| Author |
Message |
 
Anonymous
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 6:53 pm: |  |
Unusual as in two blues to make a blue to be used as a primary. Things like lemon yellow and yellow ochre, cad red light and alizarin and so on. Work in two colors only for a while and then add a third. Try different combos of these colors. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 6:51 pm: | |
Working from a limited palette will give you color harmonies that are rarely achieved with random use of color. If your pictures all look alike then try unusual color combinations. This really is the way to a more professional look to your work. Of course if your work is purely decoratorish then your approach will usually be different. |
Mary Vivit
| | Posted on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 9:48 am: | |
That's a very interesting note about the use of Payne's gray by the artist. I'm finding (in my reading) that many artists also use neutral tint as a standalone color, tweaking it slightly one way or another. It becomes a convenience color for them: they get the same base color every time. |
Dale Ziegler
| | Posted on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 7:21 pm: | |
50 years ago I studied with a well known
watercolorist of that time. He used a limited
palette of Aliz. Crimson, New Gamboge, Thalo Blue,
Ultramarine,Burnt Sienna, Raw Sienna, and the No
NO of all--Paynes Gray-- and with prize winning
results. This was a landscape palette--Flowers and
still lifes are a different matter.
His secret of using paynes gray was to use it as
a color, not as a darkening agent. Think of it as
a very dark blue. Mixed with yellow it makes
wonderful neutral greens. With burnt sienna -
great darks--almost black |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 7:58 pm: | |
A color phase might be the direction to go when you are in a blank or slump ...or if you need a new idea. Limiting the next five paintings to all your blues and two other colors....great lesson plan. |
Kukana
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:50 pm: | |
I personally feel that most artists paintings look an awful lot alike. As i walk art shows I am convinced of it. Its almost as if a lot of them were painted in mass production on the same day. Oh yeah, sure, one has sunflowers and one has violets but the pallette is recognizable. I have mentioned before that I have several palettes. I have one that is just for my commercial lines. I have another I use for my more northern looking landscapes and still lifes. I have another for portraits and yet another just for fun. I have even tried painting the exact smae painting composition with the different palletes just for fun and was amazed at the fun break throughs I had doing so.
I think an interesting question might be whether or not its good or bad for that to occur. Is there anything wrong with someone going through a "Phalo Blue Phase" or a Quin Gold phase. Are not the work phases of many famous artists defined by their pallettes at specific times in their career?
(I'm in an Indian Yellow phase right now!) |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 9:43 pm: | |
Love this discussion on color, it really get me thinking. I also have asked my students to limit their pallet to a few basic colors and add additional ones as needed. But one of the fun experiences for the adult student is experimenting with mixing and layering. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 9:52 am: | |
Thinking about all of this, I had another thought. Does anyone think that limiting your palette can lead to making your paintings look too much like each other? This would apply particularly to realistic painters. I have seen booths at art shows where all of the paintings are the same "color", even when the subject matter makes this illogical. For example, I know an artist who paints landscapes and lives in New England in the summer and Florida in the winter, yet all of her paints use the same range of greens. I think this is more the "fault" of the artist than the palette, but maybe a wider palette would help avoid the problem. Then again, maybe she doesn't think of it as a problem. Sorry for all the circular thinking! |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 9:33 am: | |
Glad to have helped, Robert. I agree with you about the phalos - all that power is hard to control. They are can't live with them, can't live without them sorts of things. I also agree about harmony. Here the key is not to limit the palette available, but to limit the palette in any one piece of work. For example, after I establish which yellow and blue give me the range of greens which best suit a specific plant, I try to make sure those are dominant, and the others, if used at all, are used only for nuance, shadow etc. Incidentally, I am a big fan of carbazole violet - I like to start with it, and adjust with tiny amounts of reds and blues, especially when the subject matter is mainly violet, as happens a lot with flowers! |
Robert
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 8:55 am: | |
