| Author | Message | ||
  Joanna Junior Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 17 Registered: 10-2006 |
I did see a demo of translucence (a banana behind a cellophane square, then those translucent shopping bags you get at pricey boutiques.) It is in this book --Painting dramatic Light | ||
Arry New member Username: Arry Post Number: 1 Registered: 7-2007 |
So what was the original question? LOL! I paint a lot of flowers which basically have the same issue, a diaphanous petal over others or stamens. One thing that you can do is pull some color off of your flesh color" with a lifting brush which can create that soft and transparent feel. Also by using watered layers of color, one on top of each other you can get that transparent surface over another. | ||
Bill Unregistered guest |
There is an attitude among the young and rebellious that resists authority. I experienced that myself. Rules, especially in art, are to be viewed critically. Usually though art instruction is not about rules and slavishly following them, but about problems and possible and effective approaches to solving them. That said, it takes decades and decades to be become skilled at any artistic endeavor. If I can learn from someone else and shave decades off my own struggles, I'll take the information (and not slavishly apply it but incorporate it into my own knowledge base.) As Thoreau or someone like him once said, "If I see farther than the next man it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." In other words it is wise to learn from others. | ||
Jay Unregistered guest |
One thing I've learned over the years is that books are basically expression of the author's opinions, however he arrived at them. Each person is free to agree or disagree with (or be indifferent to) them. The point is, something merely being in a book doesn't necessarily make it "right". Just as it is with "rules". Remember, every rule started out as someone's opinion. Like a highway's speed limit -- merely someone's opinion. Food for thought -- just playin' the devil's advocate.... <G> /Jay | ||
Marie Intermediate Member Username: Marie Post Number: 90 Registered: 8-2006 |
Bill, about the distortion in your painting. A certain amount of distortion can be very effective -- as long as it's done correctly. There's a good book on academic drawing, The Practice and Science of Drawing by Harold Speed. In one of the chapters he mentions that a certain amount of distortion is present in most truly fine drawings, even drawings of the masters. At the same time, he cautions against distortion that comes from ignorance or laziness. Essentially, he says that you should strive to be as accurate as possible for many years, and eventually you will learn when it's okay to distort for artistic ends. Sometimes distortion works; more often it doesn't. | ||
Marie Intermediate Member Username: Marie Post Number: 89 Registered: 8-2006 |
Picasso and Matisse were both capable of traditional academic work but chose not to do it. Picasso, I think, sold out over time. I am reminded of a story I heard once about Picasso. I'm not sure that I recall the exact details, but it went something like this ... Someone bought a Picasso from one of Picasso's dealers and asked that Picasso authenticate the painting. Picasso walked into the gallery and declared that the painting was a fake. The dealer almost grew pale and pointed out that Picasso had brought the painting in himself. Picasso said: "Yes, I created the painting, but it's still a fake." And, Eugene, I agree that power and social status play a big role in what is considered good art. It's cynical, but I believe it. | ||
Eugene Intermediate Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 96 Registered: 8-2006 |
For 50 years, I’ve been looking at, studying, and trying to understand to work of Modigliani, Brancusi, Miro, Dali, Klee, Picasso, and the like. I’m still trying! They certainly are different, if that’s what makes good art. But were they really good painters or were they simply promoted and marketed by gallery owners to their wealthy patrons? I can’t believe that Peggy Guggenheim's (even with all that money) taste and knowledge was better than mine. I think we often have the same situation today. If the social leader of the town buys from a local artist, all of her followers must have a painting by that artist. It’s not about art, it’s about social status. Right or wrong, just my opinion, however unpopular. PS I know plenty of artists who distort because they can’t draw. | ||
Bill Unregistered guest |
Marie--I just did a painting of a model's head lyingbefore after it was hung and sold that, if you turn the painting 90 degrees so that the head is upright, the pillow side of the face is quite distorted. Flip it back to horizontal and it looks natural. This was an accident but it gave the painting a very interesting look--wistful and melancholy. I suppose mine was based on poor draftsmanship but I was trying to capture the essence of the pose and unconsciously distorted it. I think it is a good painting and am not certain if what I did was a flaw. I am told that critics have taken Cezanne's portraits to task for poor draftsmanship. I wonder if that was intentional? | ||
Marie Intermediate Member Username: Marie Post Number: 87 Registered: 8-2006 |
