| Author | Message | ||
  Linda |
Check this thread for more ideas. | ||
Patrice |
Sid, >plexiglass Of course! Raleigh, Thanks, I'll search for it. I've 'experimented' to the point of deciding to throw away the camellias I was working on. I'm starting over, using the blue latex frisket this time. I'm finding the blue color distracting. I feel that I need for the lightest value to be the lightest value. A definite exercise of the mind. | ||
Raliegh |
Patrice, somewhere in the archives here is a link to Arnold Lowry's (misspelled?) artwork. He has mastered lifting in his sea scapes so well. Well worth looking at. | ||
Sid |
Patrice: When watercolor paintings get really large, most people frame them using Plexiglass--plastic--rather than glass. Plexi is much lighter and unbreakable. Sid | ||
Patrice |
Raleigh, I've been experimenting with paint lifting. It looks like I'll have more experimenting to do in order to figure out how to do it right! (grin) | ||
Patrice |
Suzy, Those are highly saturated works. There is a definite feeling of movement in them too. One can almost feel the wind blowing on Juno Pier. I find myself wondering about framing works as large as some of those. What about the weight of the glass? How large does glass come in a thin sheet? | ||
Sid |
Suzy T. Wow, you're right.l Jim Holehouse's watercolors are big and bright. They would really jump off the wall in a typical watercolor show. I use a good deal of paint in my watercolors--not opaque, just rich color--and viewers often say they didn't know watercolors could be so colorful!! Many watercolor painters, especially newbys, tend to put the emphasis on water rather than color. Maybe we all experienced the cheap watercolor paint sets of grade school that were always reluctant to give up any paint. I remember those "paintings" as being very watery. Sid | ||
Raliegh |
Last spring I was working on a portrait of a Korean woman wearing a bright magenta native dress. I didn't get her nose shadowed right, so I lifted and tried again. Well needless to say she ended up with a honker that would rival WC Fields. I began looking on line to find what others were using for paper because this paper wasn't working right! (Arches 140cp). After reading posts here, & Handprint I was able to understand the properties of W/C paper. And also the best,"most ideal way" to apply them. This is more in the style of the earlier watercolorist. I don't dislike newer painting done with glazes. In my own work I am trying to hold on to the luminosity of the paper. | ||
Suzy T. |
Try again...tropicartdesign The guys name is Jum Holehouse. Very cool stuff. I love it. (Its all very large work too....huge!) | ||
Suzy Toronto |
I consider myself to be a transparent watercolorist and I love intensity and strength....so long as the watrecolor work is not opaque. To see some very cool, INTENSE transparent watercolor with NO WHITE PAINT go to Jim Holehouse's website at tropicartdesign.com | ||
Patrice |
>> Morning Patrice, there are some very informative posts here on this W/C site. You should take a little time to study them. Lately, I think everyone has decided to put brush to paper. Hi, It's just after midnight here, Raleigh. What part of the world are you in? I was looking around when I spotted Eugene's (wonderful) cows . Tonight I've taken the time to read this thread. Can't help but laugh to see that the controvery continues. When the 'art world' was a part of my life it seems I heard them all. Use no black! Black is imperative! Mix your colors on the palette! Mix your colors on the painting! NEVER touch your paint with your finger! Use any method you need to create your work! I heard a woman say once that any painter who used more than 7 colors (pastels, specifically) was no good. Oh well... >> Do you think that anyone can produce quality portraits in watercolor or is watercolor painting primarily a landscape media? Hmmm... Aren't we painting the way light falls on objects? Does it matter what the subject matter is? >>I wonder if pastel artists are constrained from a limited use of other media in their techniques. Anyone know? I do not know the answer to that question, but I once overheard a judge say that my pastel was the best painting in a show but that he would not award it a prize because pastels were usually smudgy work. Oh! How I worked to avoid smudgy work. Just goes to show how closed some minds can be. One thing I've seen here that I'm a bit surprised about ...or maybe I am mistaken. Are watercolors that have intensity and strength not liked? I've been learning about using layers to create vibrancy and rich depth of color in watercolors and I love it. I used layers and glazes in oils for decades. Oil is my medium of choice, but friends and family are telling me that they prefer the new watercolors I'm doing. Who would have thought??? Patrice | ||
Raliegh |
Morning Patrice, there are some very informative posts here on this W/C site. You should take a little time to study them. Lately, I think everyone has decided to put brush to paper. | ||
Patrice |
Eugene, LOVE your cows! I'm new to watercolors. (not painting, just wc in particular) and it is challenging to learn to paint 'the other way round.' You seem to have it down pat! | ||
Eric |
Good point, Robert. I also believe that the unpainted white shapes are what gives watercolor its sparkle. Although there are many exceptions, I generally don't like paintings that don't leave any white. | ||
Robert |
I reread this very interesting thread. It all started with a student saying it was basically too hard to bother learning how to use the white of the paper. Why bother with learning how to plan ahead and reserve whites when one can use tube white? My original exception to the use of tube white was in this context--should not someone learning the watercolor ropes be encouraged to learn how to use the reserved whites of the paper before he goes off into tube white forays? Or are we now at such a low ebb in our collective pedagological mindset that any imposed discsipline, even on beginners, is condemned as stifling? | ||
drollere |
g. martin's post should be sold as a sampler to hang in the studio. he said it all. | ||
G. Martin |
A true Watercolor Artist needs not be concerned with self worth or what you are trying to portray, I have found it just comes naturally and let nature speak for itself, quit trying to correct it. We get so lost in trying to learn, we forget what we already know. Just paint, paint, paint. This is the best advice you can give any wanna be. Books are wonderful, please study, but do not overshadow your practice time with reading all the time. It will hold you back from what just happens naturally. I know, for years I listened to everybody and read everything I could get my hands on and there was little time for painting. Now, I paint, a little bit every day of time life, wow, what a difference it makes to believe in myself and quit trying to do it everybody else's way. My way is very successful. | ||
