| Author | Message | ||
  Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 332 Registered: 8-2006 |
Thanks, Joe for pointing out the Artellmedia software for fine arts. Till now I couldn't trust my ability to differentiate values being mostly self-taught and some help from this forum, but the software's demos allowed me to confirm my ability. Just one note about sources of black: that produced from burning pinewood generates brown-black hue but the soot from burning lamps (lampblack) is actually blueblack. As far as I know there's no such thing as pure black | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 340 Registered: 8-2006 |
Thanks to Joe's analysis, I'm paying better attention to the characteristics of black in reviewing the paintngs we have posted. The mixed dark in "Oyster Catchers..." has a much fresher chroma than the smoky, smudgy, duller dark in both the Collier and Cox paintings. These, of course, are characteristicss of lamp black, and are somewhat true of ivory black and the other true blacks. This no doubt is exactly the effect these artists wanted in order to convey the mood and emotions that inspired their paintings. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 339 Registered: 8-2006 |
Joe, Thanks. Very interesting! Your post 57 and my post 338 were composed about the same time and must have crossed in the mail! | ||
Joanna Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 42 Registered: 10-2006 |
This is interesting! I agree-- one of the things that disturbs me about this early work of mine is that the black is so black and stands out against the brights and whites. "Not enough low chroma" seems to put in words what I feel in dissatisfaction with this picture. Of course, back then I barely knew how to mix paint, let alone know to do a value sketch; though, on occasion I did do one (6th grade teacher was very good and had us do those, even though we didn't know the significance.) I didn't always do one, however. Now I pretty much try to do something of a value sketch before setting off to paint. | ||
Joe Intermediate Member Username: Joe Post Number: 60 Registered: 2-2007 |
grizrev post #57 is the oyster picture. The artworks basic program can be found here C:\Program Files\Artellmedia Inc\Artworks\ArtworksHelp.htm. It seems to be a scaled down form of adobe photoshop. It is useful but took me a while really use it. Even then I don't use the graphics design aspect of it. Not very expensive but I think he has gone to an annual fee. If you buy it I can help you learn it. | ||
Joe Intermediate Member Username: Joe Post Number: 59 Registered: 2-2007 |
The picture by Joanna, post #38, doesnot have enough low chroma color and the values of the lights are too light in relation to the other values. The value structure is pretty strong, meaning good, but the lighter values are to high. | ||
Joe Intermediate Member Username: Joe Post Number: 58 Registered: 2-2007 |
Cox's picture has pure black in it. There is an endless variety of low chroma, think black and gray from blacks found here. The highest chroma is a medium chroma and it is used only as a highlight. Mostly orange followed by red and then yellow. Remember- think low chroma. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 338 Registered: 8-2006 |
Joe, Please don't forget my questions and requests on my posts 334 and 335! I am still interested in how you scanned the Sargent picture as well as your analysis of the "Oyster Gatherers..." | ||
Joe Intermediate Member Username: Joe Post Number: 57 Registered: 2-2007 |
Red, orange, blue and purple for colors on post 309. The darks read as mostly burnt umber -low value. The 2 colors found in about 95% of the picture was orange in various low to medium chroma, the blue is not as prevalent and again low to medium chroma. There is so little high chroma that it is mostly very subtle hilights. Some of the very dark darks were low chroma purple. I have found many of the pictures I admire are done mostly in orange and blue but low chroma and keep in mind here low chroma orange can be burnt umber, raw umber etc. Hope this helps. | ||
Joe Intermediate Member Username: Joe Post Number: 56 Registered: 2-2007 |
Marie, in your mind separate value from chroma. Value is lighter or darker---chroma is grayer. If you chose to darken a lighter lavender you would not use a pure chroma if you went to shadow. You would have several choices but the most obvious would be to drop in more gray of the same value, and create the shadow with a lower chroma, not lower value. Another option is lower the value, as little as a half value, and again reduce the chroma. Black is used to reduce the chroma of purple so to reduce the chroma of a 9 value lavender you would mix a 9 value black, a light gray. Depending on how gray this color becomes will determine how much shadow is acheived. You could also go cooler and add or use blue. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 337 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, Do you mean "black" or "dark" in your comment on the painting by Cox? (Guess we'll have to get Joe's scanning software to tell us how the darks were created.) Note also that it is not just the use of black or darks, but the value shift and the resulting contrast that is so important -- the lighter white areas are so necessary to keep the painting from becoming dark and morose. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Here is a wonderful quote from Wikipedia's new listing on watercolor concerning black. “Many watercolor painters, perhaps uniquely among all modern visual artists, still adhere to prejudices •••••• from the 19th century rivalry between "transparent" and bodycolor painters. Among these are injunctions never to use white paint, never to use black paint, only to use transparent color, or only to work with "primary" color mixtures. In fact, many superb paintings flout some or all of these guidelines, and they have little relevance to modern painting practice.” | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 336 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, Don Andrews' thoughts on shadows are interesting. He affirmed something I thought I had observed (and posted in an earlier note). He says that shadows are simply deeper, richer values of the local color. He advises to watch temperature in shadows and keep it consistent with the light, but he also notes that if you do vary temperature between warm and cool in shadows, you have to "put the pigment down powerfully." | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Here is a painting by Cox I found on the same artist tips page that reinforces my point about the power of black. http://www.cheapjoes.com/artist_community/lessons/60417/index.asp  | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Here is a wonderful quote from the same artist tips I mentioned below. It puts into clear, easy to understand, words what I tried to explain earlier when I used the term “soul.” “Some artists are so removed from what they want to say that it’s as if their brush couldn’t have a long enough handle. They seem that detached. And some other art-ists will paint so close to their heart that they almost seem to be bleeding onto the page.” http://www.cheapjoes.com/artist_community/lessons/15/index.asp | ||
George Unregistered guest |
I just now stumbled onto Cheap Joe’s artist tips. This one relates to the discussion we have been having on this thread. My only comment would be that Andrews could have mentioned the role that artistic style plays into the way darks are painted. Also he did the same thing we do here – mixing shaded areas and true shadows into one discussion without any distinction between the differences. http://www.cheapjoes.com/artist_community/lessons/60710/index.asp | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 335 Registered: 8-2006 |
Joe, A slip of the mind -- It's "Oyster-Gatherers-of-Canale" (not "Catchers"). It's so hard to tell (without a scanning program like the one you have) from these small, digital reproductions what the actual color composition is. Knowing that Sargent did have and use tube black, I assumed he had used it in the very small dark spots (like the thin dark line under the steps) in "On the Grand Canal," but I can see that he got most of his darker grey from glazing fu blue over yellow ochre. I wonder if the same is true with "Oyster Gatherers..." or if he actually does use some of his black there. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 334 Registered: 8-2006 |
Joe, What is the program you are using to scan these paintings? Could you do a scan and analysis of Sargent's "Oyster-Catchers" for us (the one in my post 309?) | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 375 Registered: 8-2006 |
There's a diagram on handprint at http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/color3.html#satvsval that shows how I'm thinking about chroma. I'm going to take the liberty of reprinting it here.  By this diagram, chroma *does* decrease when you add white to certain hues. I was talking about blue, but the purple in the diagram illustrates the same principle. If I had a lavender object in light, I would not want to darken it with a pure purple because I would raise the chroma. With yellow, on the other hand, the chroma is going to start dropping pretty much as soon as the value starts dropping. | ||
Joe Intermediate Member Username: Joe Post Number: 54 Registered: 2-2007 |
I scanned the picture in post 305, the sargeant venice picture, and it pretty well all low chroma. It looks like he did a 3 value wash of yellow ochre,leaving some whites on the french ultramarine blue gondolas, let it dry and then glazed over most or all of it with a 3 value french ultramarine blue. All of it done in low chroma. The values seem to be close to 3,6 and 9. Nice picture. Thanks for posting it. | ||
Garydoc Advanced Member Username: Garydoc Post Number: 146 Registered: 8-2006 |
Dale, As your friendly local optometric physician, I certainly can comment. I have strong feelings about this issue, that affect how I advise my patients on a daily basis. If you want me to say more, e-mail me! Gary | ||
Joe Intermediate Member Username: Joe Post Number: 52 Registered: 2-2007 |
If you add white, whether it be light or paint, you are increasing the value and it may appear to decrease the chroma but remember the chroma is grayed to reduce it. Value and chroma are different. If you do not add gray or the colors complement then the chroma does not change. Yes, there might be a slight shift but not enough to say the chroma grayed. Both answer are right regarding using either darker family color or complement. It all depends on you approach and color needs. I believe when you have decided on chroma then you have to ask yourself what color is going to work there. Usually your instincts kick in at this point. I really like the new orleans picture. Eugene I have heard similar things but have little info on it. I have a friend who is a marvelous watercolorist and her palette has browned a bit as she has aged and her eyes have changed. I think it must vary quite a bit from person to person. I would not lose any sleep over it because you could color correct a swatch chart as a reference and carry on. | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 333 Registered: 8-2006 |
Some random thoughts on color --- Yesterday I had my annual checkup to see how my cataracts are doing. They are at the point where they could be removed but the Dr. says my vision is so well corrected with glasses that he doesn't’ recommend surgery now. Suits me just fine! But this brings up another issue-- when my wife had her cataracts removed she saw color much differently-- much brighter-- especially the blues. I questioned the Dr. about this, and he assured me that my color vision was not impaired very much because the cataracts were clear, not brown. Are the colors you see the same as the colors I see? Now I’m wondering if we all see colors differently, depending on the health of our eyes. Monet’s sight was failing when he painted his water gardens... are the colors he painted the ones that he saw or intended ? Anyone have any thoughts on this? | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 374 Registered: 8-2006 |
First, just to simplify things, let's assume we have a white light, even though I know that in practice the light is rarely pure white. The maximum chroma for, say, an ultramarine blue, is going to be reasonably dark. If I add white to the blue, I would reduce the chroma. If I have a light blue (with the chroma reduced because I have added white) on the light side of an object, then darkening the shadow side with a blue could very well increase the chroma. In other words, we usually think that chroma decreases as value decreases, but that's not always the case. It seems to me that whether you use a complementary hue or a darkened version of the same hue for a shadow depends on the value at which the hue reaches maximum chroma. I may be wrong about all of this. I don't know. | ||
Joe Intermediate Member Username: Joe Post Number: 51 Registered: 2-2007 |
Marie #1 is correct if the light is right. A lot of the time I will just reduce the chroma rather than change the value. I usually change the value last.#2 is correct. The following statement bothers me. So, let's say that you have a light blue object, like faded jeans. The light blue is will be at a relatively low chroma because the highest chroma for blue is a dark value. The light blue may be any chroma to start, but the shadow, if still blue, will have less chroma than the light, and can be lower in value. Probably a mid-value, or half value, which ever you prefer. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 373 Registered: 8-2006 |
I started out doing a lot of figure drawing before I started painting. This process had two side effects that I never anticipated. First, I learned early on that you can never simply just draw/paint what you see. A big part of sensitive observation is using the left/analytical part of the brain in partnership with the more intuitive side of the brain. The intuitive part of the brain says "Oh, I think that that this line goes ... here," and the left brain says "that line goes there only if the model's rib cage has been has been crushed." So you stop, and look again. Is the line really where you thought it was the first time? And sometimes the right brain lies to you, and sometimes the left brain lies to you. Learning which part of the brain to listen to is another issue entirely. The other unexpected consequence of figure drawing is that I started painting in figure drawing classes with lots of 10,20, and 30 minute poses. I had to cover a lot of territory in a hurry. It was a great way to learn to handle a brush. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Marie wrote; “I'm figuring that if I understand why I make certain decisions then I can refine some of my intuition.” Marie, your approach produces the best artists. An artist who paints from life can paint what is seen only if they learn to “see” what they are looking at (that’s not easy). An artist, who paints from photographs, can only paint what the photograph can record (that’s very limiting). Breaking all these limitations can only be done by acquiring knowledge. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 332 Registered: 8-2006 |
Thanks, Marie, for such a clear explanation. It does help me make better sense of your other posts, and I get it! As I think about it, that's what I do, though I didn't understand the technical reasons as to why! | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 370 Registered: 8-2006 |
Grizrev, I'm trying to figure out the 'why' behind my intuition. I realized a good while back that darkening flesh mixtures with blue didn't work for me. When I used warm darks, I could often keep the painting; when I used cool darks, the painting wound up in the trash. I'm figuring that if I understand why I make certain decisions then I can refine some of my intuition. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 369 Registered: 8-2006 |
Joe, George, Eugene, and Jack. Thank you all for your input. I always hear folks saying that one should use complements to dull mixes, and my experience has been that it doesn't always work. I have been trying to figure out when it works and when it doesn't. Here's what I'm thinking. First of all, there are a couple of basic concepts. 1) The light side of an object is lighter than the shadow side of an object. Also, in most circumstances, the chroma decreases as an object goes from light to shadow. 2) Any given hue reaches a maximum chroma at a specific value. Yellow reaches its maximum chroma a very light value, red and green reach their maximum chroma at a middle value, and blue reaches its maximum chroma at a dark value. So, let's say that you have a light blue object, like faded jeans. The light blue is will be at a relatively low chroma because the highest chroma for blue is a dark value. If you tried to model the shadow on the same side of the color wheel -- with a pure blue --- then you would actually be increasing the chroma substantially as you moved from light to shadow, which would tend to look strange. (To keep things simple, I'm not considering the color of the light for now.) Hence, in this circumstance it would be better to mix the blue with a warm paint to knock down the chroma in the shadows. With a yellow, on the other hand, the highest chroma is a very light value. If you reduce the light, you reduce the chroma. In this circumstance, it would make more sense to select a darker value from the same side of the color wheel because you can reduce the chroma and still retain some of the yellow hue. Of course, the hue will probably shift as well, depending on the temperature of the illumination. Right now, though, I'm just trying to figure out the chroma issue. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 330 Registered: 8-2006 |
Marie, So you had the solution to getting your portrait shadows to a warm 6 value all along? Or were you somewhat unhappy with what sepia, burnt umber, ivory black or Van Dyke brown were doing to the shadows and casting about for something else? Or were you just observing that using complements took the shadows in the wrong temperature direction? I'm trying to understand what problems, if any, your questions and observations in your posts 357, 360 and 364 are intended to resolve, especially in relation to your portraits. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 368 Registered: 8-2006 |
Thanks, George. I do use sepia from time to time. Over time, I'm finding a non-cool dark -- burnt umber, van dyke brown, sepia, or ivory black -- pretty much indispensible. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Marie, it just hit me that what you might be looking for is sepia. It’s a mix of a warm black and a brown. There isn’t any blue in it and it’s a deeper value than umber. | ||
Joe Member Username: Joe Post Number: 50 Registered: 2-2007 |
No argument Eugene. Everything you say is true. I have just tried to make it a little more understandable. I have to laugh because there was a little discussion about just doing it. I did just that this week and have a fine start on a nice picture. Reminded me of how much I used to enjoy just do it.I am like you in that I like to try and get the value just right from the git go but sometimes I have to glaze. I will tell you too that sometimes I do a picture 3,4,5 times before I get it right. It is interesting how some of these will evolve into a series. | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 332 Registered: 8-2006 |
I want to tell you all that I think this is a very interesting, thought provoking, and stimulating conversation. And I tried to digest all of it. But after painting for such a long time, I’m afraid that I have reached the point that I choose colors more by intuition than by “formula’. After a while you fall into ways of mixing that work for you. It all comes from experience and learning from your mistakes. Most important is color relationships. The temperature of a gray is drastically influenced by the colors surrounding it. The same gray that looks muddy next to red may be a lovely color next to a green or blue. To me, everything depends on color relationship. I know I’m rambling but here’s another thought. I’m basically a direct painter, and try to glaze as little as possible. I like to see painters that hit the right color on the first try. I was at the “Brandywine” last month and saw an exhibit of Andy Wyeth’s early watercolors. Unbelievably strong and clean.--rich, strong colors that were directly painted.. no glazing at all. This can only come with experience and the confidence that comes with it. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 328 Registered: 8-2006 |
Marie, Second thought! Joe's posts are probably going to be more helpful in creating your darker shadow while retaining a warm temperature. My thought about pthalo blue was just top of the head, knee jerk, knowing what great darks it creates. However, in experimenting, pthalo's (both blue and green) great tinting strength and tendency to overwhelm other pigments takes the shadow toward a cooler temperature, even when mixed in small proportions, as I suggested. However, you may have more skill with using thalo than I do! I note that you, Joe and George have no trouble using blacks, so maybe a warm tube black, or one of Joe's other suggestions, will do the trick. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 327 Registered: 8-2006 |
