturated with blue.

Last edited by MikeN : 04-05-2007 at 01:48 AM.
  #62   Report Bad Post  
Old 04-05-2007, 01:07 AM
MikeN MikeN is offline
Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,131
 
Hails from Abu Dhabi
Re: Why is value so important?

Here is nearly the same thing with a warm background. The advancing circle is only less saturated, while its hue and value remain equal to the others and background. (desaturate it in photoshop if you want) This particular example shows the opposite effect of earlier statements which said both warm and intense colors advance.


Last edited by MikeN : 04-05-2007 at 01:45 AM.
  #63   Report Bad Post  
Old 04-05-2007, 01:23 AM
MikeN MikeN is offline
Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,131
 
Hails from Abu Dhabi
Re: Why is value so important?

"warm colors advance, while cool colors recede" "Intense colors advance, while gray colors recede" "Dark colors advance, while light colors recede." All of these are generalizations that lack specific consideration to context. So what's the point? Contrast and Context are inextricable. Remember we see or percieve contextually.

Maybe we should be more specific. "cool colors recede in relation to a cool background" "Dark colors recede in relation to a dark background" etc etc

Last edited by MikeN : 04-05-2007 at 01:47 AM.
  #64   Report Bad Post  
Old 04-05-2007, 10:53 AM
Celeste McCall's Avatar
Celeste McCall Celeste McCall is offline
A Local Legend
Near Amarillo, Texas
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,450
 
Hails from United States
Re: Why is value so important?

Hi Mike,
You wrote to Madster:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeN
....it would be nicer if you would agree to disagree without the condescending innuendos. They are very insulting.


Mike

The above is exactly how I feel also. IT IS INSULTING.

Also everything else that you have explained is perfectly clear and I agree totally with. GREAT EXAMPLES!!!!
  #65   Report Bad Post  
Old 04-05-2007, 03:21 PM
prospector's Avatar
prospector prospector is offline
Veteran Member
Arizona
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 964
 
Hails from United States
Re: Why is value so important?

Values create form, and substance. Color creates emotion. Depends on what ya want to say as to their importance. I am a great follower of KISS, or keep it simple stupid.
__________________
Jack

  #66   Report Bad Post  
Old 04-05-2007, 04:55 PM
MikeN MikeN is offline
Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,131
 
Hails from Abu Dhabi
Re: Why is value so important?

Here is an example of Hue contrast dominating Value contrast in relation to emphasis. Keep in mind that the red square is exactly the same value as the background and only differs in hue. The gray square however, differs both in intensity and more imporantly value. Value in this example does not create a primary focal point but rather one secondary to the red square.

Dominance: Hue over Value


Below: The value is only able to gain dominance after hue has been nuetralized by desaturation.


What can this mean? IMO, de"toning" a work that is originally based on value is an invalid proof for the theory that "value is the most important element". There is enough contrast in the example below to create either significant emphasis, balance, and complex directional patterns. In fact it has enough visual contrast to fix or override what is a (seemingly) bad value pattern. I say seemingly since the artists may subordinate things on purpose in pursuit of sophisticated color balances and creative compositional problem solving. Second, because value is not acting in the way stated in earlier posts, and websites, its safe to say "it" (value) is not ALWAYS the most important element in a design or painting.

Here is a desaturated example which is visually heavy on the left side.


Here is the same image, now it is fairly balanced or "fixed", if you prefer, with hue contrast.


Here is another example which in completely MONOTONE. Regardless of the complete absence of value contrast, we clearly see the square shapes.


Let's use the reverse logic given on Handprint.com where the author strips Homer's tonally focused landscape of value. Can a design that was created without tonal contrast in mind, hold up compositionaly once it is stripped of both hue and intensity.

Here it is! This work seems to fail. Maybe i should invent my own fact. I will call it the "Hue is the most important element in painting" fact. Naw I will just let you decide which is your most important.


