Color and Realism

[Doug Nykoe]

Einion I am not trying to malign anyone’s work but only speaking to art. You are the mod on this forum so mod but why dictate which art must be represented here. Colour is thought of differently across many art disciplines.

What I was saying is true about colour and many a realist will put down Impressionism on a daily basis because it goes against the grain of a realist /// I get that!!! and that’s fine.

What??? All you want is scientific proof then forget about covering all that colour has to offer the artists out there. Science gave up on colour concerning the artist long ago because art is in the mind not the object you are looking at, which gives us a wide berth to create.

Look, Alice Neel gets how linear/reality/colour and so on is transitory and does a great job with it so do countless others from the school of Impressionism and post to today.

Artists need to know how these artists approached such matters because it’s a valid and strong approach to art.
So I am not maligning other artists approaches because there are so many differing ways and last I looked this was WetCanvas not Einions school of colour. If all that is discussed is directed towards the realist alone. This leaves a huge gap that others should or might want to explore.

So its not me against anyone, its about the ART.
Maybe I am WRONG, is this a realist colour forum? Or is this the colour forum? Not sure anymore.

PS If it means anything to you Enion, people have emailed me thanking me for opening there eyes to some of these matters so it does mean something to some and isn’t that what we are trying to do... explore all that colour has to offer? Not just one point of view.

[wal_t]

I love those paintings (and some of Rembrandt's self portraits are a good example) that look very realistic from a certain distance but when you look close you see some funny green, pink etc. spots of color. Chuck Close has done even more outspoken things in this area using all sorts of funny shapes/colors in squares. I guess both will be seen as "realistic" painters but when you look close (especially the Chuck Close ones) it is maybe less realistic ..... so it also seems to depend from what distance you view the painting or work of art. I advice you not to use a microscope as then you won't see much realism anymore in any painting :-) greetings, Walter.

[gunzorro]

Doug -- Perhaps it is time you round up your followers and start your own discussion forum.

[Einion]

Originally Posted by Doug Nykoe

Einion I am not trying to malign anyone’s work but only speaking to art.

Not to point out the obvious but you basically called certain types of highly-realistic painting illustration. That is much like someone classifying Neo-Impressionist work as decorative

Originally Posted by Doug Nykoe

You are the mod on this forum so mod but why dictate which art must be represented here.
...
If all that is discussed is directed towards the realist alone. This leaves a huge gap that others should or might want to explore.

Excuse me? If you are suggesting that is what just happened you seriously need to read the above again.

Originally Posted by Doug Nykoe

and many a realist will put down Impressionism on a daily basis because it goes against the grain of a realist /// I get that!!! and that’s fine.

And the same in reverse, as we've just seen.

Originally Posted by Doug Nykoe

Science gave up on colour concerning the artist long ago because art is in the mind not the object you are looking at, which gives us a wide berth to create.

Oi vey... yeah, science has of course done nothing in the modern era on colourimetry, colour mapping, linguistics of colour, investigations of colour vision & perceptual illusions... none of which is of any use to the artist

Originally Posted by Doug Nykoe

because there are so many differing ways and last I looked this was WetCanvas not Einions school of colour.

Mods can, if they choose, steer the course of a thread. That's all I'm going to say on the subject because moderation is not open to public discussion, so no more on this please.

Originally Posted by Doug Nykoe

Maybe I am WRONG, is this a realist colour forum? Or is this the colour forum? Not sure anymore.

Oh please, read the thread title for goodness sakes!

Einion

[wal_t]

I guess it's fine for anyone to mix & paint how he or she wants. Also don't see why one method is "better" then the other. Myself I have a lack of time and a bit lazy to study the more scientific aspects of color - but interesting it is indeed - but off course, science has brought us a long way.

I heard that Rembrandt did hold his brush in the air and compared the colors on his brush with the subject, but I fail to see him as an illustrator (reminds me, the Carder method is nothing new :-).

Wonder if we have filled Mike's mind with thoughts via this thread ...

Greetings, Walter

[Einion]

Doug, did you notice that once again, with all that typing you failed to mention realism once?!

If you want to discuss the nature of seeing as it pertains to colour use then start your own thread.

If you want to discuss what is art and what's not then go to Debates.

Einion

[ManedWolf]

There are paintings that look so much like photographs that you have to look at least twice to see that they really are no photographs. If that isn't 'realism', then what is?

