| Author | Message | ||
  Paul Sullivan |
After several composition sketches, I make a full size, detailed preliminary drawing on tracing paper. The drawing is then transfered to w/c paper using a separate, hand made graphite sheet. I've found that a 4B pencil works best this. (A 6B creates too much excess graphite.) The sheet is then wiped with a cotton ball soaked in rubber cement thinner. This drys to a flat coat of graphite. I use a 7H pencil in going over the lines during transfer. The trick is to produce a thin, accurate line with out disturbing the paper. The transferred drawing is then "blotted" with a kneeded eraser to remove any excess graphite. This should produce a very light gray pencil line. | ||
Eric |
On Wesson's line and wash, he often used a sharpened match stick, dipped in ink. He felt it made an interesting line. | ||
Sid |
Wesson's paintings are identified as "watercolor (or, rather watercolour", "ink and wash", and "line and wash." Anyone know what line and wash means as opposed to ink and wash? His trees make you think that painting them must be easy. Somehow, that doesn't necessarily prove true for me! | ||
marie |
Raleigh, thanks for pointing out the trees. They're awesome! | ||
Raliegh |
On Dake's link. They appear so simple. | ||
Raliegh |
Marie, you've got to see the trees in "feeding Time". | ||
Dake |
Eric ...TC still lives, that i find a bit of an oddity (not that he's still with us but that his work is so expensive compared to EW's). He paints many 7x10s , they fetch around $1800US that's about $3000 Australian. Not bad value adding huh..? VV the other thread; He might just be able to support himself through watercolour painting. | ||
Eric |
If Chamberlain's are about double on an inch for inch basis (his paintings I believe were mostly smaller in size), I'd go with Wesson. | ||
Dake |
Eugene, Seems we sing from the same hymnal. Charles Reid, who would be called a loose painter in anyones language teaches the importance of brush control and careful treatment of vital shapes. The loose appearance is an illusion and relative. Painting loosley in fact requires control of a more sophisticated nature than careful academic rendering of the subject. When one observes some of these masters at work the pencil moves in the same manner as the brush. Hi Eric, yep the clear thinking of Wesson is what strikes me, as you say, one statement with the brush is all that's required, that with a keen eye for tone and colour temp. He had a simple but effective brush vocabulary. You can find his work displayed and for sale on line. http://www.street-gallery.co.uk/artist_gallery.php?sid=56e3593cd1fcc42d77909296e588e393&artist=WES&cat=ORG Chamberlain's work commands about double the price of Wesson's on an inch for inch basis. | ||
Eric |
Dake, I just received the Edward Wesson book. Contains not just watercolors but oils and pen and ink. With the watercolors the beauty is in the simplicity. Once he puts the color down, there's no going back in and fiddling with it. Fresh and crisp. | ||
Eric |
Eugene, after reading your comments I dug out that book to look at Jamison's paintings. You're right, they look very fresh, not labored-looking at all. I notice his use of opaque whites is used for flowers. (like Yardley) The book includes a few quotes from Jamison. Here's two of them: "There is too much emphasis on style. Some students learn to cover up personal inadequacies with it." Also: "Few paintings are as good as the artist imagines them. Fortunately, some are better." | ||
Eugene |
DAKE, This is a very interesting discussion. I’m not sure you understand me. I certainly like loose , juicy watercolors, but I also think there must be a certain amount of control. I see too many painters who just splash away looking for “happy accidents”. This is not my way of painting. I think it’s important to plan ahead and know what you’re striving to achieve. That’s the importance of value sketches. Sure, I let the colors mix on the paper, and get beautiful effects that can only be had in watercolor. Accidents? No, I know pretty much what will happen from years of experience. Yes, I stay mostly within the lines, especially around the center of interest. I allow myself to take chances and be wilder in less important areas. I think of my work as impressionistic realism. (if the is such a thing) I can see no reason for photo realism, except perhaps to show one’s skill in rendering. Are you from England? I noticed the watercolour ERIC. You mention Jamison. Phil and I have been good friends for years. We attended art school together. Wonderful draftsman and painter. We visit each other occasionally. You may be surprised to know that his paintings are not as “free” as they look. He spends days or weeks on them. Sometimes lifting and washing .out huge areas. Yet he manages to keep that fresh,clean, loose look. As if he had just flung the paint on the paper and it worked! His work might look casual, but check the details and you’ll see that they are drawn carefully. I think the secret is not to paint loose, but to make it LOOK LIKE it was freely and easily done. If it looks like you labored over it --it’s no good. Yes, Philip Jamison stretches his paper. (with gummed tape, the old fashioned way.) I just recently introduced him to gatorboard and staples Yes, He does use opaque white when needed (so does Yardley) Don’t try to find his web page. He doesn’t have a computer. | ||