Mike

Last edited by MikeN : 04-05-2007 at 05:38 PM.
  #67   Report Bad Post  
Old 04-05-2007, 05:40 PM
Brandt Sponseller's Avatar
Brandt Sponseller Brandt Sponseller is offline
Veteran Member
Jersey City
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 875
 
Hails from Austria
Re: Why is value so important?

Quote:
Originally Posted by madster
The bottom line here, is that regardless of how people feel about the issue, human anatomy and science have proven how the human eye, and the human mind react to Color and Value.
How I feel about the issue isn't regardless of how my mind reacts to such things. Science can't know what's going on in my consciousness better than I can know that. I have privileged access to my own mind. What my eye is doing is what's inconsequential. It just doesn't matter if my mind is doing something contrary to what my eye might suggest. What I care about is what's going on consciously when I'm looking at art.
Quote:
Now, if you are unable to accept this without all the scientific proof,
Science provisionally verifies, it doesn't prove. That's been the standard view in science methodology/philosophy of science for about 100 years now. You can't be that old.
Quote:
simply accept the fact that it has been proven that "Value is the most important element of a painting."
Aside from the problem with the word "proven", it's been provisionally verified that A is more important than B??? huh??? How do you do that exactly?
Quote:
with that premise clearly established
you're too much.
Quote:
here is a quick visual to illustrate how color can move foreward (the red, or warmer hue), and backwards (the blue, or cooler hue) in spatial recognition by the human eye.
Trying to interpret one as closer than another, the blue in this example actually looks closer to me. What would it matter what my eye is doing if that's what my brain says?
Quote:
At this point, you either "get it," or you don't...
I couldn't care less about getting something that has absolutely no relevance to how I look at art on a conscious level.
  #68   Report Bad Post  
Old 04-05-2007, 07:29 PM
Celeste McCall's Avatar
Celeste McCall Celeste McCall is offline
A Local Legend
Near Amarillo, Texas
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,450
 
Hails from United States
Re: Why is value so important?

Way to go Mike!!! Once again....GREAT post!!!!



Hi Brandt - you make some wonderful points with your post.
  #69   Report Bad Post  
Old 04-05-2007, 09:25 PM
madster's Avatar
madster madster is offline
A WetCanvas! Patron Saint
A higher state of consciousness
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,475
 
Hails from United States
Re: Why is value so important?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandt Sponseller
How I feel about the issue isn't regardless of how my mind reacts to such things.
But the human eye will still intake visual information in the same general manner. What is going on in your consciousness is not the issue. That is subjective, and meant for psychology, NOT physiology...
Quote:
What my eye is doing is what's inconsequential. It just doesn't matter if my mind is doing something contrary to what my eye might suggest.
That's called psychosis, Brandt, and is the same lame reasoning given by people who kill others, because of the "voices in their head."
Quote:
Science provisionally verifies, it doesn't prove. That's been the standard view in science methodology/philosophy of science for about 100 years now. You can't be that old.
Pedantic semantics aside, the human eye will respond to certain visual stimulii the SAME way, within a certain range, for the vast majority of the species, genetic/physical aberrations, aside. Fact or "Provisionally verified." A great majority of artists and viewers, as well as critics and buyers, tend to visually absorb lightwaves in the same physical manner. It's why we are a species...This discussion was started, and my replies are directed, to the majority of the WC membership, not the occassional few who represent the above-ordinary amongst us. I would never presume to attempt to dictate how anyone must see things, for the simple reason that I, myself perceive things from a different perspective than a great many others, although there are also a great many who see things as I do...I am replying to the Original Post of this thread, with the "provisional verifications" regarding the general Human eye's ability to perceive depth through Value, not Color. Optical Illusions, such as Blind Spots, and Contrast receptivity do NOT change, regardless what is going on inside your head...I may be older than dirt, or younger than Springtime. That is irrelevant to the discussion.
Quote:
Aside from the problem with the word "proven", it's been provisionally verified that A is more important than B??? huh??? How do you do that exactly?
Well, gee, Brandt, it's called Scientific Research (the manner in which "provisional verification" is reached), which, short of forcing you to read a LOT of technical data that is publicly available on the Net (and which I have previously linked to in this thread), is longer to explain (although WELL established as a "provisional verification") than is necessary here. In a nutshell, it is based upon the physical reaction of the human eye to movement, which is visible from the value spectrum, rather than the color one, and is more "important" to the general human eye from an instinctive survival aspect of our species. This carries over to general perception of everything, including art...
Quote:
you're too much.
More than some, far less than others...
Quote:
Trying to interpret one as closer than another, the blue in this example actually looks closer to me. What would it matter what my eye is doing if that's what my brain says?
Again, your personal perceptions are only of conern to Society as a whole, should they become violent. Until then, your inability to percieve color depth perception within the scientifically accepted "norm," is of little to no concern to anyone. Just as people with color blindness are of no concern to many artists with no clear concept of the "importance" (which is the word used in the TITLE of this topic; personally, I prefer "visual dominance" as a more pedantic choice of words) of Value...There are exceptions to every rule, and certain specific visual combinations can produce certain "non-usual" visual reactions. This too, is documented "provisional verification," of physiological reactions to certain color/value Contrast combinations.
Quote:
I couldn't care less about getting something that has absolutely no relevance to how I look at art on a conscious level.
Then this topic is of no use to you. It is irrelevant to you on a personal level, therefore, your lack of care is somewhat at odds with your post...But thank you, never the less, for sharing your personal story of your visual and mental perceptions with us, here.