tdickinson |
Just came across this discussion - with my watercolor paintings I paint with very thick applications of watercolor pigment. My paintings do look like oil paintings and I have used white paint on many occasions - I use to feel like I'm not a true watercolorist, BUT after several years of using the white I find my artwork sells just as well - no one that I sell to seems to even notice that I have used the white to add to the highlights - T. | ||
drollere |
the whole prohibition against white is *so* 19th century. what century is it now? i think the story is basically this: at the start of the 19th century, watercolor painters had horrible penis envy of oil painters, mainly because oil painters could get into the academies while watercolor painters could not. then a way was found to formulate zinc white as especially fine particles, and this became a new watercolor pigment, "chinese white." quickly, watercolor painters discovered that they could make watercolor paintings look more like oil paintings through the manipulation of paint formulations, including gouache like mixtures with chinese white. this threatened to break down the distinctions that kept everybody in their place, and a general riot ensued. the new watercolor society rose in battle against the old watercolor society, the new wave painters rose up against the old school painters, "masculine" painters derided the "feminine" painters, and, of course, the traditionalists excoriated the innovators. white paint or death! white paint IS death! jospeh turner, arguably the greatest watercolor painter who ever lived, used to put a dash of chinese white in his rinse water, to give paints that extra zest, and was quite free with zinc white whenever it served his purposes. arthur melville, one of the most technically accomplished watercolor painters who ever lived, used to soak his papers in chinese white before painting on them, because it gave the paints an extra brillance and tonal range. my point: using white pigment in watercolor is about as traditional as you can get! -- if by "traditional" you mean, "the way the old farts used to do it." to dake's argument, i cannot believe that buyers who are stupid enough to purchase paintings made with alizarin crimson and rose madder have the taste, much less the knowledge, to quaver over a painting with a little white in it. i think painting a watercolor and using white paint for a white barn is probably a failure of imagination and technique, as robert suggests. but don't you have to see the painting to decide that? isn't all that white in picasso's "guernica" effective precisely because it is so artificial? white paint is very effective as a base coat, as an additive to "transparent" color mixtures, and as an accenting texture. "whites" can also be achieved by scraping, lifting, painting around, or various masks or reserves (tape, stickwrap, frisket). my ideal painter would know how to use any of those techniques with skill -- and know when to use all of them with taste. | ||
Eugene |
Kakuna, in your post of Dec. 4, You said you never saw a watercolor with white or opaque pigment that you liked.-- I feel the same way with one notable exception. Check out the work of Philip Jamison, AWS. His work is very "watercolory" but he uses spots of white and sometimes opaque. I think the difference in his work is that the use of opaques is planned, rather than a crutch or correction agent. His fields of daiseys are amazing, and I don't know how he could have done them without using white. He has written two wonderful books (both out of print) | ||
jdaneman |
Can we tell them to use the formulations of at least the raw sienna and phthalo and ult in the "new" prisma line? I mean, they KNOW how to make it for heaven's sake? I shall write them. This is stupid. I can understand about Manganese Blue--it's toxic to the environment, but these paints are standard pigments and so well made. | ||
Robert |
I e-mailed Grumbacher and they sent back and e-mail that said the finest is being dicontinued and in its place a new and different prismacolor line is being initated. Cheap Joes already sells prismacolor watercolors in their christmas flyer. | ||
jdaneman |
That's a HOOT! Joe's rocks! I have trouble finding more about the Grumbacher discontinuation: some art stores profess complete ignorance of this event. Others are selling off colors but no mention of there being an end to Grumbacher's Finest. Meanwhile, on YOUR recommendation, I think, I got a tube or two of the Phthalo. Yep, it is a very fine blue. It is the green-toned shade (if you go by DS red- or green-tone as nomenclature.) I happen to have some red-toned DS phthalo and it's nothing like the Grumbacher in terms of how it makes a medium wash. Did anyone here write about Fabriano paper being changed? I ran across a blog talking about Jerry's Artarama selling off their stock as the new will be different in surface. I used to use the warm-toned cp almost exclusively but it wasn't available in Germany, so I switched to Arches which I could buy in neighboring Strasbourg. I use Kilimanjaro for messing about right now, but I did like that warm Fabriano and its tiny tooth in the CP. We can continue this on a new thread if desired. | ||
Robert |
I just received this letter with from Cheap Joe's with my latest order. I thought you all would be interested in it since it is pertinent: "Dear Robert-- Thank you for your order of one dozen tubes of watercolor. After reading the opinions in this bulletin board thread , we have decided to amend your rather closeminded order to be "politically correct" and inclusive. Your corrected order is as follows: 2 tubes watercolor 2 tubes casein 3 tubes acrylic 2 tubes gouache 3 tubes water miscible oil Enjoy you watercolor painting. Joe's | ||
jdaneman |
I second that--ALL beautifully put and yes, the "in yer FACE!" aspect is what we seem to reacting to. Shock can be good (epater les bourgeoise) but subtlety is harder to achieve. | ||
Robert |
Dake and Kukana--you expressed it beautifully. Either one "gets it" or one doesn't. | ||
Dake |
