| Author | Message | ||
  Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 135 Registered: 8-2006 |
Kisha, I was thinking again about your friends who "cannot draw." Maybe there is a tactful way to encourage them to get a little more help. Here's a good place to refer them: http://www.graphicsteacher.com/sketching.html | ||
Valerie_norberry Junior Member Username: Valerie_norberry Post Number: 14 Registered: 10-2006 |
Is there an Acrylic society? Is it prestigious? Where are they located? Do you people have a hard time regarding a work done in colored pencil as a "painting". Seems to me that should be a "rendering" or "drawing". | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Kisha, I didn’t see anything wrong with your wording. With me, please feel free to say anything you like, in any way you like. I will always think highly of you. Jack, I don’t use acrylics in my watercolors. I never have! I only mentioned it because I know others use acrylics in their watercolors. As for why acrylics “should” come under the heading of watercolor. I’ve never said they should. All I have ever tried to say is – that’s the way things are. It seems I have caused some confusion. Perhaps this will clear things up. Have you ever wondered why we have watercolor societies? It’s because over two hundred years ago the oil painter’s society was mistreating the watercolor painters. The watercolor painters didn’t like it, so they formed their own society. What we have today is the product of history. History is full of division. I do understand that others, for reasons that are their own, feel comfortable with division, and look to increase it. I’ve made myself comfortable with the division history has given me, but I don’t look to increase it. | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 130 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, I still don't know why you want to use acrylics in your watercolors, or feel you need to (see my last post). Ron Ranson says of Ed Wesson: "He couldn't, therefore, for the life of him, understand why acrylics should come under the heading of watercolor." He quotes Ed Wesson as saying: "Someone may say they are water-based, but so is a pile of bricks, so why shouldn't the bricks at the Tate be hung with the watercolors?" (The Art of Edward Wesson by Ron Ranson, p. 13) | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
George--Like i said-- I am amused by the twist and turns the discussion takes because of your incisive queries. When I said i would refuse to answer further questions so as not fuel your inquiries, I was being facetious but failed to put a smiley face on, so here's the smiley face:  . No apologies--I like the way your brain works. It keeps the rest of us on our toes and after rereading my former post, I need to say things in a different way. It is good that the twists and turns your questions take us through happen because otherwise the discussion would become linear and stagnant. Sorry for the wording before--I need to be more careful since this isn;t face to face and so auditory and facial cues are missing. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Jack, I don’t think its apples to apples. I never meant to suggest that. Concerning the thickness of acrylic paint, there are many degrees of thickness that do not show ridges. Eugene, thank you! Your insight has been very helpful to me. Your post helped me to complete my mental picture of this issue. Thank you again! Kisha, you’re right, my mind does work that way. Sometimes it is useful, but most of the time it causes me more frustration than it causes others. My apologies! | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
George-- I am amused by your ability to dissect the nuances of any statement down to the subatomic particles. I also think a lot of us spend a lot of time explaining our wording to the point that sometimes the original idea and intent is lost or subverted. This is how I honestly feel and if you ask me to further explain, I will simply ignore the request. | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 207 Registered: 8-2006 |
The Philadelphia Water Color Society (Club) is one of the oldest w/c clubs in the USA. J.S.Sargent was one of the early members When I first belonged (about 55 years ago) it was strictly transparent w/c. Later I gave up membership because I was no longer actively entering shows. After I retired I again exhibited and got signature membership. Somewhere in between the rules were changed. A few years ago the name was changed from “CLUB” to “SOCIETY”. to upgrade the name. (but they still spell watercolor as two words) This move was pushed by Jeanne Dobie. I didn’t agree with that change because of the history of the club and because it was a little different from all those other societies. I have attended a few of their annual meetings, but decisions seem to be made mostly by the board, not the membership. | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 128 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, I wanted to respond to your last words to me: "Jack, if the argument is; shows should be restricted to gum-based watercolors because the acrylic synthetic binder is not traditional gum. Then why not the argument; shows should be restricted to natural pigment watercolors because the modern synthetic industrial pigments are not traditional. Or the argument; shows should be restricted to paintings created with natural hair brushes because the modern synthetic hair brushes are not traditional. Or the argument; shows should be restricted to paintings created with natural papers because the modern synthetic papers are not traditional." I am all for the improvements in the medium of true watercolor you mention, as well as the instruments with which they are applied. However, acrylic is another medium all together. At that point, we move from improvements to radical change and begin comparing apples to oranges, instead of apples to apples. Another thing I can't understand is why you want to use acrylics in the way you suggest -- greatly watered down so that transparency is maintained. That loses the advantage of greater chroma. Why not just use watercolor and leave off the acrylics? Most of the supposed watercolors done with acrylics still seem to me to be done in order to make corrections easier, or to achieve greater chroma or intensity in the hues. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Bonnie, I don’t think a watercolor painter “should” have to go looking for another society. In Kisha’s group 40% of the paintings in a show are in the style of an oil painting, and she is no longer happy there. Why do you assume other kinds of artists “target watercolor societies to take over?” The members of a watercolor society vote on the rules and regulations. As for it being no small problem. I’m not clear on what you are objecting to. Do you not believe in democracy? If a society wants to make a rule against paintings done in the style of an oil painting they vote on it and put it in the rules. As Marie has said many societies have done this. However, if a society wants to expand and allow paintings done in the style of an oil painting they will also vote. All I said was; it makes sense to then vote to change the society name too. Forgive me, but I don’t see how any of this will push watercolor aside or reduce respect by collectors. | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 168 Registered: 10-2006 |