Mike, while I most readily agree to disagree, "condescending innuendos" are certainly no less an irritation than inane and "empty" statements of agreement, with an almost obscenely juvenile usage of clappies and smilies. , as if the topic were some sort of "American Idol" popularity of opinion contest. But this appears to be an accepted and commonly utilized form of communication. To each their own as to personal insult or attack, eh? We all have our own ways of communication and perception... That is why we are artists. Like art, what one person may be insulted by, may be something gratifying to many others, just as what one person is not able to perceive, many others generally may see without too much difficulty...like a "roarsach test." Value just happens the issue in question, here. Personally, I find Brandt's pedantic post, to which I reply, regarding the scientific evidence to support the theory and opinions held by a great many professionals of scientific, as well as artistic individuals that Value is more "important" a visual consideration in the physiological way that the "generally average" human eye is able to absorb visual light wavelengths, to be of little to no value to this topic, but I am sure others are quite delighted to read his post...
At that point, we could enter a whole different realm of discussion regarding individual irritations, which, like the "importance" of value can vary from one individual to the next.

Some posts have been able to add little to this discussion, except for "YEAH! What you said!" replies, or dismissive etymological personal experiences of visual perception. Although they are entertaining reading, they do not help to answer the original question upon which this thread is based. While many things in Life would be "nicer" under certain conditions, Life is what it is, and for the most part, we accept and work with what is...
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospector
Values create form, and substance. Color creates emotion. Depends on what ya want to say as to their importance. I am a great follower of KISS, or keep it simple stupid.
YEAH! What Prospector said!
~M

Last edited by madster : 04-05-2007 at 09:34 PM.
  #70   Report Bad Post  
Old 04-05-2007, 10:24 PM
Brandt Sponseller's Avatar
Brandt Sponseller Brandt Sponseller is offline
Veteran Member
Jersey City
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 875
 
Hails from Austria
Re: Why is value so important?