Thanks, Joe! Both you and George have noted a need to darken the painting a little, probably because there is so much white or unpainted paper. I was trying to catch the mood of the sun suddenly brightening up a day that had been dark, gray and rainy -- but I can see what you mean. I'm not prone to use black and don't keep it on my palette, George -- but having read Joe's most recent post, perhaps I should. By the same token, I don't often use glazes because I enjoy the freshness, brightness and intensity of the chroma in first applications and am reluctant to "dull" them with glazes -- but many great paintings have been created with glazes, and I probably need to get over that personal preference. I no doubt reflect the influence of a Tony Couch workshop I took some time ago. In this case, wanting to leave some large bright sunlit areas of white, I chose not to glaze. I suppose a general glaze of raw sienna wouldn't have hurt, and might have tied the parts of the painting together a little better, as well as reducing the "glare" of the white. Anyway, it's an interesting suggestion, George, and I may try black and more glazing in a future painting based on this scene. As I said, I dashed off this little painting on a trip to France with pan colors and a 9" by 12" sketchbook (one of Cheap Joe's American Journey Journaling Sketchbooks with 140 lb. Waterford paper, the one that Don Getz uses). My main purpose in posting it was just to show the use of greys. By the way, to explain my variant spelling of "gray" and "grey" in this post, you will find this bit of information from Wikipedia interesting: "grey" "gray" Grey became the established British spelling in the 20th century, pace Dr. Johnson and others,[74] and is but a minor variant in American English, according to dictionaries. Canadians tend to prefer grey. Some American writers[citation needed] tend to assign wistful, positive connotations to grey, as in "a grey fog hung over the skyline", whereas gray often carries connotations of drabness, "a gray, gloomy day." | ||
Joe Member Username: Joe Post Number: 49 Registered: 2-2007 |
Jack I like your picture. My only comment on it is the darks could be stronger. Your mixing your darks from the colors you are using is not a bad thing but be sure you can get the darker values you need. | ||
Joe Member Username: Joe Post Number: 48 Registered: 2-2007 |
Marie, The colors will vary in value from manufacturer to manufacturer but I will try and explain. My value scale is the opposite of yours. Photographers use the one you are referring to so just subtract my values from 10 and you will get yours. 1. white is 10 2. cad yellow pale is 9 3.cad yellow is 8 4. yellow ochre is 7 5. raw sienna is 6 6. burnt sienna is 5 7. burnt umber is 3 8.raw umber is 1/2 9. black- the darkest form of yellow. 1.yellow red is a value 7 and is darkened with burnt umber. 2. red is value 5 and darkens with 1/2 and 1/2 alizarin crimson and burnt umber 3. all other colors darken with black. If ivory black offends you then I will sometimes use french ultramarine blue and burnt umber but understand it is not as dark in value as black. Try using this approach along with ungrayed colors, like pure color, in your focal point. Then gray the colors as they move away from the focal point. Last, a warning about free info from the net. Take this for what it is worth, paint a series of small pics with the various approachs and decide for yourself. It should help but who knows until you use it. You will also, in time, find others combos that will work but keep this in the back of your mind. The impressionists used a color theory, based on chevruels law of color, that said if you look at a color long enough then when you look away you will see its complement. It works. You do. So the impressionists figured they should use comps as tne color of their shadows. It will work, as long as you stay on the proper side of the color wheel. They messed a lot of painters up who came later and tried to use a full color wheel. First let me begin by saying that when you mix color you must mix from the same value. 9 value red and 9 value yellow will give you 9 value yellow red or orange. This is a lot easier done in oils but you can, and should, learn to eyeball it pretty close in watercolor. You also can mix across the value in comps. Red and green work well because in most cases they are the same value. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 366 Registered: 8-2006 |
I have some more thoughts about my last post, but I'm up against nasty deadlines on another project and I may not get to say much for a few days. Stay tuned. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Jack, do it over with some black and tell us how it works (maybe post the results). Be sure to glaze instead of mix. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Marie. I don’t do paintings of the human figure so any advice I’d give wouldn’t be much help. I’m sure Joe will have some advice for you. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 326 Registered: 8-2006 |
In noting how much grays add to most of our paintings as a unifying color, I thought of this quick little painting I did in my watercolor sketchbook while sitting in the window of my room in the Hotel Marcenac overlooking the little village of Vers on the Lot River in France last fall. It had been a gray, rainy day, and the sun was just breaking through the clouds late in the day. The grays, by the way, are a mix of the other colors I used in the painting rather than a diluted black or indigo or Paynes Grey! I think it contributed to unity in the painting.  | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 325 Registered: 8-2006 |
Marie, Wouldn't something like Joe's Blue (thalo) take you a little darker, yet require less pigment and risk of temperature change? Or what about using a little of the dreaded warm tube black we all resist? | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 365 Registered: 8-2006 |
And one more thing ... someone like Charles Reid can get away with using cerulean, a complement, for a shadows on flesh because his light values and shadow values are closely spaced. There are only a couple of value steps at most between his lights and his shadows. Everything is sun-drenched and colorful. At the other extreme, if you are going for a more Caravaggio-esque look, then I think it's best to get your darks from the same side of the color wheel. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 364 Registered: 8-2006 |
Joe, Handprint's color wheel is the most useful color wheel I have ever run across -- no doubt about it. I lot of the technical info on Handprint's site really appeals to my geekier side, although I am somewhat skeptical about his artistic advice. My own experience is that I have had somewhat better luck darkening and dulling colors -- especially warm (flesh) colors -- by using darks and neutrals on the same side of the color wheel than by using complements. When I use complements, my mixes either get too dull, or worse yet, completely flip temperature by the time I bring it down to the value I want. I still rely largely on intuition about when it make sense to use a complement and when it makes sense to use a dark of a similar hue. I would like to be able to address problems more methodically as the need arises. Really, it's flesh tones that I'm most concerned about. I find that I have considerably more latitude in landscape or still life work. My current line of thinking goes like this. Suppose you have a value scale of 0=white to 10=black. A basic caucasian flesh color in light, made of yellow ochre and cad. red light, might be a value 2. I might aim for a shadow value of somewhere around 6 - halfway between the light side and black - depending on the illumination. If I mixed the yellow ochre and cad red as strong as I could (which I probably wouldn't want to do), I could still never get much darker than than a value 4 (or maybe a wee bit darker). If I added a blue complement to take me down to the value 6 that I want, then at least half of my mix - from values 4 to 6 -- would have to be blue, which would completely eliminate any warm chroma. So, I'm thinking that in this circumstance, it wouldn't make sense to use a complement to darken and neutralize the lighter color. Am I making sense? Do you see where I'm going with this? | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 324 Registered: 8-2006 |
I regret that my post of Robert Genn's newsletter containing thoughts by Mary Anne Jacobsen on the use (or almost non-use, as it turns out) of gray and mixing her own earth colors led you to look at her paintings. They are indeed awful, in terms of my taste. I should have looked at them myself before posting her comments. I guess I should have known from her self-confessed aversion to grays, browns and earth colors from tubes, and the fact that she had been advised to use more gray in her paintings, should have clued me in! I simply noted her ideas about mixing your own grays and earth colors as an alternative to using them from tubes, feeling that perhaps was an approach that ought to be considered in the general discussion on this thread. Please note that I was not extolling or calling your attention to her actual paintings -- I didn't post a link to her web site because I had not been there! I think you will find Genn's article on "Lively Greys" in my post 316 much more to your liking, style, and taste. | ||
Joe Member Username: Joe Post Number: 47 Registered: 2-2007 |
Marie even though I am not a big fan of handprint it does have good points. One is the color wheel you can blow up and see the location of most colors. All of the colors on the outside edge of the wheel are colors at their highest chroma, pure color. As you move in, and towards the center, the colors become grayer, reduced chroma. When you get to center you have black. I would suggest you check it out. Understand that each ring of color moving closer to center is one chroma reduction and one value darker. If you have questions we are all willing to help. Oh! When Genn refers to tone he is referring to value. | ||
Joe Member Username: Joe Post Number: 46 Registered: 2-2007 |
Jacobson's work looks like she was strongly influenced by Henry Hensche. I think she missed a lesson or two because his work is pretty nice but hers isn't. How long can you live with that on your walls? She needs to learn about grays. | ||
Joe Member Username: Joe Post Number: 45 Registered: 2-2007 |
depends on which red and which purple eugene. If you add a blue violet to a cad red light then yes it will get darker, grayer and cooler. | ||
Garydoc Advanced Member Username: Garydoc Post Number: 145 Registered: 8-2006 |
Thank you Dale! I thought so too! Took one look & closed the window on it! Gary | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 323 Registered: 8-2006 |
In regard to Joe's post 35 on the importance of value, here's another interesting Genn: http://www.painterskeys.com/clickbacks/value.asp | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 322 Registered: 8-2006 |
More interesting discussion of black. Be sure to read through the responses to the main letter: http://www.painterskeys.com/clickbacks/black.asp | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 363 Registered: 8-2006 |
Joe, I'm still absorbing your last post. It's very helpful, but I need to do some more thinking before I respond. George, thanks for the exercises. I have done similar exercises in the past. Eugene, I think that Joe *is* saying that mixing orange or purple with red would indeed reduce the intensity of the red, although it would not reduce the intensity nearly as much as adding, say, black or green. This makes sense to me when I think about the reflectance curves of different pigments. | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 331 Registered: 8-2006 |
In my book, Jacobson's work would be greatly improved if she used some black, paynes gray and earth colors. I will not be as kind as Marie. I think her work is GARISH! | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 321 Registered: 8-2006 |
Good, clear illustrations, George! I hope I didn't sound too flip in suggesting the trial and error, jump-right-in, use your intuition approach. Certainly there is clear benefit to understanding the basics you have so cogently presented. I was just cautioning against obsessive mental labors and scientific analysis that can thwart artistic innovation and constipate creativity. To bolster my case for just "winging it" at times, I cite Genn's article below: "Winging it" January 12, 2006 Dear Artist, On Dec. 8, 1903, with government funding, countless advisors and great ballyhoo, Samuel Pierpont Langley's flying machine plopped unpleasantly into the Potomac. Nine days later, Orville and Wilbur Wright got their Flyer off the ground. Why did these bicycle mechanics succeed when a famous scientist failed? Langley's plans were mostly theoretical and his machine was produced from blueprint and built by others. But by studying the Wright brothers' working notes, you see that their insight and their execution are woven together. By trial and error and over a period of time they solved problems like wing shape and wing warping. Each adjustment was a small spark of insight that led to others. Along the way they found it necessary to build a wind tunnel and other devices to test the lift and controllability of their ever-changing designs. Applying the Wright metaphor to the artistic creative process, we can see that success might come with a succession of adjustments in a series production. In Keith Sawyer's controversial new book Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation, he explains that these adjustments need not be world-shaking. One does not necessarily have a sense of revelation. Sawyer, a psychologist at Washington University, uses the Wright brothers' "tinkering" as an example. Indeed, it's the minor nature of changes that leads to progress. To bring this line of thought closer to our easel experience--a progressive process of working from one quasi-experimental work to the next might lead to artistic character. On this path, errors are inevitable, even vital. Failures become the stepping stones to success. By carefully watching and managing a personal progression, a creator stealthily finds his muse. In these letters I've often talked about series production as an aid to creativity. With small works in series there is greater freedom to experiment and err. Combinations and variations abound within each small work and within the greater series. A feeling of letting go, of "winging it," brings out our innate inventiveness. Instead of a theoretical blueprint-based slavery, one feels the magic of automatic flow. The interest and attention of the creator is held by this process and the results often have a sort of celestial inevitability--the look of natural beauty and persistent magic. Works thus produced might even "fly." Best regards, Robert PS: "While in the process of executing an idea, creativity happens not with one brilliant flash but in a chain reaction of many tiny sparks." (R. Keith Sawyer) Esoterica: In 1988, another Keith--a Canadian diplomat named Keith Spicer--wrote a book on public speaking called Winging It. He explained a simple system of speaking with minimal notes that took advantage of natural thought progression based on logical point-to-point or story-to-story presentation. Timing, disclosure, invention, visualization and on-the-spot improvisation follow. Material is given out in what seems to be an effortless flow. With the use of very few key words to keep me on track, my best public speaking has been done using Spicer's method. When I'm up there doing it, I often feel it's much like painting a series. See his paintings (acrylic despisers hide your eyes!) at robertgenn.com | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 330 Registered: 8-2006 |
I'm confused Joe. Are you saying that if I add some orange or purple to my red it will make it grayer? I thought it would just make it a warmer or cooler red. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Here is the same exercise from below as a black and white photo to show the same values are used in columns 2 & 3.  | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Marie, I suspect I may be misreading your post and you already know this, but I’ll post it anyway because the casual reader who comes along later may have need of it. The attached exercise is made of three columns, the first is value shift, the second is temperature shift and the third is chromatic shift.(I only did three samples of each here, but six samples is better). Column one - Pick a tube color (I used an earth brown) and add a little more water to each sample in the column. The result will be a value scale for that color. Column two - Pick a tube color (I used an earth brown) and add a little more of its compliment color to each sample in the column. The result will be a temperature scale for that color. Be sure to keep the value of each sample the same. Column three - Pick a tube color (I used an earth brown) and add a little more of either black or a mixed gray to each sample in the column. The result will be a chromatic scale for that color. Be sure to keep the value of each sample the same. Do this for all the tube colors in your paint box, then do it for all the combinations of mixes from the tube colors in your paint box. Repeat exercise as needed until you can see these value, temperature and chromatic shifts in nature.  | ||
Joe Member Username: Joe Post Number: 44 Registered: 2-2007 |
Yes you got it right garydoc. cross complements are the colors next to the direct complement.The ones on each side. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Marie, the best way to paint the shaded side of an object and the shadow cast by the shaded side of the object will vary with the style you are working in, and the emotional impact you want the painting to have. Therefore, any left brain “rules of thumb” for what works best would be based on individual stylistic preferences. Looking at your paintings I don’t see that you are having a problem with recognizing chroma of shadows. Perhaps you are saying you spend more time thinking about chromatic shift while painting than you want to be spending. If this is the case there are exercises that could help you to see the chromatic shift more quickly. | ||
Garydoc Advanced Member Username: Garydoc Post Number: 144 Registered: 8-2006 |
If the 3 ways of greying out a color are: 1 add grey or black 2 add the compliment 3 add the complement but on the analogous side as to the color temperature (did I get that distinction right?) then the only way to find out what the actual effect of those methods is, is to experiment! Do three similar/identical paintings in a small 1/4 sheet or less format, with one greyed out using each method. I bet that all will look good, and depending on the subject matter, some will look better. My guess is that a high key picture of a subject in BRIGHT sunlight will look more realistic with the simple black/grey technique. The more impressionist the subject matter, the more appropriate the direct complement will look, and that florals and some landscapes will look better when done with analagous primaries and warm side/ cool side analagy greys. Anyone done this? Gary | ||
Joe Member Username: Joe Post Number: 43 Registered: 2-2007 |
I can tell I am confusing you by a couple of the questions you have ask. So I will try to clarify things. 1.The brightest color, highest chroma, is the color right out of the tube. These colors may be darkened 3 ways. The first being with its complement or cross complement, the second by adding darker colors from the same family and last by using the dreaded black. 2. chroma: As color moves away, or out of the light, it becomes less intense. It can also get darker but does not necessarily need to get darker. By reducing the chroma, graying the color, and this can be browning the color, we create the illusion of it getting darker and in turn making the form turn. When learning to paint we have a tendency to see this reduceed chroma as darker and it is not necessarily so. Yes when we mix complements the value can, and usually will shift, and we need to be aware of that. I think all of us need to be more aware of chroma versus' value. 2. Browning versus' graying Brown is anything that is not a pure gray or black. If you mix two exact complements, at the exact same value, you should get a true gray. By adding more of either color this gray can be made to create a wonderful variety of colors. Always remember when you add more of either color you are increasing the chroma. In using black we are again reducing the chroma but not really creating a brown overtone. Although it has been grayed the color is purer. Keep reading. 3. By using colors from the same family to darken we keep a purity of the color. Yellow at value nine is darkened with yellow ochre, yes I know yellow ochre is browner and less pure yellow,a value eight yellow can also be darkened with yellow ochre. Darken yellow ochre with burnt sienna and burnt sienna with burnt umber and burnt umber with raw umber and raw umber with ivory black. When we approach the low value colors the only color darler is black. Thus darkening raw umber with black is the only way. Red, usually at value five, is darkened with burnt umber, you can also use alizarin crimson, remember the darkening color must be darkr than the red, and then with raw umber and finally black. Blue can be darkened with the umbers and black depending on which blue. Ther are other colors that will work in some instances but this gives you a starting point. Now kind of forget all of the above. If you mix three values of one color and mix a little of that color into all of the colors you are using you will get a color harmony. Mix across your values. Value seven yellow with value seven red to make a value seven orange and into this mix a value seven of your harmonizing color. And so on. Edga Whitney taught to mix the color of the light and use only it to define where the whites are. This too creates a harmony when washes are applied over it. If you mix a little black, or gray, a lighter black, into every color you again have a harmony but a reduced chroma palette. now your values become extremely important, they are anyway, and you approach the picture more from the stand point of tonalism. I hope this helps and if you disagree then let's discuss it. I am not thin skinned and will not be offended if you disagree. Only through good constructive discussion can we sift through the information available and arrive at something that works for us. By approaching this from a point of science rather than, somebody said, can we create better work. Transparent watercolor is unique unto itself. It is not something I have done much with and have little info about it. I leave this area to the purists. I would also encourage you to create work that is unique and defines you, and not something like everyone else does.Try new approaches. Don't try to create a mastrerpiece with every piece. Experiment and learn. Yes. I know it is hard to do. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 320 Registered: 8-2006 |