True Kukana! Further to Victoria's post. I think I see your point...I do believe that as there is so much volume, in the screaming sense, that the quiet tonal precision of the traditional watercolour is becoming more relavant than ever, we need to rest sometimes and I know what I'd prefer to look at after a tough day in the jungle. Does the emergence of hip hop Emenem style or Metalica's contributions to the music artform reduce the beauty and demand of Chopin or Mozart or the poetry of Keats or Browning? I don't think so. Wesson will find a place on my wall before any flouro pop-zap giant bug painter's bombastic babbles. | ||
Kukana |
The whole issue for me is that I have never, ever, seen a piece of art, that was primarily painted in watercolours then had a touch of Opaque paint on it that the opaque didn't just jump off the paper and "scream" at me. It no longer looks like a "Watercolour" to my eye. Good, bad or indifferent, its not the same and I wouldn't hang it on my wall because eveytime I would look at it I'd see it. An untrained eye might just think its a pretty picture. | ||
Dake |
George, do you define watercolour as painting done with pigment that is water soluble? If so, I rest my case your honour! | ||
Robert |
Victoria-- I personally have a response to a scene and wish to paint it. I try my best to make my palette, brush, hand, and mind a harmonious unity as i paint. I paint to respond to what I see. To capture an impression of it in paint. It has absolutely nothing to do at all with a buying public. It has nothing...nothing ...nothing to do with that. It is an act of homage between myself, the medium, and the subject. Nothing more. But nothing less, too. | ||
Eugene |
For too long, I painted to be accepted into shows. Now, in my advanced age, I paint the way I want. If I am accepted in shows- great, if I'm not accepted- so what! I've learned that too often we are painting what the public wants to see, rather than expressing our real feelings about a subject. I can say this now, because I am now retired and and no longer dependent on sales or recognition. Sadly it is not an affordable luxury for the artist who is struggling to make a living. | ||
George |
Victoria, I agree! This frantic age drives us to extremes. We would be better off to join Robert by the edge of that stream. | ||
victoria |
George, You said: "Last year I visited a few National watercolor shows... The paint in these paintings, even when transparent, was nonetheless thick and overpowering... And, worst of all was the over use of the new industrial strength synthetic pigments. You know! The paintings that reach out and grab you, shake you, and scream at you, 'LOOK AT ME.' " The frenetic world that we live in nowadays with thousands of images thrust into our faces daily might explain the trend that you mention in your post. Just to be "heard" above the din it may be necessary now for artists to go beyond subtle washes to capture people's attention. Turner lived in a vastly different world than we do. Victoria | ||
Robert |
Well, as for me, our creeks are flooding and I'm working on a picture of a beautiful section with a small waterfall. Second attempt--the first had too strong of a value statement. | ||
George |
Robert, I understand “your point.” I’m actually more like you than you might think. One part of my mind is very purist, while the other side is very inclusive. You see, only one watercolor painting has ever really moved me. I mean, really moved me as in an internal shift of consciousness. It was a painting from the series of paintings that Turner did late in his life while in Switzerland. I’ve seen this series in a museum in this country and many years before in the National museum in London. All of the paintings in the series are small and made of only three extremely thin washes, one yellow, one red and one blue. Most of the image area that is seen is paper (both reserved whites and as the ground for the thin wash). This one painting; the best in a series, that is considered one of Turners best series, made by a man that is universally considered the greatest watercolor artist of all time, is for me the purest form of watercolor. I grade all other watercolors against it. Last year I visited a few National watercolor shows. My purist mind told me that every single painting in every one of these shows was not a true watercolor. The paint in these paintings, even when transparent, was nonetheless thick and overpowering. Most (the majority) were not a reflection of nature but rather a copy of a photograph, and recalled (bring to mind) the photo image rather than the natural world. And, worst of all was the over use of the new industrial strength synthetic pigments. You know! The paintings that reach out and grab you, shake you, and scream at you, “LOOK AT ME.” I repeat! I did not see a single true watercolor in a single one of the National watercolor shows that I attended. Well! I can’t paint like Turner either. So, who am I to condemn these other watercolor artists? I have to make allowances. I have learned to accept the use of white (if done in taste), and the use of acrylic (if done thinly), and the (to my own horror) use of industrial strength pigments. These things I have learned to accept in the name of community (a watercolor society is a community). I’m still struggling with the use of photographs. In my purist mind, if a painting is not done on location or from memory it is not a true watercolor. In defense of the photo-real (or is it photo-dependant) watercolor artist, I must admit that I would rather be a member of a society that includes them than a member of a society that is rigid and exclusive. In other words my inclusive mind wins out over my purist mind. | ||
jdaneman |
You mean, amongst us chickens or in general? I actually am a watercolorist. I don't use white. I reserve whites from paper, use frisket and I have a few opaque paints but the most that happens is diluted grey, no worse than a touch of Naples yellow, which in fact I don't even have any more in my palette. I am more likely to cast salt to make texture than to put a spray of opaque paint. From what I see of art around here and there, the Europeans still seem to be doing their thing; the French like pen and wash and the Germans and English still do watercolor --viz Alwyn Crawshaw for example. | ||
Robert |
Are there any watercolorists out there??? | ||
Robert |
George-- I don't know the answers to any of these questions. I do know that when one paints like an oil painter using acrylics one is not painting like a watercolor painter. However, in another sense, if this is indeed watercolor painting becasue the paint disolces in H20 then he actually IS painting like a watercolor painter. I don't know. It's all semantics, which I fine tedious and so don't why in engage it such stuff. One either gets my point or one doesn't. | ||
