New Luminism

Hi all,
I would be interested to hear what everyone thinks about this . For me , I'd like to be able to master the techniques of Luminism but I also know that I would want to/have to take it somewhere else .
Davis, McGurl, Demers ( sp ? ) etc; I like thier work mostly but I am a bit amazed at the pricing . Also I cant really get behind the invariable ' intrusion of modern life ' commentary . I mean the placing of little water towers and telephone poles all over the place for no compositional reason . It seems a bit overplayed , that hand ; I like a nice gritty industrial landscape if thats the way yer gonna go.
I hope I'm not too new here to be ladling out such a scoopful of opinion !
Colin

[blondheim12]

Hi Colin,
I risk being ignorant but can you define new luminism for me. I'm just a simple country painter.
Linda

Hi Linda ,
You know Martin Johnson Heades stuff ? He was a Floridian ... Or Fitz Hugh Lane ? Those guys were Luminists - Hudson River School with some of the colours and techniques of the Pre - Raphaelites added on . Lots of dusks and dawns and misty kind of views . New Luminism is I guess an attempt to resuscitate that style . In any case it's a swing away from high key impressionistic back towards more realistic and toned down colours .
Sorry I'm not much of an explainer ...
Colin

[LarrySeiler]

Now that is interesting Colin, because I am a painterly plein air'ist, with spontaneous brushwork simply because the time limitations of the sun's presence changing the scene at any given moment demand haste. I paint what I see.

I began by painting 20 years 200-300 hour wildlife paintings, but built on the foundation of Baroque lighting. I was for many years more a tonalist.

However...when I began to take an easel out of doors 3-4 years ago, colors looked different than working in my studio. So, as you use the words "back to more realism" and "toned down colors"....I'm wondering if you paint out of doors, because having come from tonalism, I've yet to see color toned down...at least, toned down the way Luminists do.

I'm not a pure impressionist because I do mix my complimentaries to tone color down where needed, but...if one is going to attempt to be more "realistic" one simply has to trust their eyes. Taking on a particular style for the sole purpose of liking the way "it" looks versus just painting what the eyes see....is a bit like putting on a special pair of sunglasses to fool the eyes. What's your take on that.

Mind you....I have no problem with encouraging painters everywhere to paint whatever they wish, but...I'm just reacting off your "more realism" idea.
peace,

Larry http://www.artistnation.com/members/lofts/lseiler/

Hi Larry,
I guess I was'nt very clear with my choice of words . What I mean about these guys' paintings is that the brushwork is very tight - at least in the foregrounds - you know 'every blade of grass' kinda thing . I use the word realism here in the most general way , and only to say that the stuff is not high key patches of compliments .
As far as my stuff goes - I do paint plein aire but I also play with it in the studio . Probably because I'm not good enough to finish a painting all in one go !
Hmm- thats a deep question about taking on a style because you like the way it looks ...
I'm not so sure it works that simply ( at least I hope I'm not that shallow ! )For me it's a matter of trying to express a mood and finding little tricks that can do that . I sorta think that its all illusion anyhow -anything I see is filtered by my mind in just seeing it, then re-filtered again by my choices of what to put in, leave out , and by my technical ability . So the work is always going to be a representation coloured by my lights. When I see a landscape there are aspects that interest me and that I find meaningful - they arent going to be the same as everyone elses, but the Luminists work tend to resonate with me more than, say the work of the California Impressionists . It's more of a mood thing than anything else really . Quality of light , etc.
Let me find a repro of one of the paintings I'm talking about and I'll post it - I should have done that right off .
Yours,
Colin

[This message has been edited by colinbarclay (edited July 14, 2000).]

[KDS]

This is very interesting. I am looking forward to seeing what a new "luminist" is and how this style compares to what has been done before. Karen

Here is a McGurl Painting -
<IMG SRC="http://www.treesplace.com/pics/98nal_mcgurl.jpg" border=0>

[paintfool]

Ah! I think i get it. More contrast & less color? I would love to see another example or two if possible. Cheryl

[LarrySeiler]

There is definitely a lot of contrast to get this effect, but I don't see it as less color but more intelligent use of color.

This is a case that demonstrates what I've said before, "if everything is shouting, nothing gets heard."

Its not that there is little color, but careful and limited use of it. In this case violets bringing out the yellows, pinks complimenting the sense of greens.

I like the color use. Reminds me of some early Remington and Peters posters, images of calendars, where color was very expressive and created a mood. Interesting, thanks for posting it.

Larry

[KDS]

Very interesting. I am not sure about the bright complimentary colors vying for attention in the background. Do these artists call themselvs "Painters of Light," as the term "luminisn" implies?

------------------

[paintfool]

Karen, i'm thinking along those lines too. I have been working with these types of things a lot myself & learning a lot & haveing fun with it Cheryl

[paintfool]

Larry, i guess i really didn't mean LESS color as much as DOWNPLAYED color Cheryl