Eric |
From what I've seen of Wesson, he is the epitomy of freshness and crispness. He abhors gimmicks and tricks and it's just a brush, water, paint and paper. I've only seen his art in the book, "Watercolor Impressionists" by Ransom. That's a great book. Chamberlain, Yardley, Seago, Webb, Jamison, Treasure are all included. Just curious, typically what would a painting by Wesson or Chamberlain cost? | ||
Dake |
That will be a good pick-up Eric. I've been toying with the idea of buying one or two EW originals, they're still pretty affordable compared to say....Trevor Chamberlain's stuff....EW's are crisper and arguably fresher than TC's...sorry way of the point! | ||
Eric |
Dake, speaking of Edward Wesson, a few days ago I ordered a book about him. I think Ron Ransom is the author. I haven't received it yet in the mail but I'm expecting it soon and looking forward to looking at his paintings. | ||
Dake |
Yep Eugene, and under-developed drawing skill is no excuse for a tight painting. Drawing ought to be like breathing as should your painting in watercolour. Do you think tight when you see a Michaelangelo drawing? Sure you may paint tight which I think means staying within the lines, but there it's pretty darn hard to create a painting that : a/ Presents watercolour's strength over other media. b/ Satisfies the psychological need for the viewer to become an active participant by completing suggested areas. c/ Provides the chasis for conflict which is a dynamic fundamental to exciting visual design. No one's suggesting that there is only one way to use watercolour, however shouldn't one try to maximize the unique qualities of aquarelle and make your paintings airy, and fresh? Look at Edward Wessons watercolours compared to his oils. Painted essentially the same, however one is leaden and still whereas the other makes your hair move in it's breeze. Admittedly if I was a dictator, I would force everyone who painted watercolours to paint loose or not at all. ""You can have any color you like pal, so long as it's Black"" HF | ||
Robert |
I guess loose and tight have become some sort of line in the sand. I like paintings that have heart and dynamism. | ||
marie |
"Loose is good if it is not an excuse for poor drawing." What a wonderful quote. I think I'll print it and hang it in my studio. | ||
Eugene |
Some of us like to paint "tight". Loose is good if it is not an excuse for poor drawing. | ||
Robert |
Amen | ||
Dake |
The biggest problem with relying on transfering a drawing is that you lose the relationship that must exist between the brain and hand firstly with your pencil and then with the brush. it creates a dichotomy, a mindset that the pencil is a separate element whereas the pencil acton and the brush action are fundamentally the same. Direct drawing prepares not only the image on the paper but also the artists whole self for the action and motion that the brush would take. It is somehow a rehearsal for the brushwork. Thats how I see the drawing aspect of watercolour. Draw loose paint loose, draw tight and you will inevitably paint tight. Dake | ||
marie |
I have always thought that drips and runs are fine as long they make good design sense. I have messed up a lot more paintings with bad drawing and bad values than with drips. In fact, I had a piece with drips -- accidental drips -- accepted into a national show last month. I find that with my work, folks seem to like either the very academic/"correct" pieces or the really wild pieces. The stuff in the middle tends to be more problematic. | ||
Robert |
HaHahaha | ||
Raliegh |
What a terrific idea. Would political correctness 'dictate the tongue on the left'? | ||
Robert |
You could get some stickers made up and steal into art shows and galleries and stick them on paintings that use this device. Mine would have them for sure! | ||
Raliegh |
Robert, I wish we had a tongue in cheek icon we could use as I want to make fun of the 'on purpose drip' in w/c. | ||
Robert |