George |
Robert said “The only reason I care is because our watercolor society admits all water media and hires judges that are often not watercolorists. They don't do washes, reserve the white, or glaze. They slather and paste on acrylics. Guess what paintings they select as best of show--for a *watercolor* society. So reclaiming the word watercolor for those practicing the skill of watercolor painting is very important to me personally”. Robert, I have a couple of questions for you: 1. Given that the majority of watercolor societies including AWS operate this way, why insist that the use of white, or thinly applied acrylic, are not watercolors? 2. Why do you seem to assume that a watercolor done in some type of purest form could not win over a watercolor done using white, or thinly applied acrylic, at one, or all, of the watercolor society shows? 3. In your system of classifying a watercolor from a non watercolor, how do you classify a painting that makes use of washes, reserving of white paper, and glazing together with the use of white, and/or thinly applied acrylic, all in the same painting? The point here is that if your concern is for “those practicing the skill of watercolor painting”, then aren’t all of the artists (involved in the watercolor society shows) practicing the skill of watercolor painting? You remind me a bit of a man I met on a street corner many years ago who told me that a car isn’t a car if it didn’t have at least six cylinders. He believed that those “Contraptions” that only have four cylinders should not be called cars. (Please smile here) | ||
jdaneman |
Aw, yer gonna make me blush. I learned typing in the Dark Ages, shortly after the manual typewriter saw the light of day. When I got my first ELECTRIC (A Smith Corona) for college, thought I'd gone to typing heaven. I still have an old Underwood like the one I did all my high school papers on. Just for grins. If you learn to type on one of those, you can type forever on a computer. I like debating art here also with you because you stand up and say what you think. This is good. Art should be debated. I myself never even OPENED a tube of Chinese white until a few years ago, and I look at Skip's colors with bemusement. I'd like to try some of his style to learn his sense of composition, which to me is the great attraction. I opened a page in the book he has published here (the water media roundup, forget the title) and one picture (yep opaque mostly) just thrilled me. It's a long series of windows in an interior scene, a shiny table, and a figure to the right. The shapes, negative shapes, and the colors are so good. I got that little frisson one feels when one sees a GOOD painting. He seems to have ahem left the top of the shiny table blank paper....I'd post a copy of the painting here, but my firewall is set to stun or something and my live-in computer guy is out of town. | ||
Robert |
"...and I picked his brain. Mainly about the use of opaque colors." I should have given you the gist of what he said. In watercolor no color is opaque unless it is applied too thickly. Treat them all as transparent colors and dilute accordingly. | ||
Robert |
I actually don't think we feel any differently at all re. watercolor and art. I think it has been simply about nomenclature all along. It took me a while to grasp this fact but now that I have I think we have a genuine peace accord. I like debating w/ you J...,you are intelligent and informed. And, unlike me, you type with accuracy. | ||
jdaneman |
See below, I think Robert and I reached a detente, at least... | ||
Robert |
His workshop was a trip to the mountaintop for me. Mel and I had dinner together and I picked his brain. Mainly about the use of opaque colors. Really got some useful insights. | ||
Eugene |
For all you "no white" painters. For prime examples of the use of white paper visit Mel Stabin's web site. www.melstabin.com | ||
John Preston |
I've got $20 that says we'll get a permanent two state solution in the middle east before this topic gets resolved. Any takers? | ||
Robert |
J... I have to agree with what you just said. Well put. | ||
jdaneman |
Aha! Robert! Now we get to the root of the matter--judging at art shows where true watercolor is being subsumed by these newfangled opaque techniques. I can see where that would get a rise and you know, I would question it as well. Possibly there should be, as we are discussing, classifications for "aquarelle"==no white, no lamp/ivory/peach black and watermedia --hey, you want to slather on the gouache or acrylic or even (gasp! blush!) glue on a collage, go for it. It wouldn't upset me--because I hate the idea of pure watercolor technique being lost as it's a very exacting but exciting painting technique. So in the case of judging shows, boy do I agree there should be a division. As for art, it moves on and on, propelled by individual vision that spreads amongst artists. I wonder if pastel artists are constrained from a limited use of other media in their techniques. Anyone know? | ||
Robert |
Okay--this is getting typically rancorous. IU think it's a lot like a lot of political issues. Each side operates by different definitions and so no resolution is possible. I will say this, though-- The only reason I care is becasue out watercolor society admits all water media and hires judges that are often not watercolorists. They don't do washes, reserve the white, or glaxe. They slather and paste on acrylics. Guess what paintings they select as best of show--for a *watercolor* society. So reclaiming the word watercolor for those practicing the skill of watercolor painting is very important to me personally. However, as far as this little debate goes, I clearly see the other side's points. It simply a matter on where you draw the line between gouache and watercolor and since in practice artists paint all along the continuum, the exact cutoff is hard to determine. I enjoy such discussions. They get my blood circulating. | ||
Robert |