Heikki

[MikeN]

Originally Posted by wal_t

I heard that Rembrandt did hold his brush in the air and compared the colors on his brush with the subject, but I fail to see him as an illustrator (reminds me, the Carder method is nothing new :-).

Wonder if we have filled Mike's mind with thoughts via this thread ...

Greetings, Walter

Sorry for the delayed response everyone, I was in Amsterdam for the weekend

Walter your Rembrandt comment is exactly what I am referring to. That being, the measuring of color and its connection to the term realism. Even the most accurate recordings of nature (especially single vantage points) do not necessarily equate to the most realistic representation of an object or space. This is one disadvantage with photography. Cameras must record exactly as they are designed to. Paintings on the other hand are made by people who can enhance imagry by tapping into thier vast collection of visual experiences and knowlege of human visio-perception. When a camera (or unknowlegable artist for that matter) is faced with a spatially absurd viewpoint they will MINDLESSLY transfer the absurdity. This is just the tip of the iceburg.

[MikeN]

Originally Posted by Einion

Don't be ridiculous 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.



Einion

I would like to respectfully add my thoughts on your comment Einion. Doug has merely stated a philosphical opinion. It is a valid conclusion and has been discussed in the aesthetics realm by some great thinkers (see Collingwood art vs craft). Are we not allowed to share our philosophies, however truthful and legitimate, because they inevitably exclude some works as art? Are your own notions of art all-inclusive?

I would also add that I am not sure Doug's comment is off-topic since one's notion of realism could be linked to human experience; as opposed to mechanical rendering. In other words, for some folks, real may mean something greater then mindless copying.

Mike

[Einion]

Originally Posted by wal_t

I guess it's fine for anyone to mix & paint how he or she wants.

Of course.

Originally Posted by wal_t

Also don't see why one method is "better" then the other.

This isn't really about method, it can be but it's not inherent to realistic results; very different techniques (and palettes) can produce work of high realism - an 'old master' palette used in a layered way can go head-to-head with a modern palette used in a direct painting approach, to equal ends (given the right subjects).

Originally Posted by ManedWolf

There are paintings that look so much like photographs that you have to look at least twice to see that they really are no photographs. If that isn't 'realism', then what is?

Photographs are in many ways a paragon of realism, better in certain respects at capturing accurately a fleeting moment than nearly any painting.

Photographs do have a lot of colour problems, although critical comments about their colour - in the context of painting, compared to an original scene - do tend to share a few common problems:

they generally lump all photographs into a single basket, where there are any number of different kinds of colour shifts (generalised or localised) exhibited by photos on different film/sensors;
they tend to overlook that despite colour problems they are often better than nearly all painters are at doing the job And significantly faster of course.

Originally Posted by MikeN

I would like to respectfully add my thoughts on your comment Einion. Doug has merely stated a philosphical opinion. It is a valid conclusion and has been discussed in the aesthetics realm by some great thinkers (see Collingwood art vs craft). Are we not allowed to share our philosophies, however truthful and legitimate, because they inevitably exclude some works as art? Are your own notions of art all-inclusive?

I can't discuss another member's posts, but the thread is about realism and colour; it is not about thoughts of what is or is not worthy of being classed as fine art; as interesting as posts centred around that subject might be it would do nothing to further a discussion of the topic.

Philosophical outlook is very important in painting, but as I say above I would prefer if this thread stuck to firmer ground, to better focus on colour as an aspect of realism.

Originally Posted by MikeN

In other words, for some folks, real may mean something greater then mindless copying.

I don't think that there is a legitimate case for 'copying' in this context being mindless, because it has to require the full attention of the painter.

A similar issue would be tracing, often considered to be an act that can be done on autopilot. And it can be, but there is a big difference in results between mindless tracing and if done with finesse.

Einion

[lenepveu]

And it can be, but there is a big difference in results between mindless tracing and if done with finesse.

This is true. There was a method touted in the 19th century that claimed to circumvent the arduous process of learning how to draw well. Essentially, it was tracing on glass, where the glass was held over the distant subject and painted on. The tracing on glass was retraced to the paper. Since the inventors were not really artists, at least in the notion of a trained professional, the tracing they made appeared naive. The legs were lathe-like, rounded where they should have been flat without anatomical landmarks. Features were glossed over or their complexity, ignored.