I'm not sure I fully got at what I mean in the previous post---so i'll try a bit more-- Most people like pretty, conventional pictures. I like painting such pictures, actually because they tend to reflect the beauty I see around me. However, to really ascend to the level of "art," I feel a painting must make a statement, show individual spirit, move the viewer--in other words take chances. Chance and risk taking in art have one predictable fallout--some people won't like the result. But, on the other hand, some people may, if the work is good, LOVE the result. That love is created by doing something right. It sells paintings. The pleasant stuff that everyone likes well enough may not cause anyone to LOVE the work. We pass by a lot of stuff we like in order to take home what we love. So if everyone likes it, probably no one loves it. Conversely, if some one loves it, someone else will probably hate it. I hope this isn't too confusingly stated. This is merely my own theory. It may not work for anyone else. It does keep me from worrying about pleasing everyone. | ||
Robert |
Here's a example of what I mean by that little aphorism: Last week I took a painting to a group critique involving twenty artists. This painting was, in my opinion, especially good. It was a strong portrait with very original design. The reactions were either "love it" or "hate it." The hate it comments revealed to me that it wasn't the painting that had problems (in fact, no one could point out any flaw--unusual from my experience), but that the painting challenged their expectations as to what a portrait should look like. The people who loved it loved it because it broke through their expectations and said something very intense and moving about the person portrayed. The second painting (I took 2) was a rather conventional landscape (that I feel was well done0)that everyone liked but noone seemed really passionate about. Which painting would you rather have painted? Which painting is more likely to find a home? | ||
Eugene |
"if everybody likes it you're doing something wrong" Please explain. | ||
Robert |
So many artists have such varying views and approaches to the drawing. I have begun to do full sketches in wolfe carbon pencil on my paper and allow the drawing to show through as part of the art. I also encourage drips and runs, giving a work 'in progress' dynamism to the painting. I do this because I like the effect and it is a little different. People either love it or hate it, which is kindda what I'm after. If everybody likes it, you are doing something wrong. | ||
dirtybird |
In the past I have been a die hard projector user, a die hard freehand artist and at times a die hard graphite paper user. I always disliked pencil marks and as others have pointed out erasing screws up the paint absorption by the watercolor paper, so I do whatever it takes to minimize pencil marks. Probably 80% of my painting start out on tracing paper. I correct the drawing on tracing paper until it works for me. To me the strong point of a good tracing paper drawing is that you can reuse it. One technique I have adopted for drawings done directly on watercolor paper from a projected image is the use of these plastic refillable brush-pens. I fill them with dilute blue, green, red and black waterclor and draw away. No pencil marks at all. I purchased several a few years back and they have been a godsend. | ||
Elmo |
There is also an argument to be made for the fact that the drawing is part of the art and the original drawing on the paper with its flaws is more artistic than a copied, perfect facsimile. | ||
Eugene |
I don't mind seeing a litle pencil-- but that's not why I do my drawing on tracing paper and then transfer it. Erasing on wtercolor paper can damage the paper and cause problems. So I make my drawing corrections on the tracing paper rather than on the watercolor paper. | ||
jandrle |
I draw on the paper, too, and don't mind that the lines occasionally show. I have a friend who draws on tissue then transfers it to her paper. She saves the tissue in case she ever needs a portion of it again. She doesn't like to draw. I do. In fact sometimes I have felt like I am doing a paint by number, I have gotten so caught up in doing the drawing. haha | ||
Donna |
I also make my own transfer paper by rubbing the back of tracing paper with a soft pencil. Be careful when tracing, ball point pens can leave grooves in the paper which are hard to deal with when you add the watercolor. I also have a Prism projector which I love. I use it only for basic shapes, especially for portraits and for buildings and architectural shapes that are hard to get right. For both methods I fine tune the drawings with pencil before painting. I go back and erase some of the drawing after adding paint if I feel a need to. | ||
Dake |
How to transfer a drawing? Hold a pencil in your hand and draw directly onto the painting surface, that way yo get to preserve all the little marks and even mistakes that make you different to the next pencil slinger. | ||