Quote:
Originally Posted by madster
But the human eye will still intake visual information in the same general manner. What is going on in your consciousness is not the issue. That is subjective, and meant for psychology, NOT physiology...
lol -- why would what's going on with my eyes be more the issue when it comes to art than what I'm thinking about/feeling in response to the art? That's absurd. I should like something that I don't like, or do something that I don't like, because my eyes are doing something in particular? What the heck is the reasoning behind that?
Quote:
Pedantic semantics aside, the human eye will respond to certain visual stimulii the SAME way, within a certain range, for the vast majority of the species, genetic/physical aberrations, aside.
Okay, but what the heck does that have to do with whether we like something or not when it comes to art?
Quote:
A great majority of artists and viewers, as well as critics and buyers, tend to visually absorb lightwaves in the same physical manner.
The problem is that that has nothing to do with what's going on in their brains. I buy art because I like it or as an investment. Both of those are based on conscious things going on in my brain instead. That's the case with everyone I know. I do not know of anyone who buys art because of an observable way that their eyes react to physical stimuli.
Quote:
I am replying to the Original Post of this thread, with the "provisional verifications" regarding the general Human eye's ability to perceive depth through Value, not Color.
No. The EYE does not itself perceive. The eye can respond to visual information, but the BRAIN perceives. The human eye doesn't perceive depth. It just responds to physical stimuli in some observable ways. That's part of why what's going on in the conscious BRAIN is important here, and what's going on with the eye is unimportant.
Quote:
Optical Illusions, such as Blind Spots, and Contrast receptivity do NOT change, regardless what is going on inside your head...
There ARE no optical illusions in eyes only. That's just incoherent. Optical illusions are about someone perceiving or interpreting something different than we believe it is objectively. Perceiving and interpreting are mental functions, not mechanical functions just in eyes.
Quote:
Well, gee, Brandt, it's called Scientific Research (the manner in which "provisional verification" is reached), which, short of forcing you to read a LOT of technical data that is publicly available on the Net (and which I have previously linked to in this thread), is longer to explain (although WELL established as a "provisional verification") than is necessary here.
Is it a major hassle to just give the url again rather than me searching for it? I'd really love to know what is supposed to scientifically establish that A is more important than B, because the idea is ridiculous.
Quote:
In a nutshell, it is based upon the physical reaction of the human eye to movement, which is visible from the value spectrum,
What's a reference (just a url is fine if that's all you've got) for research that suggested that the eye's "reaction to movement is visible from the value spectrum"??? (That doesn't even make grammatical sense).
Quote:
Rather than the color one,
So the research suggested that eyes do not react to movement when there are color variations and not value variations? Again, give a reference please.
Quote:
and is more "important" to the general human eye from an instinctive survival aspect of our species.
Again, I'd like to see a reference for these conclusions.
Quote:
This carries over to general perception of everything, including art...
How would "important . . . from an instinctive survival aspect" carry over to art, even if that were a conclusion (although it's ridiculous to assert that that was a scientific conclusion)? It has nothing to do with art. The "importance" there is relative to survival, it's not dissociated from a context and cannot be. Can you give the reasoning for how something that is important for survival would imply importance for art?
Quote:
Again, your personal perceptions are only of conern to Society as a whole, should they become violent.
Society as a whole doesn't think. There's no group mind. People in society care about my personal perceptions for a variety of reasons. Not all of them care about my personal perceptions, but that's true of everyone, certainly including you.
Quote:
Until then, your inability to percieve color depth perception within the scientifically accepted "norm," is of little to no concern to anyone.
Well, I'm someone. So, that's not true. My wife is also interested in it. So thats two people. So again, it's not true that it's of no concern to anyone. It may not be of concern to you, but that works vice versa, too.
Quote:
There are exceptions to every rule,
An exception to a putative objective fact (whether stated as a universal or an existential about a particular) would imply that it's not an objective fact at all.
Quote:
This too, is documented "provisional verification," of physiological reactions to certain color/value Contrast combinations.
And what purely observable physiological reactions have to do with what anyone thinks about art is _________ (fill in the blank).
Quote:
Then this topic is of no use to you.
Why would a topic that has no relevance to how anyone looks at art on a conscious level be of use to anyone? Are they creating art purely for physiological mechanics' sake? What's the point of that? Do eyes have their own bank accounts?
Quote:
It is irrelevant to you on a personal level,
Yes, the nonsense about observable physiological reactions having some significance over conscious attitudes, beliefs, etc. about art is irrelevant to me.

Last edited by Brandt Sponseller : 04-05-2007 at 10:28 PM.
  #71   Report Bad Post  
Old 04-05-2007, 11:40 PM
Celeste McCall's Avatar
Celeste McCall Celeste McCall is offline
A Local Legend
Near Amarillo, Texas
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,450
 
Hails from United States
Re: Why is value so important?