Marie, Same here. As I have said before, I very much like your painting style (probably because it is one I follow as well, from a great distance). However, we have to credit her with giving us a disclaimer at the beginning of her comments about being a colorist who paints from white ground: "most would think that there's little I could contribute here..." Maybe she was right, since she doesn't work in our genre, but her thoughts on gray and earth colors nevertheless are grist for our mill (our discussion, that is). | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 319 Registered: 8-2006 |
Eugene, I understand. I guess my age also explains my lack of patience for implementing the technical processes of color mixing and color theory we have been discussing. I suppose Luz Perez's process for creating useful greys must have been intended for people our age! Let's just keep on jumping in the deep end, continuing to use color that, for whatever mysterious reasons, looks pretty to us and appeals to our eyes. Beauty, so they say, is in the eye of the beholder! | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 361 Registered: 8-2006 |
I looked at Jacobsen's website - http://www.maryannejacobsen.com/. Although her paintings are quite lovely, they're not my style. I don't think neutrals and grays are in her vocabulary. I'll stick with my earth colors. | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 329 Registered: 8-2006 |
If I spent as much time as it must take this artist to mix her gorgeous earth colors, I'd have no time to paint. When you're 83, you've learned to appreciate convenience colors | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 318 Registered: 8-2006 |
And here was a fun response to Genn's letter on mixing gray that must have been intended for those of us without scientific minds or patience! "Endless grey supply" by Luz Perez, Riverside, CA, USA Love those greys! I have learned to save all the paint that is left on my pallet after a day of painting. I mix all the colors up into a giant mess of grey and save in tubes that I purchased just for this purpose. The tubes are open at the bottom end for one to fill with leftover paint and then one simply rolls them up tightly to close. I then use this grey as a ground for future paintings. Hint: label the tube "warm grey," "cool grey," "greenish grey," etc. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 317 Registered: 8-2006 |
Some of the responses to Genn's letter on grey were also interesting, including this one on grey, color mixes, and earth tones: Create your own earth tones by Mary Anne Jacobsen, Venice, FL, USA I am a colorist that has an aversion to grays, browns and earth colors from the tube. I've also been told that I need to use more grays as players in my paintings in order to allow my radiant colors to shine through as principals. Since I was taught through the Hawthorne/ Hensche method to work from a white ground, I sometimes struggle with values as well, so it stands to reason that most would think that there's little I could contribute here within your experienced artist base. If I could share anything with your readers, it is that I think mixing complements to make grays is not always the best choice, since this can dull or dirty the grays. Instead, I try to use a different color from the same side of the color wheel, (as long as this color is already part of my palette) and this seems to produce beautiful grays and browns that harmonize well overall. For example, I consider cerulean blue a hue that is both cool and warm depending on what color is next to it. If I mix cerulean blue with Winsor emerald, I get a lovely cool green. If I add a touch of permanent magenta to the mixture I have grayed the green while still keeping it cool and vibrant. On the other hand, a mixture of permanent green light with cerulean blue makes a lovely warm green. Adding a little cadmium orange will gray it but keep it warm and still radiant. So if I had simply added red (the complement of green) to my mixtures, the likely result would have been a gray I would not have been happy with. Ironically, I have had teachers who always warn not to mix more than 4 colors together on a palette or mud will result. Yet these same teachers advocate store-bought burnt sienna, yellow ochre and burnt umber in the palette in spite of the fact that these tints already have 3 color mixtures within them. Since these three earth colors are simply the results of mixing the three primaries with their complements, it's best to avoid them entirely in a tube where the manufacturer has controlled the mixture, and mix them instead yourself on the palette from pure color to create gorgeous earth colors that can be slightly modified to produce vibrant grays and browns as well. It's probably best to remember that gray is a value of light that doesn't actually exist in nature as a color. If one keeps this in mind it is easy to understand why mixing grays from pure color combinations on the same side of the color wheel will always produce a better effect than a tube of Payne's Gray or a haphazard mixture of complements. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 360 Registered: 8-2006 |
First, I want to retract something I said last night. I no longer believe that saturation, the ratio of chroma to lightness/value, remains constant as an object moves from light to shadow. I think that rule falls apart for extremely unsaturated areas (i.e - white). The shaded side of a white object will very likely be more saturated than the light side because of reflected color from surrounding objects. I also want to expand on my confusion about the practical side of recognizing chroma, particularly in shadows. I suppose my question is -- am I better off painting the shaded side of the object with a mixing complement, an analogous but darker pigment, or black with a temperature shift mixed in? Are there any rules of thumb for what types of mixing works best in what circumstances? My suspicion is that there are no clear cut rules or answers, but I would like to figure out what questions to ask myself so that I can make intelligent judgments about chroma. I can usually recognize a temperature shift fairly easily, but I have more trouble when I try to judge a chroma shift at the same time the value is shifting, as happens when an object moves from light to shadow. In a lot of what I do, I try to get my right brain and left brain working in sync. In drawing, for example, what my left brain knows about anatomy influences what my right brain perceives. When it comes to chroma, though, I rely almost entirely on intuition -- and it frustrates me. I would like to be more methodical in my approach to making judgments about chroma. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 316 Registered: 8-2006 |
Speaking from "the practical standpoint," I think George is right. It's more fun, and perhaps more "artistic," to figure out our colors by instinct, intuition, and experience (or trial and error), rather than a process of scientific analysis ahead of time. It is a question of pleasure, not right and wrong. There's nothing wrong with just "going for it," and if it doesn't work, starting over again, the better for the experience. At the same time, juggling the variables Marie speaks of mentally, or on small test sheets, would probably save material and is quite admirable -- just too mentally painful for me! By the way, on the matter of "gray" or "grey," here's an article on the subject by Robert Genn, whom Eugene mentioned in his post 323: Lively greys Print Letter July 31, 2007 Dear Artist, Yesterday Amanda Jackson of Bahrain wrote, "Lively greys! It's a breakthrough. My work was over-coloured and sometimes in a trite way. I was working 'en grisaille' but lately I've actually started to see the world in paint--and wow! Some greys are a scumble of orange over a dry layer of blue, some browns are deep purple with a hot orange-red glaze. When Rubens said 'Forty layers are not enough,' he wasn't kidding! It's absolutely everywhere now--these muted colours are in fact alive with the vibration of the stronger colours I've been seeing all my life. I'm joyful!" Thanks, Amanda. Greys are indeed the key to both painterly joy and advanced tonal quality. As you suggest, the best are obtained by using opposites on the colour wheel. Painters who feel the need to liven up their greys might consider starting with a light grey ground or imprimatura. This personal and predetermined tone, warm or cool, is a benchmark. It covers the entire canvas and sets the key so every "note" that plays afterward goes on either side of it--darker darks, lighter lights. Early on, paintings develop a general tone that inevitably affects everything that follows. You cannot always go into a painting with a theory and simply execute. Each piece has to be worked out on its own. Improvisation is where art happens. In later stages, painters often need to search out and tone down loud colours and harsh passages. "Better grey than garishness," said Ingres. Further, vibrating greys can be achieved with equal-intensity colours that essentially fight one another for attention. Pointillist and other impressionist techniques create light-effusing passages. These effects may promote "glow" or simply "character." Used intelligently, they are some of the painterly sophistications that hold a viewer's interest. Grey is not only the key to classy work, it's the key to understanding relative values. Advanced artists think in terms of the "grey scale"--a photographer's device that determines relative tone values from white to black. Painters do well to develop a "grey-scale in the head" and an interminable willingness to make adjustments. Thus significant mid-range tones are born, laying the groundwork for lively greys. Best regards, Robert PS: "The fundamental grey, which differentiates the masters, is the soul of all colour." (Odilon Redon) Esoterica: There's a difference between external truth and pictorial truth. It's often the painter's job to understand and craft this difference. Avoided at your peril, a "lack of luminosity" is the cause of many a dull painting. "The most basic, primitive and necessary visual information is found in luminance variations." (Margaret Livingstone) It's not always easy. "The real difficulty in painting," said John Collier, "is in getting the general truth of tone and tint." Restraint is valuable too. "Do not exhaust all combinations on one canvas." (John F. Carlson) | ||
George Unregistered guest |
To add a further clarification and perhaps to pull together the whole shadow discussion into context, think of this. The color you use for the shaded side of an object and the shadow cast by the shaded side of the object onto another surface, is effected by; the color of the object, the color of the surface the shadow is cast onto, the other colors used in the painting, the style you are working in, and the emotional impact you wish the painting to have. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Marie, yes this thread has been getting very confusing. We have not always been using the proper terminology. I’m as much at fault as anyone. We have been using the term, graying it out, when talking about changes in; chroma, value, and temperature. I feel sorry for the casual reader. So, for the casual reader this may help; 1. Value is the degree of lightness or darkness of a color, 2. Chroma is the degree of brightness or dullness of a color, sometimes called intensity, 3. Temperature is the degree of warmness (orange) or coolness (blue) of a color, 4. Gray s the degree of color or colorlessness. The problem in discussing grays is that any one gray is at the same time; light, dark, bright, dull, warm and cool. It all depends on what color is placed next to it. Marie, the problem you are having “from a practical standpoint” is solved by “seeing” how colors play against each other. As you say, sometimes your eye and brain play tricks on you, but the same tricks are being played on everyone else. The artist makes use of these visual tricks to create the illusion we call art. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 357 Registered: 8-2006 |
I'm getting confused. I think what we're saying is that any time you mix two pigments (including black or white), you lower the chroma. So the real questions become: 1) How quickly do different paint combinations lower the chroma? My thinking is that if you want to lower the chroma a little, then you go with, say a cool and warm of the same basic color; if you want to lower the the chroma more, you could choose black; and if you want to go to a complete neutral, you would almost have to choose a mixing complement. 2) How much does the temperature shift, if at all, as you lower chroma? If you want the temperature to remain the same, you would lean toward using black. Whether a complement shifts the temperature would depend on the specific pigments. Neighbors on the color wheel would definitely shift the temperature. Is this on the right track? My more practical question is: how do you compare chroma between two different areas of value? From what I can gather from reading Handprint and fiddling around with master paintings in Photoshop, the lightness and chroma drop from the light side of an object to the shadow side of an object, but the saturation (the ratio of lightness to chroma) remains the same as an object moves from light to shadow. What I don't understand is how judge chroma and saturation from a practical standpoint. For example, I know some techniques for checking to see if my drawings are accurate. I know some techniques for judging value. I even know a few techniques for judging color/temperature. But I am lost when it comes to chroma and saturation. The easy answer is to say to trust your eye, but sometimes my eye and brain play tricks on me. | ||
Joe Member Username: Joe Post Number: 40 Registered: 2-2007 |
Burnt sienna and fu blue makes nice grays.I have used this mix many times. Yes you will get good grays from mixing red and green because in most cases they are pretty close in value. Try a mix of fu blue and burnt sienna but first add an umber to the sienna to bring it to the same value as the blue. Burnt umber for a warmer gray and raw umber for a cooler gray. It will give you a darker set of grays. By the way I like your work. | ||
Joe Member Username: Joe Post Number: 39 Registered: 2-2007 |
Good post George. Good info. Isn't the picture at broadway an oil painting? Seems to me it is. If you look at the gray in the shadows in the clouds you see a good example of a reduced chroma color. Lots of gray with just a little color mixed into it. Very nice and very soft. Look at the higher chroma on the hand, I think it is a hand, of the girl in front. It is more of a pure hue or color. Nice painting. | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 327 Registered: 8-2006 |
Joe, I disagree. When I mix comps I definitely get grays. With red and green-- I can get a neutral gray, reddish gray or a greenish gray--but not brown. etc. My favorites, and most used grays are made with Burnt Sienna and Ultramarine blue, With only these two colors I can get a tremendous variety, from warm to cool, from pale to almost black. Probably they are not true compliments, but I classify burnt seinna as a near orange | ||
Joe Member Username: Joe Post Number: 38 Registered: 2-2007 |
Graying a color by adding white is, I think, probably more of a reference to the drastic reduction of hue that occurs when you are adding white to a natural french ultramarine blue or a natural mineral based oil paint. More of an occurance in oil paint than watercolor. It is startling how quickly the color grays when you add white to one of these. If you add white to watercolor, particularly a gouache white, it really changes the color. It would appear to be gray in some colors. A zinc white is less inclined to do this. Burt sliverman adds white to every color in his watercolors according to his book I read. | ||
Joe Member Username: Joe Post Number: 37 Registered: 2-2007 |
When you deal with watercolor as a medium I think mixing comps will create more browns than gray. We refer to it as gray but it probably is bad ternimology. It is really a browning of color but still reduces the chroma of the hue, hue being the color. To use this palette you need to work more tonally. Produce your painting by strong value structure, color placement and by good negative shapes. If you paint with your values close together,5,6,&7 as an exapmle you get a soft rainy misty effect. If you do a value arrangement of 3,5,7 the picture gets brighter. | ||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 330 Registered: 8-2006 |
Thanks, George. In effect it seems you are changing the hue by adding another primary or complement, and therefore, that is not greying at all. By greying I understand using white to a pigment, the opposite being shade which is adding black to a pigment | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 314 Registered: 8-2006 |
I notice these pictures are losing much of their fine detail when I reduce the pixels for posting. You should try looking at these artists for yourselves at: http://www.saltspringisland.org/business_listings.htm#The_Arts Here is a Gary Kaye  | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 313 Registered: 8-2006 |
Another Carol Evans  | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 312 Registered: 8-2006 |
Though, as I have said in previous posts, I enjoy looser, more impressionistic painting more than photorealism, I have found some lovely photorealistic paintings by Salt Spring Island (BC) artists Gary Kaye (acrylic) and Carol Evans (watercolor) that contain some interesting shadows. I'll try to post a few.  | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Rekha, mixing a warm and a cool color in each of the primary colors (mixing the double primaries) creates a soft grayed color for each one of the three primaries. I’ve done it many times with a number of different combinations of double primaries. The confusion could be coming from your understanding of the word gray. The better term might be neutral, rather than gray. As Joe said this thread is somewhat confusing at times because a lot of different ideas about neutralizing color are being jumbled together under the heading of black. One way to gray (neutralize) a color is to add a bit of its compliment (for example red with green). But you can also gray (neutralize) a color by adding a bit of the same color in a different temperature (for example a warm red and a cool red). In this case it is the temperature that is being neutralized. Although the resulting red is still warm it is less warm than either of the original reds in the mix. I should add that this is a somewhat difficult set of primaries to use (just as tube black is somewhat difficult to use too). But, in the hands of a skilled watercolor artist these grayed primaries can create some very beautiful paintings (as can the use of tube black). | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 311 Registered: 8-2006 |
Joe, You have an nteresting thought about transition or gradation at the edges of shadows where they meet the light, especially using lost and found edges. I think that works in most cases, but not all. It's also interesting that you gray your shadows (as opposed to letting them use or approach black) because you prefer to retain higher values in your shadows, but sometimes that does not serve the purposes of a painting. How, in your view, do those two thoughts or observations square with what Sargent has done in "Oyster-Gatherers..." to heighten our sense of the strength of the beach light? | ||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 329 Registered: 8-2006 |
"Try a double primary palette too. Mix a warm red with a cool red of the same value, a warm yellow and a cool yellow and the same for blue. Nice grayed color so you can focus on value and color relationships" If I understand correctly from your comment it would appear that greys result from mixing the double primaries....; please correct me here | ||
Joe Member Username: Joe Post Number: 36 Registered: 2-2007 |
Collier's painting has black in every color thereby reducing, graying, the chroma.It creates a wonderful harmony. The Zorn pic was probably done with 4 colors but an inventory of his studio showed more. Eight I think. I have it somewhere. I remember viridian for sure. Take a look at his watercolors. | ||
Joe Member Username: Joe Post Number: 35 Registered: 2-2007 |
Black is usually used to reduce the chroma of a color in the lower values. In watercolor this will work but it is usually better to just use the umbers, and you can use complements and cross complements. I have found that black, in watercolor, does not work well in shadows. Usually I will make my shadows a higher value but a grayer chroma. Maybe value 4 but reduced in chroma. It is said the grays make the painting. Use the purer color for the focal point. Also try layering black, in thin washes, over colors in the shadows and then layer more color over that. In the street painting the shadow would be lighter where it hits the light and the light would be darker. It would be a subtle value change but still a value change.The losing and finding of a few edges would help it to read better. I think perhaps you are getting caught up in the use of black and forgetting value and chroma. You can pretty well use any color if the values are right. Yes, I understand but it was demonstrated to me in an article on a painter in southwest magazine. His values were right on and the colors were odd but it carried because the value structure was solid. I did notice he grayed all of his colors slightly to quite a bit. Value first, chroma second and then color. The wee bit of black and white mentioned works because you are graying EVERY color. Not just a few. Try a double primary palette too. Mix a warm red with a cool red of the same value, a warm yellow and a cool yellow and the same for blue. Nice grayed color so you can focus on value and color relationships. You can paint some nice pictures with this. One other thing, there are a number of approaches to color, all or most of them work. Try to understand the differences and keep them separate in your discussions because they can be confusing enough. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