J... I appreciate your lessons in art history. What to lesson implies is that those who say that an over use of white gouache in a watercolor painting is problematic are like the Parisian street-critics who spat upon Renoir's masterpieces becasue they were too short sighted to understand them. Actually to draew such an analogy is to cast as shotsighted fools those with whom you disagree simply because you have totally missed their point. The point is that we are simply trying to define what is and what is not a watercolor paiting, not limit what an artist can do. To say that those who maintain that a painting ceases to be a watercolor if excessive gouache is used when white paper would have worked lack appreciation for new ideas is to totally misunderstand what is being said. No one is saying that paintings that replace the white of the paper with gouache should not have been paintied. They are saying that they are not watercolors, but gouache or some hybrid of gouache and watercolor. It's a question of labeling, not a question of the lack of vision of those who take the opposite side. Some people take every opportunity to show that they have superior taste and insight, that they have risen above the conceptions of the benighted masses. | ||
jdaneman |
Wow, now that's some pungent imagery! Well, so now it's a definition of terms. If watercolor has more than a touch of white opaque paint, then it shall be called water media and aquarelle no longer? Or do we split it along the lines of "Traditional Watercolor" and "Skip Lawrence oh my gosh what the heck is he doing with all that gouache is it really watercolor anymore -watercolor" | ||
Robert |
I don't think this dicussion has anything to do with a debate between those who think art advances when artists test the limits vs traditionalists who are trapped in the quagmire of old habit. No. This is simply about the nature of watercolor. There is a continuum based on the use of white paint instead of white paper. At some point it ceases to be watercolor. Also, at some point the paintings cannot be fairly represented as watercolor to the buying public. This has nothing to do with artistic vision. Each artist can do whatever in the hell he or she pleases. That's not at all the point. A transparent watercolor painting is only a watercolor painting if it uses transparent watercolors. Some people want to extend the definition of watercolor to include anything using water -- gouache, casein, temprea, acrylic. That's great. But that's changing the meaning of the term watercolor. So what we really are talking about is the definition of watercolor, not who is creative artist vs who is not. It's okay to throw watercolor, squirt it from a gun, give yourself an enema and expell the paint all over the paper from your rectum if you wish. But slather it with white gouache and it it ceases to become a watercolor unless you are calling opaque water media watercolor. | ||
jdaneman |
Well, Robert, you are a far better painter than I and you do know more about art, but I do know this: all media in art can be adulterated to the tastes of the artist. For example, Impressionism shocked the world as it was no longer purely representational (compare, for example, to the works of David, those big pictures of Napoleon that are in the Louvre.) Now we view Impressionist paintings as quite representational versus abstract art. Which was roundly criticized, too. As I mentioned somewhere here, all artists break rules, and then make their own. If someone wants to add white paint to their work and it stands up on its own (in German the phrase is der Ding an sich--the thing unto itself, in other words, true to its nature) then it works. I would not teach beginning watercolor with white or black--it inhibits learning the principles of the media. But once learned, anyone can forge their own path. There is a duality about art--to know the "right" way to do something, ie perspective, the human figure proportions, light and shadow, and then to bend or break the rules in full consciousness of what you are doing. | ||
Robert |
I hope those pushing the use of white pigment as expanding and liberating realize how utterly silly this sounds to those of us in love with the purity of a watercolor painting. I suppose if we add modeling paste and wire we would be expanding the possibilities as well, but somehow an appreciation of the nature of watercolor inherent beauty within it's limitations seems lost on some. Every medium can be adulterated and then it can be claimed to have been liberated from convention. It's like claiming that amplified instruments would improve the sound of a string quartet and it's okay to perform Beethoven's string quartets with electric violins. Such a step would be liberating and expansive only to those who were essentially clueless about the nature of the instruments and the genre. | ||
jdaneman |
I'm thinking of taking an oil class (shock, horror!) because there are things I'd like to do that watercolor doesn't. The matte surface gets me sometimes. But overall, I adore that transparency. I went to an exhibit of famous wc in Worcester years ago (must be at least 15) and I was absolutely stunned as ever. I heard Philly has an exhibit, hope I didn't miss it. Or maybe it was the Met. Not sure. But I know I love looking at watercolors when they are masterful. Shame the artworld thinks that the colors are fugitive (not really, not all of them) and that watercolor is worth "less" than oils. | ||
Robert |
Actually in the case of the new American Journey colors the Titanium O2 is added to make the colors opaque. They are pastel tints filled with white. They suit the opaque style of Skip Lawrence for whom (along with his w/s participants) they are disigned. | ||
george |
I think the titanium dioxide is added to the new colors because it brightens the color (if you don’t over do the titanium dioxide in the mix). I’ve not seen these paints, but that’s my guess. The watercolor, oil, acrylic comparison is interesting. I realize everyone here knows this but it’s worth saying anyway - watercolor allows effects that cannot be achieved in oil or acrylic. Switching to oil or acrylic means giving up these effects. Staying with watercolor, but adding the effects that can be achieved with oil or acrylic by adding white (or other variations in the watercolor technique) to those parts of the painting where it’s most useful gives a greater range of creative possibilities to the watercolor artist. | ||
jdaneman |
I like Skip's compositions. I see he is adding that titanium dioxide to the new colors of American Journey, and I had a chance to view his "new" stuff in a series of those water medium pamphlets that Joe publishes. At this point, I agree with you, Robert, that Skip is doing gouache in a way, with patches of transparent washes and floats of opaque paint. That's all well and good, and I like the results but he equally could be doing oils or (gasp, choke) acrylics with this technique. Sometimes, when I paint, I feel I ought to be doing oil if that's the result I was after. Either I am doing blocks of color, or trying to get that shading of light that is more sculptural than painterly in an aquarelle sensibility. In Skip's case, I think he could transfer some of his recent works to oil with good effect. But if he wants to paint with water media, opaque or not, and if HE'S happy with the result and the paintings have a public, well who am I to gainsay it? I have no urge to paint that way, myself. I do throw in some "coastal fog" now and then to flatten out some reflections and I like the paint for limited uses. As to big patches of white or opaque, that's not for me. As yet.. | ||