Two reactions to Bill's post: 1) I think that art is a reflection of the cultural context in which it is created. I don't know that that makes is "merely" a historical artifact. With Modigliani, there is a strong influence from african art and distortion of space -- probably a reaction against the development of photography -- that was common with other painters of the time. 2) Distorting space or anatomy does not necessarily weaken a painting. What often weakens a painting is when things are distorted unevenly. Let me explain. What I have observed from watching other people paint (and in my own work) is that the trouble starts when one thing is very realistic/illusionistic and something else is highly stylized. I see it most often with figures, where the the surfaces are very finely modelled and the structure/anatomy is non-existent. Great care is taken to articulate the eyelashes when the head can't possibly be human. What makes the Modigliani painting work is that he is distorting and flattening *all* the space, not just the anatomy. | ||
Joanna Junior Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 14 Registered: 10-2006 |
Hey, Bill. Thanks for recognizing the humor. I was taught by one teacher (who happened to be a surgeon and gave a class in creativity) that artists learn rules and then break them--then, MAKE THEIR OWN. So Modigliani certainly knew the rules. Everyone in his age went to art school and did endless studies with critiques far more scathing than ours. Picasso, for example, boasted he could paint as well as any master like Raphael (!) by age 12. But both he and Modigliani, and Brancusi, and Miro, Dali, Klee, Macke, broke the rules and made their own. Modigliani's art has its own rules. But criticizing bad draughtsmanship is fine because making a head too large and ears too low is not making NEW rules, it's not following any rules. | ||
Bill Unregistered guest |
This raises an interesting question about subtext. Behind your humorous post, J., is the subtext that this (Modigliani) is great art even though it violates the basics of drawing and proportion as these apply to the human face. We are all accustomed to Modigliani's distortions and don't question whether it is in fact great art. This is an essential subtext for your post to operate properly/ But, just to play devil's advocate, let's examine our assumptions. Is this in fact great art or is it actually merely historically relevant? I am asking really would any of use be proud to have painted something similar? | ||
Joanna Junior Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 13 Registered: 10-2006 |
 For Rehka: 1. Eyes too close together, not in line 2. Neck curved the wrong way 3. Nose too long, squared off on bottom.... just joking, com'on, no one has a sense of humor here anymore. We must be trying to replace the acerbic but scholarly Robert. | ||
Joanna Junior Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 12 Registered: 10-2006 |
What's really funny is that the Amish pic is not from a photo at all. I looked at an oil painting for inspiration on composition, turned my figure around, added a bread bowl I'd seen, gave the girl the face of someone I used to know, and added the window and tree. I looked at a photo to see how the ear looked behind an organdy cap Mostly, then, all from my head. | ||
Joanna Junior Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 11 Registered: 10-2006 |
I myself hate that "done from photo" look--the perspective is wrong and distorted. Unfortunately, I don't often have the time to paint from life as I paint an hour a week on Sunday, my only time off. I actually am not a beginner. Right now I'm trying small format but it's pretty tough for figures, which I do a lot of. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Rekha--to tell someone they would benefit from working from life is solid advice. To justify that by commenting that their paintings look obviously taken from photos is useful feedback. If you are a beginner and want your work to remain lifeless and stilted, then by all means work from photos. Since the world around is filled with light and shadows and objects, there is no excuse not to paint from life. This is an opinion. I suppose I should have made a comment like--Joanne--this is a wonderful painting--however, if you would use more reds or oranges in the flesh it would give it more life. The problem with that is that it misses the point. The point is that the painting is from a photo. Joanna also paints from life--I've seen those paintings. All I am doing is pointing her in the most fruitful direction. | ||
Marie Intermediate Member Username: Marie Post Number: 75 Registered: 8-2006 |
Although working from life is a good idea whenever possible, the reality is that sometimes it's just not possible. I'm still learning how to work from photographs. One of the temptations for me is to copy the photograph too literally, which can really pull the life out of a painting. There is a lot that is very good in Joanna's painting. The blue dress works well compositionally, and it plays well against the red of the window in the background. There's also a nice sense of space. What I would like to see would be a stronger point of view about what the painting is about. Is it about the light coming in throught the window and playing against her face and the pie? If so, I would darken the foreground and add even more contrast in the face, the pie, and the window. Or, is the painting about the way she is admiring the pie that she just pulled out of the oven? If so, I would play down the contrast in the window. When you're working from life, you're forced to make these kinds of decisions about what is important because (1) there's a lot more extraneous info to weed out, and (2) the light is going to change or the model is going to move or whatever---you don't have time to give equal treatment to all areas. When working from photographs, I think it's important to use go through the same decision process. | ||