Eugene |
You can easily make your own graphite transfer paper. Here’s how. Blacken one side of thin tracing paper with a stick of soft graphite (6B). The thinner the paper the better. Then smear it with a wad of cotton or a tissue soaked with lighter fluid or any non-oily mineral spirit. You can use it again and again. When it begins to weaken, repeat the procedure. Works like saral but much cheaper. Learned how to do it at a Cark Dalio workshop. | ||
joanna |
I usually transfer large shape drawings by scribbling graphite stick on the back of the drawing and tracing. (the stick is a plain, woodless lead of graphic that I can rub on the side or at a point.) I only use this for shapes, not for fine detail. If I have to transfer a fine detail, I have a projector, but frankly I rarely use it. Often I transfer by the divide-and-conquer method; I divide the drawing with a grid and make an enlarged grid lightly on my wc paper then draw what's in each square. I use an architect's triangular rule to do this. | ||
greg |
question: Greg- it sounds like you do the same kind of detailed work. When transferring with an H pencil, how can you tell during the process where you've already covered? Would it work to use a colored pencil, say a Verithin(which has a hard lead)? If you use graphite on the back of your initial drawing, how do you then store the drawing for future work? I can always tell where I have covered. I just stand to the side of the drawing and I can see the lines re-drawn. I do the drawing, then photocopy it. then draw over that, so I can see the traced lines. A red ballpoint would work, like suggested....I am going to try that. I am going to try that. I never draw over the original drawing, only over the photo copy. I put the graphite on the back of it. I use a lot of paint and I can't ever see my lines, if I can still detect them, I use a kneaded rubber eraser to lift them out later. | ||
Anonymous Painter |
I prefer to 'draw' with watercolor pencils. If I might want to reuse a drawing, I draw on tracing paper, with w/c pencils. Then I flip the paper over and use the same color to go over the lines heavily (don't need to color the whole paper!). Then I flip it again, tape it to my watercolor paper (at one spot, anyway), and use a toothpick to 'transfer' the color drawing. Major advantages of this method: The line doesn't have to remain on the paper, you can remove it as you paint. The color helps you understand what you're looking at, and transfer whole shapes at a time. If you have a complicated shape like a rose, you can indicate the shading (which helps you keep track of the petals), and even transfer a bit of shading. It's also possible to adjust an imperfect line during the tracing. As to buckling: When I have to use a lightweight (140#) paper, if it's going to be a wet painting I put a large Plexiglass sheet on my painting table. That does certainly help with the buckling! I've heard one should remove it from the glass and let it dry on a wooden (porous) surface, or it can stick to Plexiglass. Also, as handprint notes (and my experience bears out), the TF Saunders Waterford paper is 'dimensionally stable' (doesn't buckle much). It's also almost impossible to induce backruns on this paper (not always a plus in my book). | ||
Sid |
Kimareille: Eugene mentioned he uses a ballpoint pen to make the transfer to the wc paper. I use a red ballpoint. That makes it easy to see which lines are left to do. | ||
Howard |
I use Paint-by-Grids transfer paper. It's gridded on one side and has graphite on the other. I like how the graphite transfers with it better than how it transfers with Saral's. The company also sells gridded acetate that you can place over what you're transferring from, e.g., a photograph. The gridded acetate works with their transfer paper. You can get more information at the company's Web site at http://paintbygrids.com/. | ||
Robert |
Kimareille- The autograph Prism can project on the wall any size. The size limitaion is not in the final drawing but the initial drawing/photo. They are even used to project drawings fro murals. I bought one after the portrait workshop thinking I could use it as a shortcut in portraiture. But I prefer the idosycracies and directness of line work directly on the watercolor paper. I'm going to take mine to the frank francese workshop and sell it. It's nice because it has a deluxe floor stand that makes it very versatile. | ||
Raliegh |
Leonardo da Vinci for one, (there are many) has 'studies' of different plants, I'm thinking of a lily he did. He has notes written all over the paper, lots of pencil marks. Of course this isn't his final work but the notes and sketch lend to the scientific appeal IMHO. | ||
Raliegh |