Robert |
I think opaque white looks awful with transparent watercolor--Eric I think this is the test. I think, too opaque white usually flunks the test. I actually wonder why people who want to use white paint don't just go to a friendlier medium. I'm not talking about the occassional bit of surf spray or distant seagull done in white paint--sometimes these touches allow a full wash to be executed, but the use of white paint for it's own sake just looks inferior to my eyes in watercolor. Truthfull, though I acknowledge his greatness as an artist, I don;t like Skip Lawrence's opaque stuff and his use of white and I don't get why American Journey has so many paints that include opaque white--theres are actually gouche. | ||
Eric |
Any time there's a lull on this board, just bring up the white paint topic. It's sure to spark discussion. We can discuss "rules" and "traditions" all we want, but I keep going back to one thing: I think opaque white looks awful with transparent watercolor. I've seen original Sargent paintings where he used opaque white and I thought the use of it spoiled his otherwise remarkable paintings. So far, I've never seen it used where I thought it looked good. But I've got an open mind, maybe someday I'll see a painting where white paint looks good. | ||
Robert |
I see your point and concur, though for the sake of others who may be lurking, I would like to throw in a couple of caveats. Skip Lawrence, a great artist, has somehow cast off the opaque vs transparent distinction and readily mixes white with many of his pigments. Many of American Journey's new offerings reflect this since they were designed by SL and have opaque white as a main component. He produces creditable art, but much of it currently is visually and noticably opaque and thus appeaes more like tempera to my eyes. Regarding the idea that artists break the rules to create their own way, SL is a perfect example. All that being said, the problem is that the adolescent mind (both adolescents and adults who haven't grown past that stage) hears "break the rules" and champions that as a a cause celebre. Youthful rebellion is not the same as attaining mastery and then pushing the envelop as does SL. With the former you have the avoidance of discipline and skill learning, with the latter you have the invention of new ideas after having mastered the traditional ones. One creates great art, the other a lot of naive mediocrity. | ||
jdaneman |
Robert, I do agree with you about paper white. I love the sparkle of the clear paper against the paint. I did read, in Skip's compilation of Water Media notes, that sometimes the white against muted colors looks harsh or "wrong." What I do in these cases is to glaze with DS quin deep gold or another warm tone (depending on the effect I want.) Or you can actually tint your paper, which is something I've read in other books. You do a thin wash in a particular tone, and this becomes the "new" white when these sections are left unpainted subsequently. But one of my greatest teachers (a cardiologist, don't ask, I went to high school in a medical college, it was weird) used to say that all artists break the rules, and then establish ones of their own. The two go together--you can break rules, but you must establish your own as a new system. Interesting idea. I never hear anyone else saying this, but I believe it's true. | ||
Robert |
I think I misphrased what I was trying to say in the preceeding post;I meant to convey the following: Although there is debate about whether a touch of white paint here or there is appropriate, most watercolorists seem to agree that the white of the paper should be the main white for the painting in most cases. | ||
Robert |
Now we are just arguing semantics. Most watercolorists agree that the white of the paper is the fundamental white in watercolor. That goes along with the nature of the medium. The only valid debate is whether it's okay to occassionally utilize white paint in a limited way if the situation demands it. But anyone were to take the leap that in general "white" in a watercolor painting is as readily represented by tube paint as by paper they would be just plain incorrect, misinformed, and out to lunch. | ||
jdaneman |
Well, it's silly to say it's not "watercolor" if you use white. What about opaque colors like Naples Yellow, jaune brilliant and others that are pretty much lacking in transparency? Anyway, who's a purist anymore? My aunt, who taught me as a kid to paint, was a purist back then: no black, no white, absolutely standard palette of aliz, cad red, cad yellow, prussian and ultramarine, yellow ochre and burnt umber and sienna. Maybe hooker's green. That was it. Now she's anything but a purist and she has quite a good following. Maybe it's better to say "one way to get brilliant whites is to reserve unpainted paper." | ||
George |
Good discussion here, but I’d like to respond to something Dake said; “Watercolour is not watercolour if you use opaque white. Period!” That’s not true! Watercolor is (technically) paint that is water based. If Opaque white is not watercolor, only because it’s opaque, then why are you not attacking the other opaque watercolors? Many watercolor paints are as opaque, or more opaque, as white. So tell me Dake, are iron red, oxide green, black, as well as the other opaque watercolors, not watercolors? If you want your paint box to include only the quins, thalo’s and other transparent pigments that’s fine, but stop judging what other watercolor painters use. | ||
Anonymous |
William Turner did thousends of watercolors. Not even one with leaving white paper. He used white paint instead very often. So there is a long tradition in wc to use white paint - not to leave white paper. The point is: everything is ok if it is your intention. We should produce art - not watercolors. | ||
jdaneman |
Gosh, that's lovely. The posture of the farmer with the back to us is incredible. | ||
Zoe |
Eugene - this is a terrific example of the use of whites. You've done a superb job!!!! I put a message for you down by Paper - about Arnold and Springmaid. Have a lovely day and you are doing remarkably well with all these technological issues :) | ||
Eugene |