Hi Brandt,
You also are saying some great things to prove your points. You and Mike are having a rather easy time with both of you 'exposing the cracks'.






Last edited by Celeste McCall : 04-05-2007 at 11:52 PM.
  #72   Report Bad Post  
Old 04-06-2007, 12:19 AM
LarrySeiler's Avatar
LarrySeiler LarrySeiler is offline
A WC! Legend
NE Wisconsin Nicolet National Forest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 36,431
 
Hails from United States
Re: Why is value so important?

Holy smokes...

its late...
I'm tired...
don't know about most of you...but I've been painting my )#% off this past week.

I don't want to point fingers, embarrass anyone...but seeing this argumentation going back and forth, when I can't see myself aborting my need for color or values as a painter baffles me. What is the point of such arguing? What is to be gained?

You know...I have often said that opinions are a bit like armpits. Everyone has at least two of them, and most stink! I have suggested often that my opinions as well may stink.

If I may use a metaphor...I think sometimes what makes sense to people and is valued as most important has everything to do with the chapter of their life and development they are at.

If a fire is starting in the kitchen...I don't need a Home and Garden book and an ice tea with a comfy chair, I need a fire extinguisher.

If someone pulls out suddenly in front of me from a sideroad not bothering to look first my way, I need to hit the brakes, not the next song on my CD player.

If I need a working illusion in painting, its not color but not values, or values but not color. When I paint I study the subject and determine what is important at that time...but both will yet play an important role. One painting might emphasize one over the other because it is required to pull off the effect, but another painting may be the other required.

For 17 years I painted 200-300 hours on single paintings in a hyper realistic direction...using acrylics building up layers upon transparent layers. I was more tonal...values were most important. At the time...did I know I was more tonal? No...not at all. I was simply trying to paint the best I could.

When I left the studio to paint outdoors and suddenly my eyes received a different education, I saw just how much I did not understand about color, light of nature and so forth.

For perhaps my first five or six years of painting plein air, some would have referred to me as a colorist. However, my understanding of tonal values wouldn't leave me and felt I kept color under control. My opinion is value is important in keeping color in control, color is important in giving full expression and power, emotion and mood to values...but, that's just my opinion.

A year ago I purchase Edgar Payne's book "Composition of Outdoor Painting" and read a couple of Gruppe's books.

These two books took the emphasis I had as a painter in one chapter of my life...the emphasis I had following that chapter...and created more balance and understanding.

I feel the past year or so that paintings are just flying off my easel both indoors and out.

Gruppe once said that you can use nearly any color and it will work if the value is right...

Payne mentions that nature's light that reveals color is 200 to 300 times more intense than what pigment can imitate. He makes a pretty good argument why a principal of color vibration was important to painters of his day to overcome this pigment deficit. Payne and Gruppe stressed the importance of both.

Hearing what is going back and forth here strikes me a bit like listening to a hand telling the foot its not needed, or a toe speak to the elbow of its insignificance.

I've had reported posts to this thread (and I am appreciative, and this is how it works and what members should do) ...and as I read, I see a number of things which could be interpreted by the recipients of intended posts as goading, insulting and inviting reaction. Not coming from any one individual...but indeed a number.

When I was the debate forum's first moderator and held that position for three to four years, I used to remind the members of one simple rule...and that was, you may attack the opinion that has been stated, but not the opinionator! That rule should no less apply here, and as I understand the "user agreement" it most certainly does.

We have a debate forum already. If parties in discussion here seriously want to debate, I suggest taking this to the debate forum and starting a thread there.