Rekha Intermediate Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 54 Registered: 8-2006 |
I forgot to add that most old masters learnt by copying and going their own way. In fact, their teachers insisted on it. | ||
Rekha Intermediate Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 53 Registered: 8-2006 |
It doesn't greatly matter whether the subject is from a photograph. Joanna is probably a beginner like me and wishes to have comments about the techniques of her painting not a putdown without an explaination specifically why you put it down | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Corrected: Joanna-- Since you have posted several paintings, I'd like to offer some constructive criticism about your works in general. This is definitely offered to be helpful. When you paint form a photo, it is painfully obvious. Nothing to me looks more uninteresting than a painting that is a redone photo because it is so obvious--they lack any life. I would stick to painting directly from life which is far more convincing as art. | ||
kisha Unregistered guest |
Joanna-- Since you have posted several paintings, I'd like to offer some constructive criticism about your works in general. This is definatley offered to be helpful. When you paint form a photo, it is painfully obvious. Nothing to me looks more uninteresting that a painting that is a redone photo because it is so obvious. I would stick to painting directly for life which is far more convincing as art. | ||
Joanna New member Username: Joanna Post Number: 8 Registered: 10-2006 |
Now that you point it out, it is too big. I just freehanded it. But in future, going from large to small format, a grid might really help. Thanks | ||
Bill Unregistered guest |
The head is a bit too large for the body. Perhaps you should have used a grid in copying a photograph if that is what you did. | ||
Joanna New member Username: Joanna Post Number: 7 Registered: 10-2006 |
Rekhka, there is a shine on the lower lip, you can't see the division between teeth and lip in the scan. The face proportions were drawn the usual way (I do an oval head and mark off the eyes, nose and mouth with guidelines.) The hat might have thrown me off, though. | ||
Rekha Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 38 Registered: 8-2006 |
Thank you, Joanna, for a description to paint transparent material over flesh. Incidentally, I have two questions about your Amish painting: *are the teeth meant to be protruding out *the proportions of the face seem unusual | ||
Joanna New member Username: Joanna Post Number: 5 Registered: 10-2006 |
Re diaphanous: I did an Amish cap and the observation was there was muted flesh color where the ear touched the inside of the cap. Where air was inbetween the wearer, the material was gray. White where the material was folded or thicker.  | ||
Anonymous Bill Unregistered guest |
As for your advice, it is common sense to 'observe closely'. One does that for every aspect of one's life, not just art. I see the matter closed here. Above from Rekha-- Rekha--I think that "observe closely" as I intended it had to do with actually looking closely at how the flesh and diaphanous cloth actually appear. Careful observation I have found is 90% of the battle in describing with paint. I didn't mean it metaphorically (applies to all aspects of life) but specifically to what we as artists do --we use our eyes. I say this because you dismissed my advice as "common sense." That may be so, but I have noticed that careful observation is often lacking and can be the very thing that would enable an artist to accurately render a subject irrespective of the style. | ||
Anonymous Bill Unregistered guest |
okay  | ||
Rekha Junior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 24 Registered: 8-2006 |
Anonymous Bill, I feel you are getting aerated for nothing. If you read Garydoc's missive "...anonymous bill who did sound snide whether meant so or not" 'sound' is the operative word, i.e. 'apparently' not 'definitely'. As for your advice, it is common sense to 'observe closely'. One does that for every aspect of one's life, not just art. I see the matter closed here. | ||
Anonymous Bill Unregistered guest |
Er--sorry--I meant Rekha. I suppose I 'll have to concur with whomever pointed out that the 2 handles are a bit confusing. Rka and Rekha are the same when sounded out and in memory they are easily confused. Nice of you Garydoc to be on the snideness patrol though (this is a snide comment, in case you need to get the jist of my style). | ||
Anonymous Bill Unregistered guest |
Rka-- I apologize for any miscommunication. I saw my post as very helpful and no-nonsense. In the final analysis, we have to figure out the tough problems ourselves. Most can be solved through close observation and applying what we have learned about pigment, brush, and paper through our own direct experience. Skin under disphanous material counts as a tough problem, in my book, | ||
anonymous Unregistered guest |
yes and why don't u just leave rka instead of repeating it again and again that u are going to | ||
Garydoc Junior Member Username: Garydoc Post Number: 23 Registered: 8-2006 |