This is a detail of one of my Amish series. The white is the white of the paper. I could not have achieved the same effect if I had used white paint. Agree? Sorry about all the "image banners"-- I'm just learning how to post and make a lot of mistakes | ||
eugene |
 | ||
eugene |
 | ||
jdaneman |
Zoe, not to mention that Paper White is almost fluorescent; depending on what whiteners are used in paper. Titanium white is not as reflective and is somewhat tranparent; the undercolor is picked up and affects the final whiteness, giving a gray look to even the cleanest white splashes of paint. Still, I spatter gouache when I want a floating opaque touch. But for true, reflective WHITES, it's frisket, wax resist, tape or reserve painting. | ||
Zoe |
Dake - you know I am a big admirer of your work, frankly, it is spectacular, but I don't always agree with you :) I've seen the splash of white on the works of many fine painters, including Singer, and as recent as Lowrey, Wade and others. White paint for the sake of it should be avoided in favour of the white of the paper, but in certain situations and for artistic license, I think it is permissible even in transparent watercolour exhibits/shows. However, it should not be a crutch to avoid saving whites! And those new or seasoned to transparent watercolour should save them. Saving white is watercolour! | ||
Robert |
If you can't plan ahead re where to leave your white paper then use oils or acrylics or the like. The above posted by Dake Dake-- The first post was by a student copmplaining that using white was "too hard". Many of the later posts started debating the use of white. But the student might take this as license to avoid hard work of learning the medium. I agree with you re the purity of white paper and its primacy in watercolor paintings. I would like to point out to others that trhe original poster was a student displaying the lack of discipline and commitment--seeking the easy way out--so common today. His seeking shortcuts instead of the discipline of the art will lead not to mastery but to where most of out culture has been headed. If you reread his first post you will see an undisciplined, whinning mind. | ||
Dake |
I did read the interesting ideas expressed here on the widely varying approaches to watercolour and would agree that the end product is the primary reason for making the effort. However the definition of the product is important in todays market. One must accept that a particular market has expectations of a standard, a benchmark that is often set by established artists in a market arena. To diverge from that benchmark by using alternative techniques creates a question in the minds of prospective buyers. The use of opaque media in a work that is defined as a watercolour immediately undermines the work, and the buyer seeking a watercolour will most likely pass it by...unless your name is John Singer Sargent. Defining it as mixed media negates such questions and informs the buyer. A great piece will stand regardless but don't ever underestimate the buying public, they like to be informed. I will scratch and hack away pigment rather than use opaque white, the white of the paper is ALWAYS a more reflective surface than any pigment. | ||
Dake |
I didn't bother reading past the first post on this thread for fear of being lost in the forest. But there is no issue here really. If you can't plan ahead re where to leave your white paper then use oils or acrylics or the like. Watercolour is not watercolour if you use opaque white. Period! | ||
Zoe |
Here's some work by David Levine http://www.forumgallery.com/2004/e_levine.htm | ||
Zoe |
ralphy, go over to Wetcanvas and check their Watercolour (or) Forum. Several portraits are on view now (or at least were--I think the site is down). In fact one of the portraits is by Dake, someone that posts here. It is brilliant. Of course watercolour can be applied to portraits, landscapes, seascapes, any escape and still life. | ||
Zoe |
Just looking thru Wade's "Painting more than the eye can see," and he definitely uses white in several of his demonstrations. He says, "use it when necessary," but use it restrictively. In one painting he uses it to create some smoke in a chimney. Clearly there is a time and a place for liberty. | ||
Eugene |
Winslow Homer as well as Sargent both used some whites, but usually just for highlighting.-- They also often used the paper for whites. Just prove that whatever works is right. However, I still think nothing can replace the sparkling white of the paper. | ||
John Preston |
ralphy04, Check out John Singer Sargent's portrait "A Tramp". It's in the Brooklyn Museum but often reproduced in Sargent books. Having seen it in person, I can't imagine it being done any better in another medium. (BTW, Sargent occasionally used white if it helped. On one work he it applied so impasto it cracked!) | ||
Eugene |
Don, I think there is nothing wrong with using white if the results are to your liking. I seldon use white except occasionally for tiny highlights. For me, transparency is the quality that makes watercolor different from all other media and as soon as you introduce white you lose it. If I wanted to use white I would paint in oil or acrylic. Trasparency is another reason to use good, beautiful paper-- because paper is part of the picture-- if you use opaques you cover it. Just one guy's opinion. If you like the look of white paint, by all means use it | ||
Robert |
A light bulb went off in my head just now re. your original question about the use of white paper being too difficult at times and so just use white paint. Here's is what I've been wanting to say: I think I suddenly realized what made me uncomfortable about the issue. I think a rule of thumb in learning any skill that translates into art is to learn things the right way and then you are free to make choices. In other words, to not learn how to use the white of the paper because it is too hard is limiting. To choose not to use white paper after you know how to do it is freeing. I don't think you will learn how to paint watercolors well if you avoid key elements of the skill because such elements seem too difficult. That's a very limiting attitude with very limiting consequences. Kind of like the painist who feels playihng scales is too demanding so he'll just skip them. That is a choice that limits him severely down the road. | ||
ralphy04 |
Do you think that anyone can produce quality portraits in watercolor or is watercolor painting primarily a landscape media? | ||
ralphy04 |