As I said now...I'm tired. I'm not going to allow myself to make any decisions as a moderator I would later regret as rash because I was too out of it to think clearly, but I think the solution here is simple for the time being. Cease and desist...or I will very likely close this thread. People are not going to be convinced when they are not open to being convinced...and it brings me back to why I mentioned different chapters of my life. A person is teachable when they are open to hear...but, I think it is human nature for the artist caught up in their work to possibly even not be able to see or take into consideration that which might threaten the present course of their work. A person might have to run the full course of their work, get it out of their system and come to that next place that something more is important. I know it sounds odd to say, but for a short time a degree of closemindedness might work on behalf of the individual needing to work thru a thing, or else find themselves distracted.

Such possibly being the case...we can't simply argue others into getting it. The sides appear to be drawn and stated, and what tends to happen (from experience in the debate forum) from this point on where points made can no longer be convincing is that posts turn to argue for the sake of arguing or one upmanship. To continue on as if being right is absolutely paramount, seems to invite frustration, rudeness and so forth.

The intent or desire to understand feels no threat of being wrong...for the desire is to understand more fully what is right, and the ability to be appreciative (whether one agrees or not) to those interesting in offering their two cents remains. To wrong one another in effort to prove a right, is redundant. Make a statement, offer an opinion....but ssheesh, honestly, does adding insults to the opinion really give the opinion now greater weight and truth?

What gets me a lot of the time in various forums is how much artists might talk...but neglect to share a good number of their paintings. Wouldn't it be better rather than saying color is more important...or value is more important as though a thing must be for all artists to upload and share your own works and let us know where you are at right now in the chapter of your artistic path, and how important color is for you now because...or how important value is for you because....???

I'll look this over better in the morning...but, I am mandating a truce...the user agreement makes no room for being nasty to one another. If I need to, I will edit...and I will issue warnings and strikes.

for now....goodnight

Larry
moderator
__________________
Larry Seiler- Signature Member IPAP
"My Painting From Life" blog
Main website!

Last edited by LarrySeiler : 04-06-2007 at 01:29 AM.
  #73   Report Bad Post  
Old 04-06-2007, 12:43 AM
LarrySeiler's Avatar
LarrySeiler LarrySeiler is offline
A WC! Legend
NE Wisconsin Nicolet National Forest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 36,431
 
Hails from United States
Re: Why is value so important?

Okay....I quickly looked thru the pages and didn't see much personal work brought forth to make pertinent one's ideas...

here is one I did tonight...
9"x 12" oil on pumice panel...



I set up about 4pm...and it was dang cold. Twenty-two degrees plus a very stiff northerly windchill bringing it down in single digits. Felt like the cold was shooting right thru me.

What was most important to me?

As I set up...I was drawn to this scene but why?

I believe it was variation.

Variation in contrast of shadows against light...both which can be stated, tweaked and controlled with color and values.

It was the tall pines juxtaposed the deeply blue sky. The trees were in shadow, backlit by the sun...so once more the contrast of the trees against the sky was value driven...but the color of the sky dropping hints of blue in small spots of snow in the midground also made color important.

The foreground was coming forward strongly both for reasons of value and color. They were much lighter lit up by the sun against the midground area in shadow. The foreground was much warmer in color temperature and exciting.

Knowing I was subjecting myself to a very bone chilling time of painting, and that nature loves to throw lumber at the painter, (meaning you see more once you start painting than what first caught your eye and was necessary to paint), I had to consciously make a plan of 2-3 essentials and stick with it. That meant playing down unnecessary detail...use suggestive brushwork.

Value and color helped immensely push things back pull things forward, and both suggested detail.

AFter two hours...my body was pleading for me to stop. It became quite clear to me that neither color nor value were any longer important, but getting that gear in the vehicle and the heater running full max!!!

My approach for this one was to mix up a reddish gray midvalue mud, and using turps and my medium I blocked in the major masses. I then made a darker value adding color to it....and a lighter value adding color to it, and proceeded to make the distinctions painting into the neutral mud wet into wet.

I was quite happy with the effort, especially when I had to resolve to paint with clumsy mitts on my hands.

I'm off to la la land....goodnite!

peace
__________________
Larry Seiler- Signature Member IPAP
"My Painting From Life" blog
Main website!
  #74   Report Bad Post  
Old 04-06-2007, 06:39 AM
Celeste McCall's Avatar
Celeste McCall Celeste McCall is offline
A Local Legend
Near Amarillo, Texas
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,450
 
Hails from United States
Re: Why is value so important?