What is with all the touchy posters here? Give the world a break and chill out! No one was trying to insult RKA by implying that you weren't an artist. One person suggested that RKA and Rekha were so similar as to cause confusion to themself and suggested that the one using initials go back to using a full name. But come on now...don't get into a snit over what was a reasonable request for better differentiation, and over an implied insult that is not there no matter how hard I try to see it. (Rekha's comment was to anonymous bill who did sound snide whether meant so or not) | ||
Rka Junior Member Username: Rka Post Number: 12 Registered: 8-2006 |
btw these are my initials and i had no intentions of faking as anyone else | ||
Rka Junior Member Username: Rka Post Number: 11 Registered: 8-2006 |
If you don't consider me an experienced artist and don't want me here, I quit. I am sorry to be a bother to you, rekha You will not find me here any more I assure you | ||
Anonymous Bill Unregistered guest |
Rekha-- Watercolorist s each have unique ways of handling paint and subjects. Most pastelists, for example, work about the same way, as far as I can tell. Watercolorist s are on a journey of discovery and only through trial and error based upon close observation of their subject can they solve their problems. You are alone in this. Specific advice may help or may just get you on the wrong track. In the end you will have to figure it out for yourself regardless of what is said here. I say this because painting daiphanous material over flesh is a difficult problem that few ( my guess is NONE, including me) have probably attempted themselves. Once again, I advise you to look at the subject carefully and use your knowledge of the way watercolor handles based upon personal experience to solve the problem yourself. | ||
Anne Unregistered guest |
Actually I was sppeaking to Rka--I should have been more clear, but I was still thinking you possibly could be one person posing as 2. Sorry. I get confused as to who said what. Thanks. | ||
Rekha Junior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 17 Registered: 8-2006 |
I can't thank you enough, Marie, for a very practical example of how to do it. Thank you again. | ||
Marie Junior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 15 Registered: 8-2006 |
The other posters are right, Rekha. It's subtle and tricky in transparent watercolor. I am thinking that the thing to do is to start out with a simpler example than flesh. Try putting a piece of the diaphanous material on top of a dark surface where you will have a greater value range. I think that starting with a dark material will make it easier to understand how the overlaying material works. Study how some of the surface covered by the material will be somewhat lighter than the dark material underneath. Notice also how the diaphanous material will be much lighter where there are folds. Once you have mastered the extreme example with dark material underneath, it will be easier to understand how to do it when the value shifts are more subtle. | ||
Rekha Junior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 16 Registered: 8-2006 |
Anne, I cannot control what names Runjhun takes up. She has signed as Runjhun in the past. My name is Rekha and would like to maintain it that way. Thank you, Refugio, this is a good idea that I shall adopt for more detailed work as well. Anonymous Bill, I asked for help from experienced artists in this forum because I couldn't figure a way out. | ||
Anne Unregistered guest |
Just a point of information-- Rka and Reka as different posters really gets confusing. One of you might consider identifying yourelf in a way to set yourself apart from the other a bit more. I keep feeling like I'm reading postings from the same person. | ||
Refugio Unregistered guest |
You are asking for a verbal description of what may be the toughest painting challenge I've seen. It is like trying to paint water and show the rocks on the bottom as well as the sky reflection. Some artists will create an impressionist ic rendering, some a photorealisti c. If the latter, I suggest you photograph your model, blow up the area, project it on a wall and literally copy it. Otherwise, if you want an impressionist ic solution, you must experiment with brushstrokes of flesh and diaphanous material juxtaposed, overlain, wet in wet / wet on dry until you create the desired effect, No easy solution. That's what makes art fun and challenging-- you are the artist and you get to solve the problem you've posed. You alone!!!!!!! You have to fall back on your knowledge of your materials and how they behave and your style. Most of all you must rely on your powers of observation. | ||
Anonymous Bill. Unregistered guest |
One opens ones eyes and observes very closely what is before him / her. One then applies paint in such a way as to express in paint what one sees. This sounds flippant, but actually, this is the answer. In watercolor a thorough knowledge of what the medium will do--levels of moisture, paper, brush, pigmanets all come into play. Literal and realistic or brushstroked boadly. It all comes into play. | ||
Rekha Junior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 13 Registered: 8-2006 |
Thanks for attempting to answer the question, Rka, but that is not what I was after. I wanted to know how the effect is achieved. | ||
Rka New member Username: Rka Post Number: 9 Registered: 8-2006 |
I found this on the web, example in wc http://www.lynnecerro.com/Gallery/12.html | ||
Rekha Junior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 11 Registered: 8-2006 |
Here is an example of Manet's paintings. I would like to know how he got the effect. Did he paint the flesh and then dry brush the colour of the clothes on top? Can someone also show it in watercolour please?  |
