| Author |
Message |
 
karen
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 3:19 pm: |  |
I started my watercolor 'career' (I wish) with a course called
Flowers in Watercolor at the Horticulture Society of New York. I'd
always be taking a drawing class here and there but was never
inspired. But this class really caught my attention. I loved the
idea of watercolors and flowers and, like many of you, my living
space and tolerance for the smell of oil and turpentine was
limited so it seemed the perfect class to try.
And what a struggle it's been!
Anyway, what prompted me to post this is that the woman who
taught that course--and who I
continued with privately for a bit--painted the most magnificant
watercolors. But she also had a background in oil. I mentioned
to her that i'd heard that watercolor was the most difficult
medium to work with. She said, "Whoever said that doesn't
know much about oil." I think she said that oils had different
qualities, like watercolor.
That sounded odd to me because the little I'd done in oil was so
much more manageable than watercolor, but who was I to argue
with her amazing paintings in front of me?
Anybody know what she might have been talking about? |
Eric
| | Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 12:58 pm: | |
Marie, you hit the nail on the head. |
marie
| | Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 10:36 am: | |
It's so unfortunate (for watercolorists at least) that oils command more money. The arguments I often hear are:
1) Watercolor is an amateur medium. Because the medium doesn't use many hazardous materials, doesn't require a lot of space, and doesn't smell it's often the medium of choice for amateur painters. People often begin painting in watercolor without any formal training. The barrier to entry is low, and so you tend to see a lot of really bad watercolors.
The truth of the matter is that a skillfully done watercolor is incredibly challenging. When I paint in watercolor, I find it very easy to switch to oil. When I paint for a while in oils I tend to get lazy and find moving back to watercolor a real challenge. It's as if I need watercolor to keep my technique sharp.
I find it interesting that many authors of books on painting tend to respect the medium. Ralph Mayer, in his book on materials and techniques, says that watercolor requires a lot of skill. Richard Schmid, who many oil painters worship, admits to be being daunted by watercolor and takes his hat off to anyone who can skillfully execute a watercolor. Carlson's Guide to Landscape Painting, another classic text, suggests that students paint for years in oil before they take on the challenge of watercolor.
2) Watercolors will not last as long as oils. As long as watercolorists use lightfast pigments, there's no reason watercolor will not last as long as oils.
Interesting enough, I have an acquaintance in New Orleans whose house was under 10+ feet of water after Katrina. His oil paintings were *all* destroyed; as soon as the water receded, the oil flaked off into tiny pieces and blew away. The watercolors, on the other hand, all survived. They had some discoloration from mold and sewer water, but they were restorable.
3) Watercolors cannot be displayed because they will fade. This was true 100 years ago, or even 30 years ago. This is not true today. Unfortunately, the reputation still lingers.
4) Raw materials are less expensive for watercolor. This is probably true, but there's not that much difference in relation to the price of an original work of art.
5) Watercolors have to be framed behind glass. This is also true, unless you want to use watercolor canvas and fixative. Watercolors are more expensive to frame than oils.
So, materials cost less with watercolor and framing costs more. That still doesn't account for the difference in price.
What disturbs me is that watercolor is almost never taught in art school, even though it's one of the best mediums for disciplining your eye and hand. I think that until the medium is taught in in accredited schools and not just community education programs, it will always be the stepchild of other media. |
Eric
| | Posted on Sunday, June 18, 2006 - 9:59 am: | |
Yes, it's probably the money talking with her switch to oils. Isn't it interesting that oil fetches more dollars yet I, and I would guess, some other watercolorists feel that those of us in the watercolor camp are the top dogs of the art world.
Of course this sounds arrogant, but I'm being honest. While too many in the galleries and art-buying world look down on watercolors, my feelings are just the opposite.
Maybe that arrogant, "watercolor is the superior medium" mindset is what we should cultivate to help elevate watercolor to a position alongside oils in the minds of those who purchase art. |
Eugene
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 8:34 pm: | |
Eric, Marilyn Simandle is married to a well known western oil painter. Walt Gr--- can't spell his name. Probably gets bigger bucks for oils. Money talks. Liked her watercolors, but if you look at some of her work, the perspective is god-awful. She seemed to combine different photos without considering were the horizon should be. |
midnight baseball
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 3:12 pm: | |
the thing i like best about watercolor is the potential it has to depict what something "feels" like rather than just what it "looks" like.
i wish i could do this intentionally with a much greater frequency! |
Eric
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 1:14 pm: | |
Luminous, spontaneous, fast, the way the colors intermingle with each other, the soft diffusions...no other medium comes close!
I noticed that noted watercolor painter, Marilyn Simandle, is now painting almost exclusively in oils. Now that's something that makes me scratch my head in puzzlement. |
Suzy
| | Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 5:24 pm: | |
I have used EVERy other medium I can thing of with results that range form average to quite proficient. But the first time I used watercolor, the paint was so luminous that it spoke to me "I am for you!" The energy of the flow of colour is unsurpassed and the intensity range is so electric. It was love at first sight. Im sold. |
Dan
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 7:42 pm: | |
I've always loved the way the colors melt into the paper. So splendid! Can't see me doing anything else in the future but watercolor and inks.Was my "first love" and just may be my last. Yes the cleanup part is also an issue for those of us with limited time for art work.
Love to be able to pick up where I left off so easily again when I come back to it. |
Eugene
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 7:11 pm: | |
I like watercolor because it’s fast and spontaneous. And also because of the way colors mix and blend on the paper, an effect you cannot duplicate with oils. And also because I had a great teacher in art school who inspired me and urged me on! |
Eric
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 5:46 pm: | |
I love how watercolor looks, at least when it's done in a way that I like. Conversely, I strongly dislike watercolors when it's painted in a tight way.
I also agree with Marie. I have no patience to take a lot of time to clean up. |
Rekha
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 1:32 pm: | |
I started painting from scratch this Feb but started with watercolour for logistic reasons.
I have not tried anything else and am fascinated with ink and watercolour paintings. Might do this when I am more confident with watercolour.
The watercolour paintings have an aura of their own never replicated in other media.
The reason I am more likely to stick to wet-to-wet watercolour is because of the quasi-unpredictability of paint travel, presenting pleasant and unusual shapes.
This for me is a very encouraging material for experimentation. |
Raliegh
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 12:50 pm: | |
I started w/c painting while living in a studio. (Instead of oils) I actually used acrylics and watered them down and then realized I was watercoloring. It took me years to let the water flow with the pigment. Every once in awhile I color pencil or pastel but my 1st love is W/c. |
marie
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 7:49 am: | |
The subject sums says it all. What attracts you to the medium? Why do you do watercolor instead of other mediums (or maybe in addition to other mediums)? Why do you do watercolor instead of other activities?
For me, I suppose there are two reasons. First, I like the challenge of the medium, of trying to get it right the first time. Second, I like the convenience of not having to clean up a big mess of paints, solvents, and brushes when I am finished painting.
I would love to hear opinions from the rest of the group. |
|