I should add--with the risk of being too specific--that it boils down, for me, to trying to avoid dipping into the pthalos. To mix an equivalent of dioxazine violet (aka winsor, carbazole) it takes quinacridone violet plus pthalo blue (the exact components of Rembrandt's Perm. Blue Violet). Again, Pthalo green plus a warm yellow (for me indian y.) creates sap green. I am suprprised I didn't articulate this to myself better before starting this thread! The issue is fundamentally not having the
extremely messy experience of constantly dipping in pthalos! I suppose a convienance purple and sap would prevent that. They certainly wouldn't prevent further mixing because I would still alter them from their in the tube state. There -- I've solved my problem. thanks for the thrapy, group. |
Robert
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 8:45 am: | |
Hey Anon--
great post--
I think one issue is speed--I find I am always mixing purple and sap green as base colors to be added to to creat browns and subtle greens. Why not just have purple and sap in the palette to begin with. Well, here's the rub--when hand mixed there is always some variety--not so with convienance mixed sap green. Moreso, the limited palette gives a sense of control and a look of harmony that a wide palette may not. And it's that control that probably trumps convienace for me in the end. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 7:12 am: | |
This is an interesting question. As I began to paint, and to read lots of instructional books as well as take classes, the overwhelming number of experienced painters recommended a limited palette, like Robert's. HOWEVER, every limited palette was a little different! Therefore, I think the beginner must pick a few colors that seem common to a lot of painters, and learn to mix with those colors. Then, if you run into difficulties because a certain range seems difficult to achieve, you can add one or two new colors to try and solve your dilemma. Also, I think it depends what you paint. If you paint landscapes of the southwest, all of Daniel Smith's abundant earth colors must be tempting. Since I paint a lot of botanicals, I like more than the usual numbers of blues and yellows. Probably, after much experimentation, you again revert to a more limited palette because some of the trial colors have not proved useful, but I do believe it would be foolish not to try.
There is one more curious thing about this whole issue. A lot of artists seem to think a very limited palette is a badge of honor of sorts - a "look what I can do with so few colors and so little expense, even though it is inconvenient, it is good to suffer", sort of like people who refuse to take an aspirin when they have a headache because it is noble to tough it out. Well, the economy thing becomes irrelevant after the initial purchase, since used-up paint must be replaced, whether it is one of six or one of 36. As long as the artist has acquired the skill of color mixing, and taken the time to learn the characteristics of the individual pigments so that they can be used to best effect, I see no logical reason to deny oneself the pleasure of exploring all the world has to offer. We are so lucky to have it available! |
ncmcdonald
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 8:16 pm: | |
your clock is not correct ...the corect time now is July 22, 9.21 pm est. |
ncmcdonald
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 8:11 pm: | |
I heard a story once about the fact that WN made lots of colors, and the famous artist replyed ...."so why not use all of them?" |
Mary Vivit
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 8:44 am: | |
Robert, being able to mix any color from a solid palette is quite a gift. However, I know what you mean about the time it takes to do it properly. I started out with about eight colors, but found I could get more time painting by adding a few convenience colors that would play well with the rest of them (hence, the perylene maroon). Try it! Pick one or two colors similar to those you mix a lot. If you find that, after experimenting, you'd rather mix, then you're not out a huge investment.
Mary |
Robert
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 9:11 am: | |
I have found I can mix virtually anything w/ my 10 color palette (lemon/ cad. yell/ maimeriblu indian yell/ cad. scarlet/ venetian red/ perm. red violet/ ultra/ cerulean/ pthalo bl/ viridian). For instance--winsor violet is a mix of perm red violet + pthalo blue. Sap green--pthalo blue + indian yellow, quinacridone gold--indian yellow plus perm red violet plus touch of ultra--)
I enjoy doing it this way but since I paint fast--
alla prima--and do not glaze--I am wondering if it is better to give in and have a few convienance colors as mentioned above. Something in me takes pride in being able to get so much out of a small palette--but it takes time both in terms of mixing and brush cleaning--time that is valuable given that I work into wet washes. Any philosopphizing on this appreciated. |
|