This, in many ways, demonstrates the point you made. We simply don't know we don't know...and this comes out when we draw, copy or trace. By extension, the act of mixing color is the same. How much one can tolerate being naive or relying on chance is up to the individual. Some art styles rely on this quality; other's don't.

[MikeN]

Originally Posted by Einion

Of course.



Photographs are in many ways a paragon of realism, better in certain respects at capturing accurately a fleeting moment than nearly any painting.

Photographs do have a lot of colour problems, although critical comments about their colour - in the context of painting, compared to an original scene - do tend to share a few common problems:

they generally lump all photographs into a single basket, where there are any number of different kinds of colour shifts (generalised or localised) exhibited by photos on different film/sensors;
they tend to overlook that despite colour problems they are often better than nearly all painters are at doing the job And significantly faster of course.

Einion

Your opinion is noted and I would certainly agree that photography has its advanteges at times. However, we should make a distinction. Although a camera may be quicker to capture a fleeting moment, it does not follow that it will be the best expression of that moment.

Since we are on the topic, and I feel the comparison between photography and painting can be useful in conveying my thoughts on realism.

Ironically, the camera's mechanical accuracy is its biggest problem when depicting reality. Like I have mentioned before, the most accurate representation of a singular vantage point is still only that. A sliver of something much more complex. A painter can infuse a two-dimensional scene with his/her knowlege of the THREE-DIMENSIONAL space. They have the ability to overcome spatial obsurdities which are abundantly present in nature. Not to mention, artists can enhance to better communicate subtlies such as physical lightness or heaviness, density, tact, closeness or farness.


A couple additional advantages: A photograph's surface lacks physcial structure, where as paint has an added dimension. Color use and surface structure are qualities that seperates a painter from a renderer. In some astonishing cases the paint's texture is almost literally transformed into the object being represented. Look at Wayne Theibaud's cakes for example; paint doesn't just render icing, it becomes icing. I know of no cameras that can do this. In addition, a photograph's surface fails to control opacity, translucency, transparency, not to mention other qualities of surface such physical sheen of the surface. All of these can be varied and used to express artistic intent by the painter. Mark Rothko is a wonderful example of this. Many of his paintings can only been appreciated in person. Instead of value and color contrast the rectilinear shapes are revealed through surface reflection. Seemingly they're monochromatic or even black paintings, but the variations in surface reflectivity produce deep and rich paintings. Effective in their subtleness.

my two cents

[wal_t]

Take whatever scene and ask a good photographer to take a photo and ask a good painter to make a painting telling both that it has to be realistic. Now show the result to 100 people and ask them what would reflect reality more in their opinion .... the photo or the painting ..... I am curious what the outcome would be but I believe most - if not all - will opt for the first. Greetings Walter.

[MikeN]

Originally Posted by wal_t

Take whatever scene and ask a good photographer to take a photo and ask a good painter to make a painting telling both that it has to be realistic. Now show the result to 100 people and ask them what would reflect reality more in their opinion .... the photo or the painting ..... I am curious what the outcome would be but I believe most - if not all - will opt for the first. Greetings Walter.

Hi Walt,

Possibly. I think the term itself is confusing. People may pick the the photo because that is associated with "real". If you asked 100 educated folks, in the arts you may have a totally different result.

Personally, I have yet to see a photo that can compete with a painting spatially, in person. I would like to see a side-by-side with an original rembrandt for example, next to a spatially successful photo. I know where I would put my money.

[MikeN]

Originally Posted by Einion

Of course.


I don't think that there is a legitimate case for 'copying' in this context being mindless, because it has to require the full attention of the painter.

A similar issue would be tracing, often considered to be an act that can be done on autopilot. And it can be, but there is a big difference in results between mindless tracing and if done with finesse.

Einion

Regardless of how much finesse you exhibit when tracing, it is only a technical feat. Without a unique contribution from the artist, whether conceptual or other, the sole act of tracing will never be recongnized as anything more then that.

This is not to say that technical virtuousos are not worthy of admiration. Maybe your a really good tracer. Similiarly, I am sure there are a few folks who can play Mozart as well if not better then Mozart did himself. However the important distiction is that they are not originating anything. So why should they be classified as artists? They are technicians who provide technical ability. I'm of the opinion that this is the same as tracing or act of rendering.

M