At Broadway has a great feeling of texture and light in the landscape. Here is an artist that uses a lot of black pigment in his watercolors. There was a story about him in American artist - watercolor http://gregmort.com/inventory.html | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 310 Registered: 8-2006 |
Here's Sargent's "At Broadway" with various darkened local colors for shadows.  | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 309 Registered: 8-2006 |
Still interested in using a little black to darken local colors to create shadows, I looked again at a couple of Sargent's paintings. "At Broadway" might be an example. What do you think? On the other hand, contrary to the idea of not using black itself for shadows, his "Oyster-Gatherers..." almost seems to do that. Maybe Eugene is right -- there should be no hard and fast rules for mixing colors, and that's what makes our paintings excitingly different and interesting.  | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 308 Registered: 8-2006 |
Eugene, Thanks for your thoughts. Thanks also for putting me on to Robert Genn's newsletter -- it's a treasure trove, even though he's basically an acrylic artist. Maybe that explains why you and he diverge on mixing black with colors. Black may work differently in acrylics and watercolors. At any rate, the Genn's July 31st newsletter "Lively Greys" was especially interesting to me. Thanks again. | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 325 Registered: 8-2006 |
Jack, I seldom, if ever, use black, especially in mixing shadow colors. And I don’t now why- guess it was the way I was taught-- however my teacher/mentor did use paynes gray successfully.-- but I’ve taken that off my palette too. I do keep ivory black in a small well in the corner of my palette, but generally I use it only as a COLOR if I am painting something that is black. I feel that there are no rights and wrongs in color mixing. What works for one often doesn’t work for another. That’s what makes our paintings interesting and different. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 307 Registered: 8-2006 |
Right you are, Eugene. Sorry about that. I guess I was assuming you were in agreement with what Genn was saying. If you aren't, I suppose it means you would agree that, in addition to getting better color tones in general by adding a little black, you can get good shadow effects by adding some black to the local color of the general area in which the shadow is found. If you do agree with his reservation about using black in shadows, though not elsewhere, why is this an exception and why do you share the reservation? | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 324 Registered: 8-2006 |
Jack,My error The name is Robert Genn. try robertgenn.com | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 323 Registered: 8-2006 |
Jack, read my original post and you'll see tha they were not my words, but Robert Glenn's. If you don't get his newsletter, you should check it out. I think you'd enjoy it. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 306 Registered: 8-2006 |
Eugene, In going back to your original post, where you advocated mixing a bit of black into our colors ("when black and white are both added to anything, you get the most beautiful tones of all"), why did you earlier in that post say we ought not to think of black as a way to darken shadows? Wouldn't it be possible to get the good temperature balance in shadows that Marie suggests in one of her posts by mixing just a little black with the local color that is present in the sunlit area to darken it and achieve a proper shadow with a "beautiful tone" next to it? If there is an additional color shift in the shadow away from the local color in the sunlight, due to the decrease in light, couldn't you also just add the appropriate color to compensate for that? | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 305 Registered: 8-2006 |
I have just read back through this entire thread that Eugene began some time ago, and it is a marvelous discussion, with some truly wonderful and illuminating posts! A sincere personal thanks to all of you who took time to submit! It made me almost ashamed of my recent paltry contributions, and I hope I haven't "mucked up" the thread and detracted from what all of you said so much better earlier! I encourage any new readers to go back to the beginning and read from there. By the way, Marie, in her post 345, notes that Sargent used sepia and lamp black. That no doubt comes from the influence of his early teacher, Carolus-Duran, who encouraged a somewhat somber painting style. His later association with Monet led him to much more colorful painting. (You can read about this in Charles Sovek's interesting article on Sargent: http://www.sovek.com/publications/articles/sargentssecrets/index.htm) I think you can see the mixture of those influences in one of his paintings I'll try to upload below. You will see wonderful blue color in some shadows, and his tube blacks in others:  | ||
Joanna Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 39 Registered: 10-2006 |
Griz, I picked up a brush in 6th grade (11 yr old) and did a still life in class. Not too different than what I paint today, except I can routinely get what I want and back then it was hit or miss. My teacher was quite surprised. (It was a composition of a marmalade pot, some pheasant feathers and dried yucca and I used a limited palette of ochre, sienna and hookers green, except that we had only diluted tempera poster paint!) I threw it out years later, wish I'd kept it. Art seems to run in the family, but I work in finance, go figure. The shadows WERE squintingly dark, but I wished I'd know about reflected light in shaded areas. I love seeing that in watercolors | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 303 Registered: 8-2006 |
I guess we could also say that the closest we get to pure black (absolute dark)in what we are able to see is an area that absorbs and does not reflect back any light. If it reflects light, it probably does have at least some small degree of refracted color, whether our eye is able to see it or not. If that is true, we need to rejoice with Joanna over the availability of "June Bug" from American Journey! George, when you distinguish between shadow and shade, are you thinking of shadow as "cast shadow" ("the shadow is the dark area 'cast' by the object onto another surface")and shade as "form shadow?" Actually, wouldn't it be more semantically accurate to say, not that an object actively "casts" a dark, but that it passively "blocks" the light, keeping most of the active light energy from falling on another surface?  I think we (I) have begun to digress from the serious to the silly, or at best the trivial and "picky," which is probably why Eugene was moved to submit his recent new thread concerning a Louvre robbery! | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 302 Registered: 8-2006 |
Good additions, George. I would only add a few other things -- true black is the absolute absence of light. That being true, probably anything we are able to see is not a true or absolute black. Also, "local color" is not a uniform entity spread across, for example, an entire lawn (Joanna's building shadow, in her original, therefore should probably have some variation). There is a variation of "local color" in the lawn depending on the intensity of light refracting off of various surfaces, some of which are in light and some in shade. The same bush may send a yellow green color to our eye from the part in direct sunlight, yet a bluer green to our eye from the part which, as George notes in his post, is in the "shade," or what we have been calling "shadow." The leaves are the same -- it is the light in its difference intensities that makes all the difference. Also, with reference to my earlier post about sunset and sunrise light having color -- the light originates as true white (colorless), but is refracted in its journey through the vapor, dust, pollution, or smoke in the atmosphere. What we see are refractions of light that reflect to our eyes from the surfaces on which they fall, affected also by the surfaces themselves and the strength of the light falling on those surfaces. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
I thought it would be a good idea to clear up some points that may be confusing to the casual reader. These comments aren’t intended for the people who have been posting, but rather for any who may come along later. However, if I say anything you think isn’t accurate, please jump in and say so. 1. The term black as it is being used here on this thread is a discussion of importance to not only black areas in paintings but also to all dark areas in paintings too. 2. Black is not something that is always found in shadows. For example, right now I’m looking out the window at a black board fence. The sunny side and the shadow side of the fence are both black. 3. The sunny side and the shadow side of an object is not always, one cool and the other warm. For example, the fence I am looking at is warm on both the sunny side and the shadow side. One side is just a little warmer than the other side. 4. Technically speaking it is wrong to say the sunny side and the shadow side of an object as both myself (above) and others have done on this thread. The shadow is actually the dark area cast by the object onto another surface. The term for what we have sometimes been calling shadow is really shade. In other words, there is light, shade and shadow. Tube black can be used for all three. 5. The term tube black means any of the many single pigment black watercolor paints (for example mars black, bone black or vine black). The term tube black does not mean the many convenience paints that may contain a black pigment (for example paynes gray, davys gray or sepia). 6. Tube blacks, convenience blacks and mixed blacks (no black pigment in the mix) can all three be used in the same painting. Each has its own subtle properties that go beyond the darkness we associate with black. Any corrections or additions to the list? | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 299 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, Thanks also for your observations, especially your comment about the need for temperature balance as an additional caution in our concern not to distort actual reality too much in our painting, and also your observation that warm and cool tube blacks, mixed with local colors, can accomplish most of that temperature balance in photorealistic painting. (Incidentally, I don't like photorealism nearly as much as looser, more impressionistic, painting!) I never intended to suggest, as Marie warns, that we make our shadows totally black, as though there was no light effect at all. I was just observing that many times of day the light seems merely to be illuminating local color, more brightly in sunlit areas, more darkly or dimly in shadows. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 298 Registered: 8-2006 |
Joanna, I should say that you are absolutely correct in noting that we see color in light that falls on snow, because it is crystalized moisture and refracts white light into those colors we can see (at any time of day), especially in shadows! It works in the same way the early morning mist in Eugene's photo causes refraction of light into the blue we see in his photo. It's also why we see blue in the distant background -- light is shining through moisture in the atmosphere that is increased with the distance. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 297 Registered: 8-2006 |
Eugene, What you have in that photo is an atmospheric blue caused by light shining through excessive moisture in the air at that time of day. The whole picture, not just shadows, has a blue tint (like a glaze) -- this is something that a camera picks up even more easily than our eyes and exaggerates. I enjoyed your painting of that photograph very much -- I wonder if a blue glaze over that painting would have rendered it more faithful to the actual scene, but not as appealing as your interpretation. As I recall, your tree trunks were grayish brown, not blue, like the exaggerated blue in the shadows on the road. Joanna, that's quite a painting for a child! Actually, I can imagine that the very dark shadow you have in your original painting is more faithful to what was actually there -- very dark, stark street shadows cast by the brilliant white light that we see falling on the street, making us almost want to squint! Your revision is softer, but somehow the original street shadow appeals to me more in this case. That is not often true -- more often my eye likes our painterly revisions! On the other hand, I can see that it would help in a *painterly* way to have a little of the building's warm color in the shadow it casts, and perhaps a little of the blue from the dress of the figure in the shadow it casts! Marie, thanks for your thoughtful and insightful attempt to explain what my eyes are doing, or not doing! I can see that though light *appears* white to my eyes (whether or not it actually is absolutely white) at most times of the day and simply illuminates (or reflects to our eyes) whatever local color it falls on, there are times when light clearly does have color in it, adding that color to whatever it falls on -- such as the warm colors of the light from a sunset, another atmospheric effect like the light shining through the early morning mist in Eugene's photo. I still feel that, when we are trying for photorealism in a painting, that we should be careful not to overexaggerate the color in the whiter light that falls in a normal day between sunrise and sunset. Thanks to all of you for responding and helping me puzzle out what is going on with our eyes and our paintings! | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 321 Registered: 8-2006 |
Griz, I think this photo has blue tones in the shadows  | ||
Joanna Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 38 Registered: 10-2006 |
Well, a professor of mine once said "Artists break rules and make their own." Here is a painting I did as a kid (my parents have a lot of my old stuff.) I didn't know anything about anything (self taught) and I did the shadows in black. But since I learned about shadow on snow, I watched color in shadow carefully. When I drive around, I consciously look at shadows and mutter (sienna, blue, violet, green...) This has the street shadow black, what a pity. I like the painting because it was something I saw in our small town in Pennsylvania, a Korean immigrant going to an event in her native dress, but the shadows make me cuh-razy. If I were redoing, I might use colors more like this (a bit of digital adjustment..sloppy, but you get the idea.)   | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Jack, I think I may have an answer to your question; “what leads us to like our colorful paintings of nature more than the color that is actually there, or not there.” Marie has given a good analysis of how the temperature of an object shifts from light to shadow. But you are correct that this temperature shift is difficult to see in nature, and I think what you are asking is why the need to exaggerate the shift as much as most artists do. Marie has said that tube black can be made warm or cool. This alone should be enough to take care of the temperature shift needed to make a painting look real. But I think there is another issue involved here. The painting must be in balance. Anything can upset that balance; form, or value, or even relative temperature. As Marie has said; using tube black can be problematic. It is much more difficult for an artist to achieve relative temperature balance when using tube black. Some people, because of their personality will prefer stronger colors in a painting. Others will prefer stronger values in a painting. Still others will prefer stronger textures in a painting. But all great paintings must have relative temperature balance regardless of the style or artistic emphasis in the painting. It isn’t easy to see the temperature in a tube black. It’s a whole lot easier to achieve temperature balance by using mixed darks. The fastest and easiest way to pull the painting into a state of relative temperature balance is to exaggerate some areas of warm or cool temperature. Blacks (darks) mixed from red and green, or from blue and brown, allow fast, and easy to see, exaggerations of the temperature. This is not the best solution, but it is done so often by artists we have become use to seeing these exaggerated temperature shifts in paintings. We have come to think of it as normal in paintings. As I suggested in an earlier post, this easy solution, by exaggerated temperature shifts in paintings, may have a down side. The resulting painting is less real. Anything in life that is exaggerated seems less real to us. That is until the exaggeration becomes the norm. Then the exaggerated thing becomes part of the distorted reality that we believe is real. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 351 Registered: 8-2006 |
I'm wrestling with this issue a lot these days. I started off doing a lot of drawing, then I added value, and now I'm trying to learn to deal with color. Here's how the shadow business works, as near as I understand it at the moment. When you look at an object, you are actually seeing color from (at least) three sources: the local color of the object, the color of the light source, and light reflected from surrounding objects. On the shadow side of an object, you are still going to see some color from the light source (else the shadow would be totally black), but you won't see as much color from the light source on the shadow side as on the light side of the object. In other words, if the light is yellow, as would be the case with incandescent light, then the shadow side would also contain some yellow, but not as much yellow as the light side. So, relative to the light side, the shadow side would be slightly less warm -- i.e - cooler. To make things more interesting, light is almost never pure white, but the eye adjusts very quickly to changes in color of light and will tend to read light as white even when it's not. I imagine that this is some sort of evolutionary thing. You need to be able to look at an apple hanging on a tree and recognize that it is ripe/red regardless of whether it is early morning, midday, in light, or in shadow. So, the temperature of an object really does shift from light to shadow, but our brain is wired to ignore the shift. The Richard Schmid book has a useful tip for determining the temperature of the light. Take a piece of white paper and cast a shadow over part of the paper. If the shadow is cooler than the white of the paper, then you are dealing with warm light and vice versa. This technique works better in practice than I would have guessed. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 294 Registered: 8-2006 |
Eugene and Joanna, I realize that colorful shadows are more painterly and more appealing, and that's the way I do my shadows too. My observation was simply that real shadows in nature seldom look like our painted shadows -- real shadows are usually just darker versions of the surrounding local color. I have a hard time seeing blue (or reds and oranges) in most shadows, even those in open landscapes under blue skies, as Eugene suggests. If you have a photograph of blue shadows, I'd like to see it. (Note: I'm not talking about light bounce into shadow areas off of colorful surrounding surfaces, like the reflection from painted siding on a house into the area under the eave -- I have in mind open landscape scenes like the shadow under a nearby bush or tree) That's not to say that I can't see atmospheric blues in distant backgrounds, but it's hard to see them in foreground or nearby shadows. Even though that is what I actually see in nature, my paintings are not intended to be photographic-type reproductions of nature -- we have cameras for that. I'll keep on interpreting nature in a painterly way, just as the two of you do. It is interesting, however, to ponder what leads us to like our colorful paintings of nature more than the color that is actually there, or not there. | ||
Joanna Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 37 Registered: 10-2006 |
I still don't use black (even though I've ventured to use WHITE now and then, the purist is dead, long live the ex-purist.) I have a tube of Lunar Black somewhere, but when I dip into it, it just grays and deadens what I am doing. I love color, so I like black to have all kinds of colors. For example, American Journey makes a convenience color called "June Bug" which is nothing more than Prussian Blue greened up with some phthalo green, and I just love it for black, alone or mixed with red or sienna. It's a very clear, greenish dark blue and it's a happy color. | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 320 Registered: 8-2006 |
Griz, Look at Sargent's watercolors. He may have used black, but you don't see it in his shadows. They're alive with color. I use black only if I am painting black-- like holstein cows or black pants or dresses on the Amish, and even then I usually add some red or burnt sienna to it. Never just just darken colors. I think black shadows are dreadfully dull. I don't always paint my shadows blue. It depends on what color is reflected into them.... Open shadows in sunny landscapes are often blue because they get their reflected color from the sky. They're a different color on cloudy days. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 293 Registered: 8-2006 |