Thanks to all who contributed in this conversation. I agree with the responses that say it's the finished product (the painting) that is the most important. Not necessarily what you do to accomplish getting to that point. There are times i believe that it's just next to impossible to used the white of the paper as a part of the painting. this is especially true when you need to just use a wisp of white (sea foam). Here's another thought. My dad paints in acrylics and I paint in water color. He believes firmly that when he paints a boat scene, he uses a pen to draw the the mast lines for the sails. I instead will firmly use a brush such as a rigger to do this.He says that the pen is ok to use because it gives a thinner line that the brush would. He labels the finished effort "mixed media". This is where I differ from using different non watercolor techniques to paint a picture. That to me is overstepping the whole idea of watercolor painting. We argue quite a bit on this issue! | ||
Robert |
Hey Dod--er Don --no glasses when typing --sorry | ||
Robert |
Hey Dod-- One more thing--I want to say all this in another way. What I think doesn't matter, it's what you think. That's my point. In reading your post, it is at least possible--albiet, based upon limited information you provided--that the instructor knows something you don't. If you choose a teacher with care, sometimes the best thing to do is to out yourself wholly in his hands. Otherwise your own willfulness gets in the way of your growth. I say this not at all as a specific criticisim of you, but as a generalization about learning. A highly instructive book along these lines is "Zen and the Art of Archery<" in which the western student goes to Japan to study archery under a master and is asked to sweep the floor for over a year. Only after several years of holding the bow and going through the motions tai chi style is he allowed to shoot at the target. In the end he was a master archer. Had he walked away in the early stages because he was put off by the teacher's approach, he would have doubtless remained a talentless shmuck in terms of archery. But he would have done things his way, at least. | ||
Robert |
What I said is "What do you think?" How is that missing point? I think that is the point. I also said if it's a case of kicking against the "authorities" who proclaim "rules", that is missing the point. ie, Insight is a better guide than rebellion. It goes back to "What do YOU think?" | ||
Sid |
Robert: I feel you are missing the point. There are no hard and fast rules of painting, written in stone, that you must follow just because someone else says so!! You, as an independent, creative artist should be able to do whatever you want to do in the creation of your personal works of art. If the painting turns out the way you want it to look, then you have been successful, whether you use a bit of white accent or paint the whole thing with your left elbow. And, II'm not sure it even matters if another artist doesn't like it! This assumes, of course, that your goal really is to produce paintings that satisfy your artistic goals. If your goal is to paint, following someone else's rules on how to apply paint to your paper to create your painting, no matter what results, then so be it. | ||
Robert |
Take a look at paintings that preserve the white of the paper versus watercolor paintings that use white paint. What do you think? If you approach this whole thing like a rebellious teen defying authority -- "I don't need no stinking rules"-- you are missing the point. | ||
Victoria |
I think Sid is right when he says: "the emphasis should be on the product--the painting. What ever it takes to get you to your final goal--a successful painting in your eyes--is "legal" and proper." I do think however that opaque white should be used more as an occasional accent rather than a crutch. The more painting you do and the more forethought you put into the prepainting process the better prepared you will be to anticipate where you are going to need the white of the paper left intact. After all, we use watercolors rather than acrylics because of that transparency and so should make the most of that unique quality. You might also have to label your paintings as mixed media if entering contests and such. Just guessing about this---don't really know whether the fact that they are both water media would make that distinction unnecessary. Victoria | ||
Sid |
Don--This topic should draw a lot of discussion! There are many watercolorists who are true transparent wc purists. They feel that the "mystique of the technique", i.e,, transparent paints only, no white paint, etc. is extremely important, sometimes fanatically so! I sometimes think some of these devotees value the technical processes of painting more than the painting that results. Sticking to a pure transparent wc technique is really challenging. I fully accept that. Another group, of which I am a member, feel that the emphasis should be on the product--the painting. What ever it takes to get you to your final goal--a successful painting in your eyes--is "legal" and proper. I like to paint primarily in transparent wc. I try opaque acrylics every so often and always come back to transparent watercolor. But, if I feel it is necessary to get the effect I want, I am not at all reluctant to use a bit of acrylic white gesso to add a bit of sparkle or even to white out an unsatisfactory portion of the painting so I can repaint it with a new application of watercolor. So, I say, whatever works for you is exactly what you should feel is acceptable. However, get ready to hear loud cries from the "Watercolor Police!" Happy Thanksgiving all! Sid | ||
Zoe |
Well, Don Rago, I'm painting a little prezzy for my friend right now with white sox - thus far, following the rules I'll leave these paper-white, but I might also just add a smidge of colour to toast it up. The purists will vote in favour of no added whites, but I'm still sitting on the fence and waiting for the turkey to come to a roast! | ||
Don Rago |
In taking many courses and reading issues on using the white of the drawling paper instead of the white from a watercolor tube, I find that at most times it takes more work than it's worth to accomplish using the natural part of the paper. I know that there are parts of a watercolor painting that I am doing that cannot possibly be left white at the beginning or masked because I cannot tell where and when that part of the paper will be. I instead use Chinese or titanium white and I get smacked with my wash brush on the knuckles for doing so. I think that there are times that both ways of using "white" are appropriate. What do you think, is this rule overdone a bit? thank you Don Rago |