Hi Larry,
Thank you for what you do here.

You have said that you mixed up a reddish gray midvalue mud to block in your major masses. Then added the lights and darks. This is similar to the way that I was taught by Ben Konis. Makes for much faster and easier to paint....in my opinion... as all of the midvalues are established and need little modulation if any. It also provides for a unifying warmth under the other colors.

A really smart thing, in my opinion, that you did in this painting, is that I do not see any white or upper values of white-ish. This protects the integrity of the colors in your painting. For outdoor painting the values would be cut up by areas of white highlights. Your work flows together nicely because it all works together in nice value patterns.

I really like the looseness in this painting. I also like that you took the sky color from the far background and put it on the rocks in front (the blue looking colors). This add unity and also interest because the sky isn't just blue and no where else is blue to be seen. It seems to me that you added just enough spice of the blue in the foreground. Finally that nice 'red mud' ground made the clean colors look brighter.

It's really nice to see a professional at work.

Also, I agree with artists uploading their own work because it most certainly does make it easier to see where they are at and I agree that each stage of the journey has it's own 'truths' for ourselves until we work through that stage of the journey.

Thanks again for both of your posts.

Last edited by Celeste McCall : 04-06-2007 at 06:56 AM.
  #75   Report Bad Post  
Old 04-06-2007, 06:55 AM
Brandt Sponseller's Avatar
Brandt Sponseller Brandt Sponseller is offline
Veteran Member
Jersey City
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 875
 
Hails from Austria
Re: Why is value so important?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LarrySeiler
What is the point of such arguing? What is to be gained?
Good questions. To put it most gently, I'd say verisimilitude. To me, that's an important thing to shoot for in such discussions.
Quote:
You know...I have often said that opinions are a bit like armpits. Everyone has at least two of them, and most stink! I have suggested often that my opinions as well may stink.
I have no problem with opinions--I just wish that they'd be identified as such. A number of very dubious factual claims are being made though. I think it's a good idea to challenge factual claims when they seem to be false.
Quote:
If I may use a metaphor...I think sometimes what makes sense to people and is valued as most important has everything to do with the chapter of their life and development they are at.
That probably has a lot to do with it. Odd that some people are saying that what's most important is determined by observable physical facts that are not themselves anything resembling the concept of "importance". Now what we need is the logical connection that is supposed to make those observable physical facts "importance-bearers", or at least "importance-implicators".
Quote:
If I need a working illusion in painting, its not color but not values, or values but not color.
If you need a working illusion in painting, you need to use your brain, and maybe the brains of others, and not observable physiological facts about your eyes, or others eyes, to determine what kinds of things produce the desired illusion in those brains.

Putting things on your canvas that result in particular kinds of eye movements, but no corresponding mental phenomena, would be futile, because the eyes do not themselves have thoughts, can't make reports of thoughts to others, can't act on thoughts, etc. Surely what you care about is that viewers think something like, "Hey maw, lookee here--that looks just like I's looking out a windee at a b'ar peein' in them woods!", and you don't care about whether their eyes are moving in particular directions at particular intervals, or dilating in particular ways, or whatever the observable physiological phenomena happen to be.

So just to reiterate, the reason that I'm arguing in the way I am in the thread is because some folks are trying to say that no, what matters isn't what's going on in brains/minds, but only in what ways your eyes are moving about and changing in response to visual data--and frankly, that's a load of bat guano. I think it's a good idea to say something when someone might be about to blow their savings by investing in snake oil.
Quote:
My opinion is value is important in keeping color in control, color is important in giving full expression and power, emotion and mood to values...but, that's just my opinion.
And it's great that you have an opinion, and it's nice to share it. Surely artists would be interested in how various people look at/respond to artworks. But of course, part of that is that different people do look at and respond to artworks in different ways--sometimes very different ways, and presumably, it would be good to be aware of that. Otherwise, we might wonder why not everyone is captivated by our illusion in paint of a b'ar peein' in the woods.