Marie, I realize that painting is not intended to be an exact replica of nature, but I wonder if the common practice of adding "cool" colors to most shadows (or "warms" to a few) is really what we see in nature, at least to the exaggerated degree we do it. I went outside yesterday to try to look as objectively as possible, and truthfully the shadows I saw were simply darkened versions of the local color I was seeing in the light. It seems that using a tube black simply to darken the local color would reproduce what I was seeing and shouldn't look "weird." What do you think makes it seem weird to us -- is it simply that we have become accustomed to adding colors to our shadows? Wouldn't the traditional painters (who came before thalos and had to use tube black) have done their shadows that way? | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Marie, I’m sorry for the confusion, my last comment wasn’t meant to be a response to anything you have said. I agree with all your comments about black, and really don’t see any disagreement between what you and I have said. I had been out for a morning walk and thought I’d share my observations. You’re right that tube black can be problematic. That’s why I recommended that people only try it after they have achieved some level of proficiency with watercolor. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 350 Registered: 8-2006 |
Once again, I *do* use black and have no objection to it. I have been thinking a little more, however, about why tube black can be problematic. Very often, the mistake with black is to mix black with the local color to try to model the dark side of an object. Black will take something darker without affecting the temperature. The problem is that the only time a shadow side of an object is the same temperature as the light side of an object is when you have truly white light and and everything else in the space is white, black or gray. This almost never happens. Consequently, a shadow made with tube black tends to look weird unless you add something else to it to adjust the temperature. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Now that I’ve been to the museums and seen the power that black pigment brings to watercolor in the hands of the masters of the watercolor art I’m beginning to see black everywhere. For example, this morning, as I took my daily walk, I was gripped by the color of a grove of trees as the sun rose behind them. This was not the black one gets by mixing a deep transparent red with a Thalo green. It was not the gritty black of ultramarine blue and umber. Instead it had the opaque quality that only comes from a tube black mixed/glazed with an earthy green. It was this clean opaque quality of black against the thin transparent sunrise that made the moment so soulful. Maybe that’s what we have lost with our desire to emulate the impressionistic color scheme of the purist, paintings that touch the soul. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 348 Registered: 8-2006 |
Something just occurred to me. Mixed blacks are probably *less* traditional than tube blacks. Before the development of the thalos in the 1930's, the only real choice for a mixed black was to combine ultramarine blue and burnt umber. I *do* use tube black sometimes, and I do it for two reasons. First, I use it to darken warm colors without cooling them. Second, I mix it with yellows to make muted greens. If I want a real black, I mix it either from a crimson (perylene maroon or benzimidazolone carmine) and a green (thalo or perylene) or ultramarine and burnt umber. I can go darker with a mix than I can with a tube black --- and with a lot less effort. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 281 Registered: 8-2006 |
I had intended to mention Sargent's "Madame X" as an example of what I had in mind in my comment in my post 278 on his effective use of tube black in some of his portraits. I'm sure Marie chose to cite him as an effective user of tube black for the same reason. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 280 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, The painting by Thomas Collier is an apt example of the kind of excellent photorealism perhaps best achieved with tube black, as you mentioned earlier -- could almost pass for an early photograph! BTW -- thanks for your gracious tolerance of my remarks about beautiful color shifts in darks, when the subject was effective photorealism! | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Jack, What do you mean you don't think it was appropriate. I have never read anything you have ever written that wasn’t appropriate. As for not being particularly relevant, I could be accused of not being particularly relevant with the majority of what I write in most of my posts. On a side note here is a watercolor painting that contains tube black done by Thomas Collier.  | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 278 Registered: 8-2006 |
Marie and George, My last post may have been accurate, but after rereading, I don't think it was appropriate or particularly relevant to what the two of you were discussing! Sargent's tube blacks may not have been as "interesting" as mixed blacks, but his portraits (which you might consider "photorealistic," George)are stunning in his use of light and the value contrasts he achieved with his blacks. Rembrandt, Caravaggio and others are admired for similar reasons. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 271 Registered: 8-2006 |
Marie, Good point. Color shifts in dark or shadow areas is best served by mixing your own blacks and can much better serve the design principle of gradation. When you are limited to just a warm and cool black, gradation is possible, but it contains less variation and is therefore less interesting to the viewer. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Marie, yep, I agree the best way to learn color temperature in dark or neutral areas is for the beginner to mix a black from warm and cool pigments. What I was really suggesting was that after color temperature has been mastered it could be beneficial for some of the photorealistic painters to explore the potential of tube black. In fact, now that I think of it, I'm sure that many of the better photorealistic painters do use tube black. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 345 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, I think you're absolutely right about the restrictions on black coming from the impressionists. I don't think anyone had a problem with black before the impressionists came along. The restriction on black is not peculiar to watercolorists --- many oil painters won't use it either. Although I don't have any dogmatic objection to black, I do think think that there are some valid reasons that photorealistic painters might want to keep it off their palettes. A black mixed from warm and cool pigments, as opposed to tube black, forces you to think about shifts changes in color temperature in dark or neutral areas. It forces a conscious decision about temperature. It was not uncommon for historical painters to use two blacks: one warm and one cool. Velasquez's palette, for example, consisted of white, yellow ochre, venetian red, ivory black (warm) and lamp black (cool). Sargent, also, used sepia and lamp black -- once again, there was a distinction between warm and cool. I think that the danger in using black comes from ignoring temperature issues. I might also argue that the "holes" that tube blacks supposedly create come not so much from using tube blacks as from having the wrong temperature in the wrong place. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
From all the reading on this subject that I’ve done over the years it seems that the historically recent idea of no black and no white had its origin in the impressionist art movement. It seems a subgroup of the watercolor community (today known as the purists) picked up on the impressionist ban on black and white pigments making it part of their watercolor gospel. The strange thing is that the members of this subgroup of the watercolor community no longer work in the impressionist style. From the many national watercolor shows I have viewed, it seems they have adopted photorealism as their preferred style. What is especially curious about the combination of the no black and no white rules with the photorealistic style is the fact that the making of the original photograph they are working from includes black pigment. | ||
Joanna Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 27 Registered: 10-2006 |
Hey George, thanks for the interesting report. My aunt, who was my teacher, just passed away this week. She was originally from the "purist" wc school "NO black! NO white" she thundered. Years later, she decided to go bold and free as she put it, inspired by a book of the same title. She began painting again after she raised a family. White? SURE. Black, natch! She did really well with her art, doing a series of sheets for Springmaid, teaching celebs to paint and much more. No one would be selling black paint if no one used it. I suppose one thing to remember is that shadows are not "black" usually and that black can make a hole, as any color can, if the values are wrong around it. And opaques are fine in watercolor as well. We make our own rules if they make sense to us, as artists. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
I thought I’d add a recent discovery on the topic of black pigment. I have just returned from a short vacation. As part of my travels, I made a point to visit a dozen east coast art museums. More than half of the watercolor paintings (I’d guess about two thirds) I found hanging in these museums contained black pigment. These blacks did not appear to be mixed blacks, but rather pure black pigment. I’m posting this because the idea (that the majority of the best and most talented - museum grade artists - have historically used black pigment) supports our earlier conclusion that black pigment can be useful for a watercolor artist as he/she becomes more advanced in the art of watercolor. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 262 Registered: 8-2006 |
I wonder if it's similar to Daniel Smith's Lunar Black, which is also sometimes referred to as magnetic black. If so, I have tried it. It's an odd duck -- a lot of fun to play with but I have never been able to use for any real world application. It has a lot of texture and granulates in the extreme. I imagine that it might be interesting for landscape work. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
I just received my copy of the new Cheap Joe’s Art catalog. Joe has introduced a signature line of seven new natural colors. The new black is Magnetite Genuine (“Black as the ace of spades”). The catalog recommends you try mixing it (physical mixing) with your other colors. If anyone should give it a try, let us know what you think. The Lapis Lazuli looks interesting too. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
The issue of acrylic paintings in watercolor shows is a difficult issue. But, I do agree that’s probably why TWSA got started. But, in my opinion, some of its members have stretched the word transparent beyond anything that is rational. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Regarding the strict rules of the Transparent Watercolor Society of America, this old post by Robert might shed light on why such rules may be necessary: "...since there is a watercolor society in my home town with 150 members, it would be nice to have a few to associate with who share a common love of transparent watercolor. Believe it or not, there are very few, What happened is that a few acrylic painters joined a few years back, got appointed to schedule workshops, scheduled acrylic teachers and the watercolorists of yesteryear were slowly turned into opaque painters. The juried shows reflect this bias. So I feel that the "open mindedness" of allowing all forms of water media into a watercolor society or show helps diminish watercolor's popularity in general." | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
That has my vote-- | ||
Marie Advanced Member Username: Marie Post Number: 186 Registered: 8-2006 |
Good summary, George. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Ah! I’m a firm believer that if people keep talking they eventually discover the source of any misunderstanding. And, ours it seems was over the meaning of the word “mixing”. You were using the word in the sense of physical mixing, and I was using the word in the sense of optical mixing (layering). Well, this is wonderful! Can all participants agree that is it a good summary to this thread? And, that it should be stated as: The most inexperienced watercolorists should shy away from black watercolor paint because it can be misused, but as they become more advanced black paint can provide a positive contribution for those watercolorists who wish to add it to their palettes. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Reposted without cut and paste errors: Layering is not mixing. Mixing is when I take a brushload of lamp black and stir it into cadmium red. The layering as you say, was a specialized technique in the hands of a master. We don't disagree. I don't. however, want to see casual readers coming away from this thinking that black is a recommended pigment for DARKENING COLORS ON THEIR PALETTE. I get the sense that exceptions, and there always, in anything, exceptions, prove the rule, here. feel that there is a great deal of focus on the exceptions and little acknowledgment that they are exceptions. Some of you seem to be advocating black as a positive contribution (I mean carbon black) to a general watercolorist's palette. Everyone can use what they want, but that is not the same as advocating something negative to novices. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Layering is not mixing. Mixing is when I take a brushload of lamp black and stir it into cadmium red. The layering as you say, was a specialized te3chnique in the hands of a master. We don't disagree. I don't. however, want to see casual readers coming away from this think that black is recommended pigment for DARKENING COLORS ON THEIR PALETTE. I just don't want casual readers. Mixing is when I take a brushload of lamp black and stir it into cadmium red. I get the sense that exceptions, and there always, in anything, exceptions, prove the rule, here. Some of you seem to be advocating black as a positive contribution (I mean carbon black) to a general watercolorist's palette. I couldn't disagree more and have accepted practice to support this. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Actually Kisha, this 1950’s master of watercolor that I spoke of, mixed (layered) his carbon black with his other colors to create a wide range of expressive values and rich dark colors. I agree with you that inexperienced watercolor painters tend to make their colors look sooty when using black. But, it has been said by many on this thread (I think originally by Bill), in the hands of an expert watercolor artist marvelous things can be done with black paint. I’m not really surprised that you’re unaware of the expressive power hidden in a tube of black paint. Black paint doesn’t have the popularity today that it had for most of watercolor history, and therefore few (other than some of the old timers) know very much about it. I think that’s sad! | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Franz Kline's abstract expressionist canvases--I saw one yesterday--which are merely bold black strokes on white backgrounds, strike me the same way. So do Japanese brush paintings, which are mostly in black ink. Of course this is an entirely different thing than mixing carbon black with colors to darken them--an entirely different thing. No relationship to the use of black paint for a particular expressive purpose as black paint. No relationship whatsoever. No relationship. I think I've found a way to make it cheaper to mix black with my palette--fireplace soot! | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Expresso! Wow! Can we put it in the cake mix? I’ve only one last thing to say about black, and then I’ll slip quietly away from this thread. Many years ago I saw an exhibition of watercolor paintings by a New York artist from the 1950’s. Forgive me, I can no longer recall the name of the artist, but it doesn’t really matter, because I’ve always believed that it’s the art, and not the artist, that we should honor. He used carbon black paint, earth colors, and very few of the bright colors to create a series of watercolor paintings of New Yorkers at work and play. The dark areas were opaque, but balanced by large areas of the white paper left unpainted. That series of watercolor paintings represents for me the ultimate achievement in watercolor painting. They had a spiritual quality about them that is missing from most of what is done with watercolor paint today. I don’t mean the subject was spiritual, but rather the effect created from paint on paper. The mood this master of watercolor was able to create with just a few brushstrokes of dark pigment on white paper took me to varying levels of deep emotional response. For a while I thought about coping the style and materials of this great master of watercolor, but realized that there are many ways to use watercolor and we must all find our own style, our own voice. In closing I’d like to offer a heartfelt apology to Bonnie for using a quote from one of her posts in order to make a point about the state of watercolor today - as I see it. Bonnie, you are one of my favorite people on this page - please accept my apology. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
George--Don't be so modest! It doesn't matter what you were actually advocating or not advocating. All the attention to Black (more attention that the entire watercolor world in toto has given it in the past 50 years) converted me! Take credit for my conversion to mixing carbon particles in all of my colors. It will start a new school--the sooty school (s---ty --sooty-- is what Bill was saying, of course). | ||
Eric Unregistered guest |
George, you're going to drive yourself crazy. You're being too technical. When they say "transparent" I know what they mean. They mean that the color doesn't cover up another color. Cadmiums and yellow ochre are more opaque than other colors but they still don't completely cover up a color underneath. They're not THAT opaque, unless you apply the colors with a trowel, without water. Use words like "about" or "approximately" regarding transparency and you'll sleep better at night.  | ||
Eugene Advanced Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 164 Registered: 8-2006 |
George--- stay away from chocolate cake. | ||
Landscaper Junior Member Username: Landscaper Post Number: 17 Registered: 12-2006 |
Rules are rules. It certainly does not matter what you put on the paper for the sake of art. Some artists like to use black to separate color, while others use dark color combinations in order to create depth; some use white rather than friskit, while there are those who abhor using either. Fine watercolor artists add gouache and cover areas with pastel. Add clay if you like. If it makes art for that person, then that's just great. Any pigment brushed on thick enough will be opaque. Even cobalt blue. But, there are purest groups and associations that prefer nothing but the use of what is considered transparent watercolor. Not even a tiny corner of what they call opaque is appropriate. Maybe it's tradition, maybe it's the challenge, maybe it's what they want in order to call it watercolor art. So what? If you don't want to go by their rules, then don't enter their group. They are right, you are right, and I am so glad we are all different. Isn't art great? | ||
SZ Unregistered guest |
George, I for one could use a chocolate cake. Do you have any left? As for black, this really is an interesting thread, and after nearly re-reading it, it seems we came at it differently, but I wouldn't mind sharing an expresso | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Hi guys, I’m sure that some will be happy to learn that I’m not gong to talk about black in this post. I’ve been unable to get to sleep (that’s what I get for eating chocolate cake just before bedtime), and the thought kept running around in my head - what are these “rules”, these “established parameters”, and “accepted practices”, that some on this thread keep bringing into the discussion? I decided the simplest way to find the answer is to ask. For example, Bonnie stated that one of the “accepted practices that we must adhere to in order to call a painting transparent watercolor,” is that a watercolor be transparent. That seems obvious, in fact it makes lots of sense on the surface, but all kinds of questions keep coming up in my mind. 1. If a full sheet painting done with watercolor paints has an opaque spot about one half centimeter large in the upper right hand corner, but the remainder of the full sheet painting is transparent, is the painting considered a transparent watercolor? 2. If the above painting is considered a transparent watercolor then according to the “established parameters” at what percentage of opaqueness is the painting disqualified as a transparent watercolor? Is it at 1%, 5%, 10% 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%??? 3. If one opaque watercolor paint is taboo (sorry, I promised not to mention the name of it), are the other watercolor paints which manufacturers label opaque also taboo? For example many of the cadmium and cobalt pigment based watercolors are labeled opaque. And, then there is my all time favorite yellow ocher - will I need to give up yellow ocher to be classified a transparent watercolor artist? 4. If I am allowed to keep my opaque cadmium and cobalt and ocher paints, and am still allowed to be considered a transparent watercolor artist, and I use these paints to create a painting that is less opaque than another painting created by an artist who uses only the most transparent modern synthetic pigments, is my painting the less acceptable of the two because of its greater degree of opaqueness? 5. If the answer to the last question is yes, does this mean that the “established parameters” require that I move to the more transparent modern synthetic pigments in order to be a better transparent watercolor artist? If the answer to the last question (4 above) is no, then how opaque am I allowed to go with my opaque cadmium and cobalt and ocher watercolor paints before I am no longer classified a transparent watercolor artist? (If it appears that I am mocking those who believe in “rules”, “established parameters”, and “accepted practices” it is only because of my last question) 6. Isn’t the best in all art founded in creative freedom? So now I’ll ask my one serious question…….where is the creative freedom in “rules”, “established parameters”, and “accepted practices”? I feel like a French Impressionist fighting the Academy………maybe it’s just the chocolate cake. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Wow! Kisha, I’m not an advocate for using black! Go back and read the very first post I left on this thread. In It I said; “I don’t personally use black.” If I’ve been as misunderstood as you suggest in your last post I accept full responsibility. I clearly don’t make my point very well. My wife says I have this problem (making my point) because I drift away from the topic. Oh well! My point is that watercolor artists who want to use black have the right to use black without someone else telling them the resulting painting is not a transparent watercolor painting. Perhaps Bonnie didn’t mean to state; “In transparent watercolor, anything that is not applied in a transparent way, is not transparent watercolor”, and that that “lamp black cannot be made transparent.” This can only be taken one way - if you use black you are not a watercolor artist. Anyway, if you don’t want to use black I think that’s fine, but you should not tell other people who use black they can’t call it a watercolor. ……….and that’s the point! | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
