| Author | Message | ||
  dirtybird |
Mud occurs by accident and brown happens on purpose! | ||
LunaTiger |
Isn't the term "mud" invented by some angry drunk artist who couldn't make his paints work? In my oppinion there's not such thing as 'mud'!There's only non-cooporating paints on a non-cooperating paper with a frustrated artist in the other end looking at a non-cooperative 'whatever is being painted' who didn't think the painting was supposed to look like THAT! A too bright red or green (using a hookers green where a light green like Schminke's may green could have worked a lot better) can't be saved neither and that surely isn't muddy!!! | ||
marie |
Well said, SutureSelf. A minor point I noticed recently is that certain types of papers work better with certain techniques, and certain combinations of paper and technique are more prone to mud. I suppose that the sizing in the paper affects the types of brushwork that you can use. In addition, the sizing affects the timing on any kind of charging, lifting, or rework. I don't have any particular preference for paper. I use several types of paper, depending on the task at hand. | ||
SutureSelf |
Back around four years ago, I posted my thoughts on the subject. I haven't changed my mind since. This is from February, 2001: "In my experience, 'mud' comes from two sources. The first is confusing color temperatures. When you make an area in a painting warm and then decide it should be cool and then change your mind again, the colors tend to neutralize themselves and mud is the result. The second is overblending. The more two colors are blended, the less individual identity each color has. 'Mud' is a failure of color identity. At those times when you'll want a cool passage in a warm area or vice versa, keep your strokes clean and deft, not allowing the warm and the cool to neutralize one another. Any color that can possibly be mixed - no matter how many component colors it comprises - can be read as a 'clean' or 'correct' color if its context is appropriate. 'Mud' isn't the result of muddy colors; it is the result of muddy thinking." | ||
edejan |
I glaze with yellows and haven't observed a problem - could be my eyesight. I used to paint in acrylics used in thin glazes and loved burnt siena and various blues for landscape passages. However, I found when I started painting in watercolors I would unexpectedly end up with "muddy" areas. I'm still trying to figure this out but I'm pretty sure burnt sienna (which I love) and some blues make mud. It's informative to read your experiences in making or avoiding mud!! | ||
marie |
Hi Dake, I have heard other people warn about the dangers of glazing warm over cool. I have also heard that using yellow as a glaze will create mud. Nobody, however, has ever been able to explain to me why warm over cool makes mud. Any ideas why? | ||
Dake |
The primary causes of true mud are glazing before first wash dry and glazing warm over cool. Some very vile looking mixes can look positively luminescent in the right context. | ||
Eugene |
MUD the dreaded word in watercolor. First let me state a disclaimer-- these are my experiences- maybe not the same for others. I never get mud when mixing only two colors. My mud usually occurs when I try to alter or correct a passage by glazing with third or even a forth color.. Two compliments when mixed will create a gray, not mud. Direct painters who do not do much glazing seldom have trouble with mud. Finally, all color is relative. What might look like mud in one painting, might be a luminous gray in another, depending on the surrounding colors. Andrew W. has done some remarkable work using what some artists would call mudd | ||
marie |
That's funny, Raleigh. :-) I have no problem with painting pictures of wet dirt. Seriously, I usually think of mud as any passage where the paint doesn't have any life or vibrancy. Neutrals and grays can be wonderful; they are not necessarily muddy. I tend to get into trouble with mud most frequently when I am trying to sustain a dark passage over a large area. | ||
Robert |
Marie-- It seems to me you've descibed "charging," a process that I use also--that's why I have begun to value daler-rowney paints --they make charging more controllable. | ||
Raliegh |
What's wrong with mud if that is what you are painting? | ||
marie |
Good question, Robert. I am constantly struggling with an answer to it, and I will be interested in hearing responses from the rest of the group. Here are a couple of things that seem to cause mud for me: 1) Overworking -- letting the pigment push too far into the fibers of the paper -- is usally the biggest culprit. Often, when I am trying to get a good dark I need to have the paint at a higher concentration than usual. The relatively dry paint will naturally tends to produce a drybrush effect, and so I will tend to scrub the paint into the fibers. This almost always produces mud. I tend to get better results when I start with a strong but workable dilution of wash and then, using the biggest brush I can handle, flood the wet paper with full strength pigments. Then, I just leave the pigments alone and let them mingle naturally on the water. I try to let the brush touch only the water, not the paper (of course, that's not really possible). One word of warning -- this process is evidently nerve-wracking for observers. Other watercolorists who have watched me do this have tended to gasp and cover their eyes. But, hey, it works. 2) Switching color temperature. Starting with a warm color and then overlaying a cool color, or vice versa, tends to make mud. All too often, I will start off with something such as burnt sienna with a little ultramarine blue. I then decide that the mixture isn't dark enough and so I add more blue. Pretty soon, I wind up with a non-descript, muddy mess. I have noticed I get better results when I decide up front if an area needs to be warm or cool, and then make sure to stick with my original decision. | ||
Robert |
I think, in a past period of my artistic life, I was a bit damaged by instructors who cautioned me away from "mud" by cautioning to avoid earth pigments in general. Browns, handled skillfully are as beautiful as greens, blues, etc. Mud is hard to define but seems the dull, opaque product of over mixing, using too many colors (one of which is often a cadmium). On the other hand, a transparent burnt umber wash is beautiful. Any thoughts? |