What's a problem is trying to say something like "It's a fact that everyone looks at paintings in x way, for y and z reasons, unless there is something defective about them", when it just ain't true (neither the "everyone looks at paintings in x way" nor the "for y and z reasons" happen to be true here).
Quote:
Gruppe once said that you can use nearly any color and it will work if the value is right...
Gruppe should also be careful to state or imply that that is his opinion. It's hard to tell without the context if he's implying that it's his opinion. It's certainly not a fact. Different people look at paintings in different ways (and I'm not meaning literal eye movement with the word "look"). Different things work for different people. The way to find this out is to not only think about how you look at paintings, but to ask a bunch of different folks how they look at paintings too--ask them what works for them and why. It's important to do this outside of a context where they might be familiar with and be simply repeating some received view, some bit of dogma that they think they're supposed to say to be right. We'd want to find out how they're honestly responding. And I'll be you dollars to donuts that how folks are responding isn't going to be correlated with how their eyes happen to be moving, except maybe for very broad movements such as, "When they keep staring at a painting, the correlation is that they like it, whereas when they move their gaze away as quickly as possible, and recoil with violence, the correlation is that they do not like it".
Quote:
We have a debate forum already. If parties in discussion here seriously want to debate, I suggest taking this to the debate forum and starting a thread there.
The idea of the non-debte forums isn't "You have a free license to sell any snake oil you like as fact, and no one can challenge it". That would be ridiculous. And indeed, we see examples of that not being the standard in many forums on a weekly, if not daily basis. Heck, we even have people discussing opinions where they disagree with others opinons, and it surely seems absurd to discourage that.
Quote:
People are not going to be convinced when they are not open to being convinced...
I agree with that. However, it's very important to remember that there are present and future lurkers who may be on the fence, and I think it's a good idea to not allow snake oil pitches to go unchallenged. Those lurkers will do better seeing good arguments from both sides.
Quote:
What tends to happen (from experience in the debate forum) from this point on where points made can no longer be convincing is that posts turn to argue for the sake of arguing or one upmanship.
Well, we had claims that a scientific research exists stating the dubious facts being asserted. Surely references to that scientific research would be useful so we can see what it actually says. And by the same token, ignoring the requests for references should be seen as suspicious.
Quote:
What gets me a lot of the time in various forums is how much artists might talk...but neglect to share a good number of their paintings. Wouldn't it be better rather than saying color is more important...or value is more important as though a thing must be for all artists to upload and share your own works and let us know where you are at right now in the chapter of your artistic path, and how important color is for you now because...or how important value is for you because....???
Well, also note that the first page of this thread had plenty of examples from both sides . . . oddly, a lot of it was basically ignored/not commented upon. I think there may be some complicated reasons for that (I have suspicions of what some of those reasons might be, but it would be long and kinda off-topic to go into) . . . I think that rather than everyone having to show their own work online (for why exclude people who maybe don't even create artworks? We're not saying that no one can have an opinion on artworks unless they create them, are we?), it might be more beneficial with an issue like this for people to listen to how others respond to various artworks--no matter who created them (and I agree that examples are a good idea there). Surely what matters here is what people think about paintings they're looking at, no? And that can include people who aren't artists just as well as it includes other artists. (We're not going to just show and sell or try to sell works to other artists, are we?)

It just seems absurd to say otherwise, to say "Who care what anyone thinks about a painting, what are their eyes doing?" Isn't the reason that we want to know why value might be important that we want people to respond in particular ways (which includes reading or interpreting paintings in particular way)to stuff we create? So we should not only talk about the theory-based reasons usually given for value's importance, we should ask whether that theory translates correctly into how various people actually respond to/read paintings, because if it doesn't translate correctly there, doesn't it seem like there's maybe a problem with the theory?

Last edited by Brandt Sponseller : 04-06-2007 at 07:01 AM.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:08 AM.


© 2014 F+W All rights reserved.