I do agree that the transpancecy issue is a red herring. The issue is that carbon stirred into w/c paint often looks just plain ugly (or s---y to use Bill's expletive). | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
You win George--you facts are indisputable. I am mixing my greens with yellow and black forthwith. I will mix dark fleshtones with yellow ocher and black. Shadows beneath trees with blue green and black. Dark skies with black/ I will glaze over passages which I wish to darken with ivory black. I see the light (er, darkness). Thanks for your persistence in this. I am born again ! | ||
Eric Unregistered guest |
I'm not sure what the talk is here about transparency with black. When black is really black it's not transparent-looking even using burnt sienna and ultra. marine or mixing aliz. crimson and phthalo green. From everything I've read, the problem with black that some have is that it's lifeless-looking compared to mixing your black. I don't "get" the transparency issue. As for black being thinned with water, to make a gray, the problem many artists have isn't with the fact that it's "black" it's that the gray color isn't very interesting. They preach using a mixture to make the gray and not to mix it so thoroughly so the gray has more color to it and therefore is more interesting. The same is often said about Payne's Gray and Davey's Gray. Too boring to use on it's own. From everything I've heard, the issue with black is that it's a boring color. This is the first I've heard about the transparency issue with black. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Oh my! Surrender is such a disappointing word to see used here. I think of this thread as an honest attempt by all involved to arrive at a clear understanding of the role of black pigment in watercolor painting. I guess I really believe that all participants can arrive at an agreement on what that role is. If I have offended anyone with my comments about TWSA, I do apologize. I actually know little about that society, and based my comments on the quote Bonnie gave from the TWSA newsletter. Kisha, you don’t really believe; “no one uses or should use black” do you? The fact that some watercolor instruction materials and instructors don’t mention carbon black isn’t proof that carbon black should not be used. As someone (can’t remember who) stated in an earlier post, instruction materials and instructors don’t mention carbon black because it’s difficult for beginners to use. And, the advice given about mixing burnt sienna and ultramarine, or pthalo green and alizarin, is not meant as a substitution in all cases for black but only as an alternative under some conditions. If we are taking about facts, perhaps I should list a few that pertain directly to this issue of black pigment in watercolor. 1. a transparent passage in a painting will appear much more transparent when placed next to an opaque passage. (This is based on the universally accepted principal of Contrast.) 2. if desired, black paint can be thinned to a point where it is as transparent as most other watercolor paints. 3. carbon black pigment is an additive in many of the watercolor paints that are recommended by the very same instruction materials and instructors who don’t recommend a straight tube of carbon black. (As an old saying goes; does it really matter how you get your vitamins as long as you get them?) 4. black pigments were a mainstay in the watercolor artist’s paint box for the vast majority of the history of watercolor painting. (This notion that black is somehow taboo is very recent.) 5. Many watercolor artists today still use the black paints. (otherwise zero sales would cause the manufacturers to remove them from the paint lines) 6. black paints are popular enough with watercolor artists that ALL the watercolor paint manufacturers include them in their paint lines. (Businessmen know their market) 7. the taboo against black is based entirely on the personal preferences of those who voice the taboo. Can anyone refute any of these facts? | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 114 Registered: 10-2006 |
Kisha: Well said...well taken. I surrender. I must admit it is fun to discuss something that everyone has an opinion on... Any new ideas? | ||
Eugene Advanced Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 163 Registered: 8-2006 |
When I started this thread I simply ask “Do you use black”. Sometimes I wish I’d never ask. But on the other hand it did make us think. In conclusion--Some artists use black successfully and others stay away from it entirely. It’s the end result that counts. Let’s not criticize anyone for using it or not using it. As for TWSA. If you exhibit with them you must play by their rules or get out of the game. There are plenty of other organizations that accept B & W. (I've exhibited with TWSA and have black on my palette, but seldom use it) Never have had any complaints. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Whitewater--I think you are fighting a losing battle here. Not because you don't have the weight of accepted practice on your side. You do. Most watercolor instruction materials and instructors caution their students to stay away from carbon black (as you said, they aren't saying stay away from darks, but urging them to be mixed from burnt sienna and ultramarine or pthalo green and alizarin etc). Those arguing against you are ignoring or denying this fact. Their position is fringe whether or not they want to admit it. I suggest you drop it because you can't ever prove that no one uses or should use black. Your opponents, in taking this position, have entered unwittingly into irrelevance. Let them. | ||
Marie Advanced Member Username: Marie Post Number: 182 Registered: 8-2006 |
TWSA accepts black in their exhibitions. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Hi Bonnie (may I call you Bonnie as Whitewatercolor is a lot to type for a guy with five thumbs like me), I think you are mistaken about apples and oranges, I believe everyone who has been commenting on this thread was been talking about transparent watercolor. You mention the Transparent Watercolor Society of America. Their members are a very fine group of artists and individuals, but they nevertheless are a small subgroup of the larger watercolor community. When a member of TWSA states in a newsletter that white and lamp black cannot be made transparent she unknowingly contributes to the myth. But, whether you call it a “rule”, or a “myth” is irrelevant to the fact that such mistaken beliefs diminish the respect watercolor artists have in the larger art community. The fact is; all watercolor paint pigments are opaque in dry form and any one of these pigments, if thinned out enough, will give the appearance of transparency – including white and lamp black. Your comment that you believe there are established parameters “that we must adhere to in order to call a painting transparent watercolor,” is a statement of personal belief not shared by the larger watercolor community. I think it’s fine for an individual, or a small group of individuals as in the case of TWSA members, to state that they personally believe in a set of established parameters for their own watercolor paintings, but to push those personal beliefs onto the larger watercolor community by stating; “there are parameters in using black if you are calling yourself a painter of watercolor”, makes the TWSA members look foolish. Bonnie, please know that I am not picking on you here. You are only repeating what you have heard from others. And, those others are repeating what they have heard also. These kinds of false beliefs spread until they become “rules” that cause the believers to form into special societies of the “true believers” who attempt to preserve the purity of the myth. But, I want to emphasize, these are not bad people, they are only mistaken, and we are all guilty of being mistaken about one thing or another in our lives. | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 113 Registered: 10-2006 |
Maybe we're talking apples and oranges here. When I speak of watercolor, I am speaking of transparent watercolor not watermedia. Anything waterbased is "allowed" in watermedia. In transparent watercolor, anything that is not applied in a transparent way, is not transparent watercolor. The Transparent Watercolor Society of America in their last 2005 newsletter has a discussion on transparency and specifically states that white and lamp black cannot be made transparent. I keep beating this horse because I think this is an important aspect of transparent watercolor, which has very few advocates left, because it is so easy to pick up opaque paint to fix a problem. In my opinion transparent watercolor is not losing respect because of rules (and they are rules not myths) but because of the blatant disregard of the rules and acquiescence of societies. We can debate this all we want and in the end we can use what we want but ultimately there are parameters established that we must adhere to in order to call a painting transparent watercolor, which is commonly called watercolor as opposed to watermedia. I think this is an important point for people to hear who are looking for information on this site. They can use any black, any way they want, but there are parameters in using black if you are calling yourself a painter of watercolor. | ||
Eric Unregistered guest |
One thing that sticks out after reading countless watercolor books is that when it comes to color on one's pallette, everybody does something different. Some have 40 different colors, some have only a few. Some use black, some don't. | ||
SZ Unregistered guest |
George, thanks so much for that post. I was just skipping around in the few watercolour books I have with me--and black is discussed in all of them. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
MacPherson is an oil painter and a plein air painter who leans toward impressionism and therefore would not be an advocate for using a carbon based black paint. I’m not sure a discussion of successful painters who use, or don’t use, carbon based black paint would add anything to our understanding of black paint. For example; I see no value in debating if Rembrandt, who used carbon based black paint, was a more “successful” painter than Monet, who did not use carbon based black paint. It really all comes down to one’s personal taste. I remember some years ago reading a book written in the 1950’s or 1960’s about the working habits of about 100 mid twentieth century watercolor painters (one watercolor artist per page). What I found most interesting was the fact that no two artists in the book used the same combination of paints and almost all used black. Today you don’t find many watercolor artists using black paint anymore. I wonder if we watercolor artists are more like sheep than artists should be. A few years ago while at a national watercolor show I was involved in a conversation with one of the artists represented in the show about his heavy, but successful, use of black paint (carbon based) in his watercolor painting. Another person commented that she had been taught in her watercolor class that black paint should never be used in a watercolor painting. A fourth person responded that it’s those kinds of myths that circulate in the watercolor community which cause the larger art community to look down on watercolor artists. We then all tried to list other myths watercolor artists circulate among themselves…..but that’s content for another thread. | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 111 Registered: 10-2006 |
Kevin MacPherson is an oil painter who has written several books. He is a member and past president of Plein Air Painters of America. In his latest book "Landscape Painting Inside & Out" he recommends limiting your pallette to three colors and white, to attain color harmony in your paintings. The only black he recommends or uses is Chromatic Black. According to him "This is a neutral black made from complementary colors rather than the usual carbon or iron oxide blacks that can make mixtures look "dirty." Chromatic Black is made from a careful blend of Quinacridone Red and Phthalo Emerald. Since both of these colors are transparent, Chromatic Black is also transparent." I guess I would say there is black and then there is black. Whether it is mixed from the pallette or it is made from mixed colors and put in a tube, it is still black, but the debate maybe should be framed whether successful painters use carbon and iron oxide blacks. Not whether they use black. | ||
Ben Unregistered guest |
When I work with children, I pick a few colors, I do not bring the white and black jars and I do not explain or correct, just help them do their own painting. (okay, I keep the black and white paint hidden until the final stages and only for those who ask for black wiskers and irises) But I use black not just darks and neutralized colors black near the centre of interest, or in the fore ground as ultimate contrast to light and to color (it is hard to get a lot of contrast in watercolor I think) black lines and dry brush texture and spots in light or colorful paintings, for example in boats and harbor equipment and sometimes in larger areas I use a warm or cool black, in sketches or in watercolor paintings, for example to contrast really bleached out hot summer daylight colors Now I think of it, I use black in my aquarelle paintings, mixed black I use perylene maroon or iron blue or a dark raw umber as a starting point for mixing black But usually this is not really black, just very dark transparent grey and colorful warm or cool black I try to prevent dark dull grey areas in my aquarelles And that is easy, I just use complementary pigments to mix darks and neutrals (this way it is harder to get really dark or really neutral or really even areas and it is hard to get a dull spot this way) And I use carbon black paints The darkest darks are opaque blacks, but not dull mixed blacks work fine but for an opaque mix I sometimes mix blacks with black paint (or even Indian ink and then really as a start, as a drawing or value sketch then add washes and colors and so on, and the black will not dissolve eh, that is not considered watercolor ;-) for me light neutral grey areas are not easy to make and it is not possible to correct with another glaze that is another occasion I use black pigment paint (Rowney ivory black) for example for a light grey sky over a dull warm landscape (the neutral sky is blue enough this way) problem: several carbon black paints are hard to turn into an even light grey wash and surprise, some have a tint when diluted heavily another use for black paints: sometimes they worked for me as cool blue or neutral green in mixes last year I used “coke bottle green” and I like it see Marie her post in: http://community.cheapjoes.com/forum/messages/25/1540.html but I do not consider it a black paint, although it is as dark as any may be the perylene pigment can work as a transparent mixed dark and neutralizing paint for those who do not want to use black carbon pigments and sometimes I add Winston Newton “charcoal grey” (a carbon black paint) to my palette to tone down all colors a grey blue sea without warm areas, a warm neutral shore line without greenish areas, ‘white’ sea gulls and a ‘black’ oil tanker and then I try to make the gulls and oil tankers etc as colorful grey as possible (no bright colors, no black, and the contrast is in the artificial and organic subjects, not in color and value ) best wishes, Ben rereading this message, it might look like dull and black but that is not the case, just the subject I hope this adds to my earlier post in ‘a matter of black’: http://community.cheapjoes.com/forum/messages/25/1475.html | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
WH2Ocolor:"I also notice that Mel Sabin (whose work I find absolutely beautiful!) includes black in his palette. However, I can't find any discussion about it in the book." I 've studied w/el and had a long conversation with him over dinner re. his palette and I understand his use of black completely. He says he never uses black to mix colors but only uses it to render something that is dyed black that he is painting, such as a jacket or hat. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Hi Kisha, It seems the recent “justifications for using black” on this thread are in response to Whitewatercolor’s question - “Could anyone on this list provide a quote from a watercolor master that defines the art of painting transparent watercolor as including those substances?” You’re correct that no one on this thread has opposed using black, but since this thread is on the topic of black, and considering that many watercolor artists oppose the use of black (at least in the watercolor circles I’ve been involved in), I see no reason why justifications for using black should not be a part of this thread. Anyway, the discussion is healthy, If nothing else this thread can serve as an educational resource for the many watercolorists who are confused about the roll of black in watercolor painting. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Interesting that so many people are posting justifications for using black when no one has actually opposed it use! The only point has been that using black to darken colors is a poor substitute for learning how to mute colors using complements and since the temptation for beginners equipped with black may be to use it indiscriminately to darken colors and make shadows, it is best not included in beginners palettes. Virtually every art instruction book I have (about 35) maintains this same position. No one--including Bill earlier--maintains that black is not useful in skilled hands. | ||
Landscaper New member Username: Landscaper Post Number: 7 Registered: 12-2006 |
In the book, "Starting with Watercolor," by Roaland Hilder (a master in my book) list his palatte and of his basic colors, lamp black is the first pigment on the list. Since he believed all colors must be transparent in wash form, he apparently considered black appropriate. He list lamp black, burnt sienna, indigo and raw sienna as his basic colours. I don't believe a true master would disapprove of any pigment unless they knew it was fugitive. And so, if there is a quote out there, perhaps it is not of a true master; more from a workshop teacher selling their technique. I believe the use of a black pigment is very appropriate. It's just not very easy to use without a lot of practice. | ||
Anonymous Unregistered guest |
Schink and Lawrence paint very opaquely these days. Not like most watercolorists. Trying to find a historical justification for going against the grain makes sense, for Schink. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Hi Ben, yes I would like to hear your opinion. Don’t feel bad about not being registered. I’m not registered either. | ||
Ben Unregistered guest |
Whitewatercolor asked for a quote: “Could anyone on this list provide a quote from a watercolor master that defines the art of painting transparent watercolor as including those substances? --<snip>--I need to hear it from a master” (‘those substances’ is referring to “black, white or opaque substances”) and SZ mentions Christopher Schink yes, I saw a quote from him, searched for it --< quote from Chistopher Schink >-- “Applying watercolour only in thin, transparent layers can produce beautiful passages of paint; however that technique should not be described as traditional. Quite the opposite. The tradition and widespread use of watercolour began in the 19th Century with the English romantic landscape painters who used the medium in a variety of ways, many of them opaque. Turner often used dense, opaque passages in his watercolours and frequently added opaque pigments or gouache on top. So did Sargent and Homer and Birchfield and Hopper. Light, transparent painting was not their exclusive goal. Some of Homer’s painting are as “heavy as a hammer”. The tradition of transparent watercolour is a recent one. Is it possible to have a recent tradition? I don’t think so. You can avoid using any opaque passages or pigments in your paintings if you like, but you won’t be part of any watercolour tradition I know about.” --< end of quote >-- --< disclaimer >-- okay, I found the quote from C Schink but after rereading: it is not about the use of black (so this is ‘a bit off topic’?) and I don’t know about Schink being a ‘master’ (Schink states his own work being ‘mixed media’) and I myself am not ‘on the list’ (should I register?) but I think it is a quote that fits in this thread (should I add my own opinion or experience?) --< end of disclaimer >-- Ben | ||
Landscaper New member Username: Landscaper Post Number: 6 Registered: 12-2006 |
I like using burnt umber with raw sienna for the color of sand, and with ultramarine blue for many shades of dark, tree trunks, clouds, windows, open barn doors, with greens for adding brown for summer greens. etc. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
What do you think about burnt umber--worth using or mud causing? | ||
Eric Unregistered guest |
Marie, I couldn't agree with you more. | ||
Marie Advanced Member Username: Marie Post Number: 158 Registered: 8-2006 |