I use alot of wet into wet. I lay my paper directly on a glass table top. But plein air I use the cardboard back of w/c paper. I don't know if it's the humidity or what but after reading about the sizing in the paper and how every wash causes more fibers to become sponge like I decided to omit the stretch. Thanks for the link, I'll be studying up. I have done both, painted and plain. I think the plain background is glaring probably from studing older works that have yellowed with age. | ||
kimarielle |
Raleigh- Currently, I am doing what is generally referred to as "botanical portraiture" along the lines of Pierre-Joseph Redoute (you can google him and see alot of his work). When one does that type of botanical painting, there is no background at all. Commonly, you do a portrait of the plant and there is the scientific name at the bottom of the painting in copperplate calligraphy. It requires extreme detail (anal, we call it!) and so the transferred drawing must be very detailed. Before we do a plant portrait, we do several thumbnails to determine composition, and we do a detailed drawing and value study before we even begin. Greg- it sounds like you do the same kind of detailed work. When transferring with an H pencil, how can you tell during the process where you've already covered? Would it work to use a colored pencil, say a Verithin(which has a hard lead)? If you use graphite on the back of your initial drawing, how do you then store the drawing for future work? Eugene- thank you for telling me about the graphite and the soaking process! I was about to attempt it with a drawing that has taken me hours...I'd have been seriously bummed! Does a ballpoint impress the w/c paper? Robert- do they make autograph projectors that might accomodate a somewhat larger image? The "standard" size of a botanical portrait is about 14 x 11, although that can vary alot. I am so grateful to all of you for sharing your knowledge with me! By the way, Raleigh...how on earth do you manage to use paper and not have it buckle? I use repeated water washes in my work, and my Arches 140# paper definitely buckles! What is your secret...do you work mostly drybrush? | ||
Raliegh |
I don't stretch my paper and it doesn't buckle either. I use 140# mostly though when I use 300 or 80# I've found no buckling. Do the pencil marks distract from the final picture? I draw directly on my w/c paper. I'd like to ask how you do your backgrounds behind your botanicals? | ||
Eugene |
I do my drawing full size on tracing paper. then transfer it to w/c paper using Saral graphite paper. A ballpoint pen works best when making the transfer. Doing a drawing on w/c paper before soaking and stretching "sets" the pencil so that it is almost impossibleto erase. I transfer only the big shapes and proportions, then do the details free hand | ||
greg |
I use John's method. I make my own graphite paper. I clean it up after the transfer, then apply my details freehand with a H or F weight pencil. I love to have a very detailed drawing to work from, it is easier for my tighter type of work. I even sketch in most of my values if time permits. | ||
John Preston |
I have smeared 2B-6B graphite dust onto the back of a drawing and then placed it over the WC paper and traced with an H pencil. It leaves some smudges but I "blot" those up with a kneaded eraser. It's probably not useful for detailed work...it's good if you need to locate key large shapes in the same proportions as your drawing and paint in details on their own. Washes lighten but don't dissolve the lines. It sort of wrecks your drawing as a drawing; You could trace the drawing and smear graphite on that. | ||
Robert |
There is also the grid method. If the drawing is tiny-- 7X7 or less--one could use an autograph projector, | ||
kimarielle |
I know that some of you don't work this way, but I must make a preliminary drawing first, make all corrections, and then transfer it onto the watercolor paper. I know there are several ways to do this, and I'd like your input. Some people use unwaxed graphite paper...this makes it easy to work on a block if you wish, which eliminates the need to stretch the paper, but when using this process, the graphite doesn't always want to come up when I'm ready for it to, or I find that I haven't pressed hard enough to leave any imprint at all. Then there is the lightbox method, which I like, but I've never transferred an image onto watercolor paper before I've soaked and stretched the paper. Does it work to do that, or does it create problems, such as imbedding the graphite into the paper, making it hard to remove, or does the graphite just float away when the paper is soaked? For those of you who transfer your original drawing onto your paper, could you please share your preferred method? Thanks so much. |