I was just looking over some of the posts, and it occurred to me that a lot more paintings get ruined from anemic washes and ill-considered values than from using black ... or any other specific pigment. My advice is to make sure you have a way to get a dark on your palette. How you get a dark is up to you. | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 101 Registered: 10-2006 |
On this black issue--specifically regarding Whitney. I went back to the limited resources I have on him, searching for his use of black. I did find what I would consider to be some horrendous use of black in his book, but it was not his work. I found very little, if any use of black in his Complete Guide to Watercolor Painting or his prior book. This is what he says about the use of black. "Ivory black makes the most glorious silvery neutral washes in high key. It is sooty and should not be used for middle or low values. However, if you do use it, flavor it with a color put on top of it." I also notice that Mel Sabin (whose work I find absolutely beautiful!) includes black in his pallette. However, I can't find any discussion about it in the book. In studing his paintings, I can find nothing painted black. It appears as though he also uses it in high key areas, very judiously, and only a spot of it, mixed with other colors. It does contrast well in his paintings which are light and airy. He appears to use black in his darkest darks to help highlight and lead your eye to the focal point. I've also observed that when he uses it, it is never an isolated color. He fits it into other areas of the painting (as with any color used) I think Marie is correct here, you need to really know what you're doing to use black successfully. What I have learned from observing the work of Whitney and Sabin is judious use of darks, whether it is black from the tube or mixed. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Kisha, I deeply admire your attempt (and the attempts of others) to bring the discussion back to the topic of paint, but I have one more thing to say to A.N., and then I’ll return to talking about paint. A.N. said; “there is a certain mentality that takes offense to stifle debate.” A.N. I have never seen, or known of, anyone taking offense for the purpose of stifling debate,” either here on this page, or in the larger society. When a person takes offense it can be for many reasons, but expressing the feeling of offense almost always enlarges the debate - as it has on this thread. I’d be happy to continue this discussion with you if you like, but you will have to provide some clear examples in support of your claim of stifled discourse. Kisha, at one time Burnt Umber was my favorite color. Many years ago when I worked in acrylic, I did an entire painting in only Burnt Umber, Black and White. In watercolor, Burnt Umber is not the same across all paint lines. But, overall it’s a beautiful color for mixing. The reason art books and teachers recommend Burnt Umber not be used is because art books are typically written for beginners and Burnt Umber is not an easy color for beginners to learn to mix. Speaking of art books; I have always believed that if someone wrote a book for beginners and another book for advanced students the two books would give markedly different advice. That’s why it’s best to know where a student is in the development of her/his skills before answering a question from the student, for example; is black a good color to use in watercolor (this reinforces Bill’s original point). | ||
Marie Advanced Member Username: Marie Post Number: 156 Registered: 8-2006 |
I like burnt umber a lot, although it took me a long time to learn to appreciate it. Almost all of the pictures I posted the other day use burnt umber. It's expecially useful for figures -- for darker skin tones and shadows --- when you need a good dark but you don't want to go cool. It also makes a great black when mixed with ultramarine blue. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
OK--Enough , please, on the black paint reaction. I keep reading these posts hoping to read about painting and not personalities--SOOOOOOOO, in the interest of refocusing-- Here's a related topic-- A lot of art books and teachers arecommend Burnt Umber not be used because it easily creates mud (thier justification). I have found Burnt Umber makes great dark greens when mixed with tube greens and is more transprent than a mixed briwn. I think it is a valuable addition to a palette. Anyone have an opinion on this? | ||
A.N. Unregistered guest |
I am not going to apply one idea -- being offended--to such a variety of issues and circumstances and then say being offended in this case (the black issue) is okay. There is a certain mentality that takes offense to stifle debate. Being offended seems to confer on the offended party the absolute right not to hear the offensive message, even if it is the truth. Such a situation stifles discourse. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
A.N. Oh, I'm sorry, that was Kisha who was concerned about censorship. I guess she'll be coming after you now. (an attempt at humor) Speaking of humor - Jay, I loved your joke. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
A.N. Ah! I think I see! Your real concern is for our culture. I also think I see where we differ. I personally don’t believe, as you do, that the cultural problem is the result of any excessive “readiness to be offended.” Perhaps the culture as a whole is not offended enough. I think this culture would be better served if it were more offended by wasteful Government spending, excessive public scandals, incompetent governance and the kind of media propaganda that masquerades as news. I don’t believe (as you suggest) being offended by these things would “have a chilling effect on discourse.” I do have one question, please don’t take it the wrong way, but I am curious - if your goal is to stifle the right of others to speak out when they are offended - isn’t that a form of censorship?..... and aren’t you the one who is anti censorship? Again…. I’m just curious! | ||
A.N. Unregistered guest |
In fact--this could potentially have a chilling effect on discourse--not Bill's criticism--but the over weaning readiness to be offended. It chills discourse throughout our culture. | ||
A.N. Unregistered guest |
Here's my sole point--Bill was given grief for expressing his opinion of a public figure's work, not a member of this groups work. The specific problem was some were offended. I certainly see a problem in this even if others can't. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
A.N. I hope you aren’t suggesting anything said on this thread has been “obnoxious”, or based in “narcissism”, and/or “should not be tolerated.” But, I don’t think you’re saying that. I assume you are talking only about the lady in the art museum. I did consider her behavior obnoxious at first, but than I realized she considered me obnoxious for the negative comment I made about Constable. I certainly did not see any narcissism in her behavior. And, as for believing that her behavior “should not be tolerated”, I apparently am much more understanding and forgiving than you are. I’m sure she was a loving mother or grandmother who stole time from her busy life to attend the museum so that she might enjoy the paintings of an artist who she held in very high regard. I can understand that it must have been very irritating for her, in that public space, to hear negative comments about the artwork from someone nearby (me). I should have been more sensitive of the feelings of the people around me who might have overheard my comments about Constable. And……. since I was the one who spoke first, I believe I was right to consider myself the cause of the unpleasantness that followed. | ||
Jay Unregistered guest |
Observation, topic wise: This whole thread has turnt pretty black....so apparently we do use it. JOKE....(for the record.) ~8D /Jay | ||
Jay Unregistered guest |
"if someone calls another's work in this group horrendous they have justification for being offended..." <<(emphasis mine) So now I'm confused. What if (a) they really think it's horrendous, and (b) the 'another' has asked for comments??? I know first inclination might be to say it's not hard to temper one's criticism to a milder degree....but then, there was much ado made here in a prior thread about how 'sinful' it was to not give honest appraisals, as is the habit of some other boards....and they were glad this place wasn't like that (to combine several remarks for succinctness sake). Not being (or, trying to be) argumentive...just pointing to this aspect for the sake of the discussion....as well as for feeling out the temperament of the group. And hopefully, y'all can better understand my reluctance to say ANYthing about ANY painting. You can offend SOME people by saying "Good Morning" to them!! ~8) /Jay | ||
A.N. Unregistered guest |
A.N. To be offended is to take something very personally. To take something like a negative comment about the work of a famous artist personally enough to to publicaly tell someone they have been offended by their comment is just plain obnoxious in it's narcissism and should not be tolerated. | ||
A.N. Unregistered guest |
George, I think you are being to literal, perhaps, in you reading of my calling one's sanity into question for being offended. What I am really saying is that if someone calls another's work in this group horrendous they have justification for being offended, but if they get offended because someone calls a historical figures use of a certain color horrendous, then it is they and not the critic who have the problem. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
A.N. asked this question; “If I said Dali's use of green is horrendous how on god's earth can anyone here be offended (if they are sane)?” My guess is that more people would object to Dali’s distortion of reality than object to his use of green. But, your real question is, would someone who is sane really be offended. From my experience, the answer would be - yes! Many years ago, while at a museum, I made a negative comment to a friend about a painting by Constable. A lady standing nearby overheard my comment and became very upset. She offered to educate me about Constable. I thought she had misunderstood my comment, so I tried to clarify my comment. This made her even more upset. Now to your question - did I think this lady was insane? No! My impression was that she had a very passionate respect for the work of Constable, and didn’t like someone attacking constable in strong and abrasive language. I have no doubt at all that had I the time to sit with her over a cup of coffee, that I would have found her to be a very sane and decent person. | ||
Whitewatercolor Intermediate Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 100 Registered: 10-2006 |
I'd like to say opening up this site in the morning is kind of like the old fashioned idea of getting a letter in the mail from a friend. You get excited when you see someone else has posted a comment. But sometimes the comment strikes an emotional cord, especially if it is personal to us, which may even knock us off balance. The sender may think the comment was benign but you're dealing with a bunch of artists. I remember first reading about artists and emotions from quotes by Robert Henri. Since I couldn't find what I wanted quick enough to post this morning and still make it to my day manning the cooperative store, I googled "Robert Henri quotes on artist emotion" It brought up some really fun and interesting quotes, I thought others might be interested in reading and could be great fodder for opening a new thread. I believe that emotions are the basis of good art and embracing them is part of developing your talent. For instance, I sometimes paint the dogs of friends. If I know the dogs I actually feel the same emotional bond with their painting when it is finished as I do with them in life. I feel the same pleasure from a painting of a tree, etc., or a place. The painting puts me back on that day in that spot. If I don't have an emotional bond with the subject, the painting never comes to life with me. Even though others may like it, I avoid looking at it, because it gives me an empty feeling. Does anyone experience similar reactions? | ||
A.N. Unregistered guest |
Oooo- I can't resist this one: George; "However, I’d like to add that if I were to use a word like horrendous and then learned that it had offended someone I’d make amends for having used it" He was talking about a dead artist. How could Whitney have been offended. If someone gets offended because he calls a dead artist's use of blkack horrendous, then that offended person has a problem. He didn't offend anyone on this board but simple commented on the work of a DEAD public figure. If I said Dali's use of green is horrendous how on god's earth can anyone here be offended (if they are sane)? | ||
A.N. Unregistered guest |
And now for something completely different: ie--the original question from Eugene, a quote from Robert Glenn-- snipped: <But when black and white are both added to anything, you get the most beautiful tones of all. Don't believe me? Try it. There are no ugly colours when you take any colour in your box and add a wee bit of both black and white.> My response (Eugene asked for input): HE is talking about oil paint, not watercolor!!!!!!!@ | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Kisha, I fully agree with you that; “if one thinks Whitney's use of black is horrendous, it is perfectly reasonable for him to say so.” However, I’d like to add that if I were to use a word like horrendous and then learned that it had offended someone I’d make amends for having used it (that’s just me). And, as for the expletive s---y, I also agree with you when you said; “it might be out of place and crass here (your words)”. Trust me, I’ve used saltier words than s---y many times in my life. However, I try not to use those kinds of words in a public forum where they might offend someone (again, that’s just me). But Kisha, please explain how you take anything that has been said and turn it into a “woefully out of line” case of “censorship”. I often sensor what I myself say, but, I try not to sensor what others might say. All I did was point out that the language we use can sometimes “lead to bad feelings.” Anyone could read that and continue to use whatever language they like - as Bill did. I have no bad feelings toward Bill - I actually like the guy! Anyway, as it is perfectly reasonable for Bill to say Whitney's use of black is horrendous, it is equally reasonable for Eugene to express his personal feelings and say; “I don’t think we should use terms like sh---y, or horrendous in these discussions.” | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Ooops--I'll have to repost: George and Eugene, if one thinks Whitney's use of black is horrendous, it is perfectly reasonable for him to say so. You have no right to say he shouldn't. As far as the expletive s---y goes it might be out of place and crass here, however, it was an isolated use. It's not like Bill curses here. He was making a point. Let him make it without facing your censorship. We can use words like "amazing" and "beautiful" to describe what we like. Why hamstring others who want to use equally powerful words to describe what they dislike. I abhor censorship or this sort and think you are both woefully out of line. I am also amazed that when Bill said he knows "A lot of s___y oil painters [who] use black," SX and a few others said that he was saying "If you use black you are _____watercolorist." This is the real cause of this big tiff but I haven't seen any of you fess up. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
George and Eugene, if one thinks Whitney's use of black is horrendous, it is perfectly reasonable for him to say so. You have no right to say he shouldn't. As far as the expletive s---y goes it might be out of place and crass here, however, it was an isolated use. It's not like Bill curses here. He was making a point. Let him make it with efforts at censorship. We can use words like amazing and beautiful to describe what we like. Why hamstring others who want to use equally powerful words to describe what they dislike. I abhor censorship or this sort and think you are both woefully out of line. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Fascinating!! 1. Eugene said; “I don’t think we should use terms like sh---y, or horrendous in these discussions” (a fair statement) and then said, “I’m not going off in a huff”. 2. Bill said he was leaving, because this was not his “crowd” and added, “I'm not angry.” Now people are talking about other people getting “angry.” I reread all the posts and I don’t see any anger, unless perhaps the people who are talking about anger are expressing their own anger. | ||
Anonymous one Unregistered guest |
I agree with Eugene. | ||
Jay Unregistered guest |
I'm with Eric on this'n - "...absolutely amazed that somebody would get angry or sensitive about the subject of black or white paint." I /think/ all I said was "I was taught that they just aren't used." (not saying anyone took offense by it *LOL*) but - who's to say Teacher was right! Right? What I say is, use it or don't use it as you wish, we all have the God-given right of free will. And if you want to 'hang it', do so, and others can form their like or dislike of it based on their own preferences - just as they do for all displayed art. Methinks this controversy has become not about black & white, but over semantics & interpretation. + + + + + + + Eugene - Sorry, didn't mean to make it sound like I's 'accusing' you of anything. I like Marie's use of the term 'reads'....so let me just say whatever the shading is, 'reads' as blacks. I actually presumed you didn't use black - I was asking how you made what 'reads as' the blacks, as in darks, or deeper shading. 'Least, I thought I was! <G> Tiptoe-ing thru the Tulies...  /Jay | ||
Eric Unregistered guest |
I used to never understand why Robert got so angry and left in a huff, and I don't understand why some get angry about Bill's comments. It takes a lot to offend me. I'm absolutely amazed that somebody would get angry or sensitive about the subject of black or white paint. I participate in this forum to talk watercolor, something I rarely get to do in my personal life. I like learning and sharing information. I even enjoy the arguments and disagreements here. Okay, so Bill has strong opinions...So what? Different opinions, that's what makes it interesting. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Hi Terry-- I really appreciate your efforts at being a peacemaker ("Blessed are the peacemakers"). I want to point out what I think about all of this-- Everyone seems to be disagreeing with Bill for asserting that Black doesn't belong in a palette and moreover for his insult of artist who do. When I reread his posts, this is not, to my understanding what he was saying. 1. He starts out by saying: "Nothing wrong with charicsuro effects and these can only be obtained by going toward black, which I do with sepia (warm) and indigo (cool). " He begins by saying he uses black (in the form of sepia and indigo which contain a large dose of it). In fact his first words are "nothing wrong with ..." 2. He then gives advice "However, I do think all but the most experienced artists should shy away from it because it can be misused. I think one should learn how to live without it before one considers using it." Carefully read and reread these words until you get it. They are the core of his opinion. 3. He later says what seems to be the heart of the controversy: "One more think about your statement--most oil painters use black. I take exception. Most +good+ oil pointers I personally know don't use it (or use it only in special circumstances). First he was correcting a generalization by SZ that most OIL painters use black. Know that this is qualified by the phrase "THAT I PERSONALLY KNOW>" Isn;t this a factual statement since he knows who he knows and what they use in their palettes? He oas on to add One more think about your statement--most oil painters use black. I take exception. Most +good+ oil pointers I personally know don't use it (or use it only in special circumstances)." A lot of sh---y oil painters use it." Comments on this were universally taking his words to have been "You are a sh--y artist if you use black." That is not what he said as far as I can tell. He is saying he has noticed that a lot of Sh--y painters happen to use black NOT that if you use black you are a sh--y painter. There is a world of difference. 4. Finally he said the use of black by Edgar Whitney was horrendous and was immediately called for criticizing Whitney. Is Whitney some sort of Allah one can't criticize. Such restrictions on free speech are downright scary. So what if he poked your sacred cow, I wish I could post some of Whitney's paintings using black so we could actually see for ourselves if he is right. Again, this is not about whether or not black belongs in a palette, but about gross misreading and misrepresentation of someone we may disagree with. | ||
Terry Intermediate Member Username: Terry Post Number: 53 Registered: 8-2006 |
We have reached another "impasse" on the discussion forum. Every couple of months, normally after much discussion, debate and sharing, something happens that will offend. I have been watching this board for almost eight years and it never seems to fail. I think of the New York Times and their "All the news that's fit to print" sub-title. I think of all the controversy that the guy over at handprint stirs up when he goes into burning watercolor paper and shifting through the ashes to come to some kind of conclusion about which paper is "better". Somewhere along the line, he lost me. I remember as a college student (many moons ago) trying to get McDonald's Restaurant to hang local art in their establishments. They declined and I stopped eating there for almost ten years. Guess what...they stayed in business even without my business. Does it matter to me whether or not you are a "Watercolor Purist". Not at all. What matters to me is the journey and the art that is produced during the ride. I have been so close to a real VanGogh that the guard told me to move back or he'd see me out the front door. I just wanted to see the textures and the delicate layers of paint that just don't show up in the prints we normally see. I remember also, taking a friend to a violin concert by Mark O'Connor. The guy was so good my friend said he'd never play his instrument again. Me...I was so excited by Mark's playing that I went home and got mine out and I am so far from "prime time" playing you'd think I was crazy. All that to say: There is a place for all of you...those that use the white of their paper and those that use black– which I guess in the color spectrum is really the absence of any color. But that is another thread, for another time. Happy New Year's | ||
Marie Advanced Member Username: Marie Post Number: 154 Registered: 8-2006 |
I simply can't get that worked up over black one way or the other. I don't love it; I don't hate it. Same goes for white. I think some of the issue depends on whether one leans toward color or value. Black will work better for a value painter, not so well for a colorist. When I think about what creates a successful painting --- about all the issues with design and drawing and sensitive observation and imagination --- whether the painting contains contains black just doesn't make my list. | ||
Whitewatercolor Intermediate Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 99 Registered: 10-2006 |
Bill: I hope you check just once. I know exactly how you feel. Sometimes I feel like I'm part of a flock of chickens looking to see who we are going to make the brunt of anything we disagree with. I am actually pretty surprised here about all this discussion of using black and white in watercolor. I have been painting watercolor since I was seventeen years old--which makes it almost 40 years now--and I have never had it come up in a class as something you use. I have a large collection of watercolor and other art books and no book I've collected or read advocates the use of black or white in transparent watercolor. Maybe it's just a west coast bias, but I definitely understand where you are coming from. I wish you wouldn't back out of the discussion here. Your input is valuable to me...and I'm sure others who are watching this thread but don't want to express an opinion that may later be shown as a minority on this thread. Obviously this is a big country and painting may evolve something like different dialects. Your painting skills speak for themselves. I hope you cool off and reconsider. You have a lot to offer and I would be disappointed not to have access to your knowledge and experience. | ||
Bill Unregistered guest |
Very Interesting-- I am and have been calm. Let me reiterrate my considered opinion based upon personal reaction and careful examination of his book--Edgar Whitney's use of black is horrendous. Most of the sh--y artists I have encountered use black to mix. Most of the very good one's don't. There are some notable exceptions however. "Sh--y is a cetltic expression and hits the nail on the head, BTW. I am not trying to provoke anyone and am am truly amazed that I can't express my opinion without others getting riled up. Perhaps "sh--y" is offensive to some (It also was implied not stated and was used rhetorically)and so I withdraw it. I also withdraw in general. Happy painting. So, if you ever find yourself wondering "where's Bill" just think back. I won't check this board again for followup responses so don't bother on my account. I'm not angry, not fed up, just discovering that this is not my crowd. Bye. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Eugene is right, what causes the occasional riff on this page is the language used, not the ideas expressed. With the use of black - it’s really a matter of personal taste; it’s not about what is correct or incorrect in watercolor painting. To illustrate this point - when Whitewatercolor said; “It has been my experience that I can get brighter, more luminous paintings by not using black or white”, she correctly expressed it as her personal experience and personal preference, not as a belief that watercolor artists who use black and white are wrong to do so. I understand that no one here has actually said they believe watercolor artists who use black and white are wrong to do so, but reading many of the posts on this thread one could get the idea that some posters truly believe watercolor artists who use black and white are wrong to do so. This type of misunderstanding can lead to bad feelings. While I’m on this issue of personal preferences about the use of black and white in watercolor, let me add this story into the mix. I have many of my watercolors hanging on the walls of my house, only one of these paintings has white paint mixed into it. All of the other paintings have no black or white watercolor in them. Friends and family tell me they think the painting with the white is the best painting. I think many of us who love watercolor tend to like the faint and subtle effects of watercolor (what we call transparency) and see black and white as interfering with the lightness and delicate beauty of the watercolor. Whereas many others seem to prefer the solid and substantial objectivity the black and white pigments add to the watercolor painting. Agree/disagree | ||
Eugene Advanced Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 152 Registered: 8-2006 |
TIME OUT. Before this turns into something bitter, I’m taking sometime out. I don’t think we should use terms like sh---y, or horrendous in these discussions. We’ve gone too far. This should be an exchange of ideas, not a constant debate. So, I’ll pass for a while. I’ll keep reading, but offer no post to the Watercolor topics, until things calm down a bit. I’m not going off in a huff, as dear old Robert used to. I’m just tired of all this quibbling. | ||
Eric Unregistered guest |
Bill, I know you only criticized Whitney for his use of black, but I have to admit that the "Emperor has no clothes" comment made me wonder if you didn't think highly of him overall also. Yes, you're right, there are some paintings where I'm scratching my head wondering why he applied all that black. | ||
Eugene Advanced Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 151 Registered: 8-2006 |
Jay, I did't use any black in the "sleepy"bookmark. I think the darks were made mostly with mixes of burnt sienna and ultramarine deep. I seldom use black unless I need the darkest dark possible. Perhaps I used a little black in the boy's pants. I can't remember. | ||
Bill Unregistered guest |
Eugene and all--I didn't say Whitney was a fool, a bad teacher, not a genius--please read what I said--I said his use of black is horrendous. If you take a look at the photos of his work in his book and come away with an impression that his work in which he emplys black (quite a bit) is clean and non muddy, I'd like to hear about that. | ||
Jay Unregistered guest |
Eugene - in your 'sleepy' bookmark print, I like your use of blacks in the shading of the main tree trunk up top under the leaves - it also serves as an 'eyestop' from going out in that direction...and as well, for the nice touch of shading underneath that limb going off to the right, and how it gradates to a transparency that reveals the 'woody' brown undertone on the trunk. And even, for that matter, on the root where it subtly does all these things. Hope you don't mind my asking, but what did you use for those blacks? [Another excellent work, BTW! ~8) ] /Jay | ||
Marie Advanced Member Username: Marie Post Number: 152 Registered: 8-2006 |
And one more thing ... I recall that John Preston, a gentleman who used to post here frequently, liked to use white in his watercolors. He said there were some colors he could get only by adding white. He does good work. You can see some examples at http://www.gallery51east.com/pastshows/JohnPreston/JohnPreston-images.html | ||
Marie Advanced Member Username: Marie Post Number: 151 Registered: 8-2006 |
I just went to handprint's list of artists' palettes at http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/paletfs.html, and took a look at how many painters use black or some variant such as paynes gray, sepia, or neutral tint. He lists the palettes of 13 contemporary artists (I'm excluding the palettes he makes up as examples). Seven of the artists use black and six don't. All except one have at least one combination of pigments that will make a good black (crimson/thalo green, burnt umber/ultramarine, or black itself). So, do what works for you. | ||
Whitewatercolor Intermediate Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 98 Registered: 10-2006 |
One winter I got in the dumps with watercolor and bought myself some oil supplies. Before I started I did as much reading as I could and decided to try painting oils without black or white. I had never painted oil before and never watched anyone else paint with oils. If I did use white it was only a tiny bit at the end for highlight. I painted 12 paintings and sold them all. I then got excited again about watercolor and didn't go back to oil. Except--I took a class from a very accomplished oil painter. The class was plein air. I started out in watercolor but then decided to switch to oil. He used black and white so I decided to try them also. The paintings I did in that class were very dull and bland compared to the paintings I did on my own. I could mix any color, but the minute I put black or white in the mix, it became dull and opaque. It has been my experience that I can get brighter, more luminous paintings by not using black or white. It took a while to learn to get my darks dark and keep my lights light, but I don't have trouble getting transparent colors. I was surprised how transparent oil can be. Maybe it's me, but the results are clearly different when I use black and white. | ||
Eugene Advanced Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 150 Registered: 8-2006 |
Bill, I hate to hear you talk like that about Whitney, who has influenced many of our best painters. Certainly you have every right to your opinion, but I, and others, have the right not to share it. I'm not a great fan of his work, but he was, IMHO, a great teacher. | ||
Bill Unregistered guest |
I love the saying:The exception proves the rule," because in this case the examples one can dig up of consistent users of black basically are exceptions to a very broad rule. One positive I can think of is Johna Yardley who uses a lot of sepia (which these days is umber plus black) You are citing very early painters with very few options. Their work by todays standards would be seen as arguments against using black because of the dullness imparted. One more contemporay one is Edgar Whitney and his paintings often look as if black tar were smeared into the otherwise clean colors. Hideous stuff, absolutely hideous. This is strictly my opinion, not a statement of fact. (Yes, the Emperor has no clothes!) | ||
SZ Unregistered guest |
It is possible that all I can find, not being home, are references online and mostly English landscape watercolourists. Hilder also uses black: http://www.francis-iles.com/html/hilder.htm | ||
SZ Unregistered guest |
Whitewater, don't know who a master would be, but all the early English watercolourists used black, including Sargent, Turner, etc. And modern watercolourists, like Arnold Lowrey and Lucy Willis have talked about the use of black, while Ms. Willis has it on her palette. Schink talks about the use of black it in one or both of his books <http://www.christopherschink.com/books.html> and I think Lucy Willis' palette is listed in one of her books as well. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Interesting discussion! I don’t personally use black any longer, but see no problem with someone using black if they want to. Whitewatercolor asked; “Could anyone on this list provide a quote from a watercolor master that defines the art of painting transparent watercolor as including those substances?” One of the all time greatest plein air watercolor painters, Thomas Collier used a palette that consisted of 12 paints; genuine gamboge, yellow ochre, raw sienna, burnt sienna, light red, indian red, crimson lake, ultramarine blue, cobalt blue, prussian blue, indigo and lamp black. He recommended these colors to his students. A list of “traditional watercolor materials” (that might exclude black for example) has been rejected (both today and historically) by many of the best watercolor artists. | ||
Garydoc Intermediate Member Username: Garydoc Post Number: 67 Registered: 8-2006 |
Jay, you've hit the nail on the head with that comment. I too resent the inclusion of a black & white pan or tube in a set, unless its a child's set. Adult sets and sets of "professional grade" and "student grade" should never include those, since the pro and the serious student should learn not to lean on black and white from the beginning. (Later on ALL rules are meant to be broken!) Gary | ||
Jay Unregistered guest |
This first part doesn't really pertain to the gist of the asked question, but have you ever noticed that in every -and I do mean EVERY- 'set' of watercolor paints, the manufacturer always includes a tube or pan of black? And a white too, for that matter. In a 6-color set, that effectively as far as I'm concerned means you're only getting a 4-color set for your money. I steadfastly refuse to buy any sets with them, more on a matter of principle than practicality - I was taught they just aren't used. I think it is kinda 'crooked' of the paint mfrs to do that, like they're preying on the inexperience (read, ignorance) of beginners...and I abhor the practice. I also wonder to what degree its use might stem from beginners getting into the habit 'because it's there'. If that's the case, the mfrs are fomenting bad practices from the git-go, choosing profit over effective service, the way I see it. Anyway, I'd have to say that is my #1 axe to grind as far as w/c producers - and what aggravates me even more is, it's done across the gamut no matter their reputation for quality products. About the only time you won't see b&w's are in 'custom' sets sold by dealers, usu. customized after some 'big name' artist's specs, or in specialty sets eg 'Springtime' or 'Seascape' sets -- which I mention only so the point doesn't come as a counterstatement. That said, I do have & use (infrequently) Burnt Umber, and occasionally Neutral Tint (W&N) when I want to 'force' a graying. I'm kinda surprised the latter hasn't been mentioned in this thread - and would like to hear some thoughts on it, for my education. /Jay | ||
SZ Unregistered guest |
Eugene, thanks for sharing "greener pastures" with or without black! I follow you on WC as well as here so I remember you mentioning how old you are to June, I believe. And getting older ain't so bad, most days! Here's to a happy new year to all! | ||
Whitewatercolor Intermediate Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 95 Registered: 10-2006 |
Eugene--That is a fabulous painting--black or no black. It gives me great encouragement to read that the best may be still to come.... Thank you for sharing your experiences with us. Bonnie | ||
Marie Advanced Member Username: Marie Post Number: 148 Registered: 8-2006 |
Happy Holidays to all. I'm just getting back to my computer. I have never had a problem with black, but I don't use it every day. I do, however, almost alway have some kind of warm, dark pigment on my palette -- black, burnt umber, sepia, or perylene maroon. Sometimes I have trouble relying on blues and greens alone to get really dark *and* warm. I *love* the combination of burnt sienna and ultramarine blue, but I find that it can often turn cool before I get it as dark as I want. The danger with black for beginners, I think, is the habit of using black *every* time you want to neutralize a pigment or make a dark. It's good to learn that there are other ways to get darks and neutrals. I would not recommend black for a beginner's palette. | ||
Eugene Advanced Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 146 Registered: 8-2006 |
SZ said she’s almost as old as Eugene.(nobody’s that old) That made me think. I realize I did my best work between the ages of 62 and 78. I painted a lot when I was young, but after I married I was busy earning a living and raising a family. And it wasn’t until I retired that I began painting seriously again Probably reached my peak at 75. I can still paint but not as well. When you’re younger you take more risks. You may have failures, but there’s always that risk that works and produces something special. I sometimes look at my early work and wonder how I had the nerve to try it. I realize that the work that I’m doing today, though not bad, has lost some of the excitement. That doesn’t mean I’ll stop painting. They’ll most likely cremate me with brushes in hand. Some things that have helped me. 1. workshops-- I used to take 2 every year-- the stimulation and the fellowship of other students often helped me as much as the instructor. 2. art clubs, local and national.-- there’s nothing like the company of other artists to get you moving. 3. exhibits-- show your work as much as possible.-- helps you to see your own weaknesses. 4. teaching-- it forces you to organize your thoughts and work habits-- you learn more than your students. 5. enter competitions-- this makes you compare your work to others. Often, something I was pretty proud of didn’t look nearly so good when hanging next to a great one.--makes you try harder I wish I could show you some of my earlier work, but all of it is on slides and I don’t have a scanner. Maybe I can find someone to convert them. Well, here’s one done at about 78-- not my best, but I don’t think it’s too bad. (and just to stir things up-- I used black on the cows) sorry, but I couldn’t resist that. TO GREENER PASTURES, about 14x28  | ||
Bill Unregistered guest |
Interesting idea about restrictive thinking. I often feel the same way. However, I am also aware that self imposed limitations often allow me to function. Restrictions in and of themselves are not good or bad, it all depends on how and why they are used. | ||
SZ Unregistered guest |
Bill, no need to trouble yourself. We have such different ways of trying to communicate. I hear you "loud and clear." I just have a totally different perspective than anyone's I've read here. I believe it is not necessary to think in terms of "should I, or shouldn't I use ....x or y, or in this case, black." I am no novice to art, am nearly as old as Eugene, and troubled by restrictive thinking, especially my own. Peace and happy holidays | ||
Whitewatercolor Intermediate Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 94 Registered: 10-2006 |
I was taught that traditional transparent watercolor, which I attempt to practice, is painting without the use of black, white or opaque substances. Could anyone on this list provide a quote from a watercolor master that defines the art of painting transparent watercolor as including those substances? There are all kinds of watermedia rules and techniques but I don't think that's what we're talking about here. From my first watercolor painting I decided that I was working toward a goal of creating paintings that made me happy by following the traditional rules. I knew I could possibly get quicker results by using the same materials, painting the same subjects, etc., but my goal is to paint anything I can see with traditional watercolor materials, creating form, distance, light, and emotion. So if you want to use, black, white, gouche, etc., go ahead, just know that some, and possibly many, won't consider it traditional transparent watercolor. Why do they make it? Because people buy it. It doen't make it part of the quest. I stand to be corrected and I am willing to adjust my position. I need to hear it from as master. | ||
Eric Unregistered guest |
I agree with you Bill about the need for artists to learn about mixing complementary colors to get blacks and grays. There's a lot to learn and you miss a lot of that by simply adding black to any color to gray it down. I mentioned earlier about mixing aliz. crim. and phthalo green compared to aliz. crim. and ivory black and that they looked the same. I thought about it later and have to concede that mixing ultra. blue and burnt sienna would look much different than mixing either of these with black because of the particles in the blue and sienna that separate and settle into the paper and look attractive. Aliz. crimson and phthalo green are dyes and don't have that effect with the particles. | ||
Bill Unregistered guest |
SZ-- I love the paintings you are posting. However, I must continue to ask what is your point? I have clearly repeated several times that skilled artists use black successfully. I have also stated that few that I know include it in their palettes. You can always find exceptions . Can you not see that nothing I am saying contradicticts your points???????????? | ||
Bill Unregistered guest |
Eugene-- No problem. I understand fully that one can spout off all sorts of opinions and not know what one is actually talking about. It is a problem that goes far beyond the art world, of course. However, if I say things that make sense and are reasonable, the sense and reason in them should be sufficient to establish their validity, no matter what the level of artistic accomplishment. What I think is amusing, and anyone reading this can verify itis I HAVE SAID NOTHING CONTROVERSIAL IN THE LEAST!!!! In fact almost everyone knows black is an ill advised addition to a palette for students and beginners. This almost universally taught in schools and art books. It is common knowledge and not at all some odd position it seems to be taken as here!!! | ||
Bill Unregistered guest |
SZ-- You misquoted me and in so doing misunderstood my whole point. You also misunderstood my tone. No insult intended.Let me say it another way--most teachers instruct students not to incorporate black in their palettes. I think that's a good idea since it teaches them to not use it as a less desirable crutch in color mixing. Highly skilled artists can use it with aplomb. | ||
Eugene Advanced Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 145 Registered: 8-2006 |
Sorry, Bill. Forgot about the waterfall | ||
Raliegh Intermediate Member Username: Raliegh Post Number: 61 Registered: 8-2006 |
Eugene, Bill posted the terrific waterfall on 12/16 Open crit. Bill, why don't you post some of your technique in running water and mist? | ||
Anonymous one Unregistered guest |
Wow! Why limit yourself in any way? Happy new year! |