Why should a watercolor painter have to go looking for another society? Why can't we have watercolor societies remain the venue of watercolors? It is a joke that support makes the painting and not the pigment. Why do general painters target watercolor societies to take over? Maybe that should be the question. I think enough of just the few people on this board have experienced it to determine that it is not a small problem. Not only do they paint acrylic, they then call themselves watercolor artists. I know a woman who had a show in our area with a big sign saying it was a watercolor show. Out of approx. 20 paintings two small paintings had any watercolor at all. The more accepting we are of this, the further watercolor will be pushed aside as a medium and the less respect it will have to collectors. Kisha, I admire your spirit! | ||
George Unregistered guest |
I understand Kisha! It’s not a watercolor society any more. Eugene’s home city society is not a watercolor society anymore as well. What they need to do is change the name so as to not mislead new members. But, I don’t see this as a trend. As Marie showed with her research, many watercolor societies stand firm on what is allowed. You don't want to belong to a general painters society. If that's your wish - I support you. Is there a true watercolor society near you that you can join? Where do you live? | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
So opaque acrylic on paper will qualify for most shows in the country but transparent watercolor on canvas won't!!!!!!!Go figure! | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
George--you are wanting facts to do your analysis, I watched enough star trek to value the Mr. Spock Vulcan approach to issues, but "facts aside" Imagine going downtown to see the watercolor show in a bid venue and seeing that the 30 paintings juried into the show only 2 were transparent watercolor. This also happened last summer. The fact is that since watercolor is so difficult in comparison to acrylics (whether you agree with this statement or not, i stand by it despite your shred analysis because when the brush hits the paper, watercolor is harder to do a good work in than acrylics,) most people produce show quality work in acrylic even if they also dabble in watercolor. I find this frustrating because the transparent watercolor paintings get eliminated because the acrylics are often more show worthy than would be a watercolor by the same artist (in my club). There is nothing you can understand further about this. Nothing i can write that would make it clearer. So please let's drop it. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
George-- I was referring to "get to the facts of the issue." Question 1. What percentage of the paintings in your shows were in the style of an oil painting? Please include only those paintings that contained visible ridges in the paint layer. A: About 40% Q.2. What percentage of the paintings that won awards in the shows were in the style of an oil painting? Please include only those paintings that contained visible ridges in the paint layer. A; As you put it only the best of show and second and third place in the last show. However, Acrylics used opaquely along with collage materials etc --10 out of 12 awards. Judge was an abstract acrylic painter. Some transparent watercolorists like me are protesting by not renewing membership. However, that leaves us in a bind since the workshops and shows are through this group. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Bonnie, I’ve never had a problem with the idea that transparency is important to watercolor. In fact, one of the first statements I made (near the bottom of this thread) was; “Watercolor technique is, and always has been, a sliding scale between opacity and transparency.” Those “dead areas” you mention are not always the result of using some other medium. You can get dead areas by using transparent watercolor too. Eugene, the prospectus makes the Philadelphia Watercolor Society look like a “works on paper” society (drawings, hand pulled prints, and pastels), not a watercolor society. Do you go to their meetings? Have they ever talked about changing the society’s name? | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 206 Registered: 8-2006 |
corrections--- collage elements | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 205 Registered: 8-2006 |
Eligibility from latest PWS prospectus------ --limited to watrmedia on paper, original work, executed independently, completed in the last three years. Computer art and collage not acceptable from latest Philadelphia Watecolor Society prospectus for their 107th exhibition of works on paper----------- watermedia, drawings, hand pulled prints, and pastels are acceptable. All works must be on or of paper (includng coage elements). No oils,photographic,digital,electronic processes or computer art wwill be accepted. Co;age elementsmay not include obvious commercial images or designs. I can’t understand why this old watercolor club admits almost anything on paper | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 167 Registered: 10-2006 |
There you go George. That is exactly the restriction that the transparent watercolor society has--transparency. Transparency is the key to watercolor. They suggest it may be impossible to get transparency with carbon black. They don't exclude it. If you think you can get it to be transparent, go for it. Use whatever you want to use, if the painting doesn't have those dead areas left by some mediums, it is eligible. In my opinion, the reason why this society had to make itself so clear to preserve watercolor is because once you open the gate that "allows" other media, the committee is always challenged. Every show is a struggle and the rules are always pushed. The last time I walked into a show of the society closest to me (I won't name names) I was appalled. It was hung in a shopping mall where it may be the first and/or only exposure to original watercolor for a lot of the people who are viewing it. Second, over half of the show (maybe three-quarters)was acrylic. A reasonable person would not walk away from that show with an understanding of what watercolor even looks like. It hit me square in the face. I'd never really contemplated the issue until then, but now I feel it is time that some lines were drawn with allowing other mediums to be shown as watercolor. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Marie, I think your society may be more typical than you think (in the numbers). But, I could be wrong. Jack, if the argument is; shows should be restricted to gum-based watercolors because the acrylic synthetic binder is not traditional gum. Then why not the argument; shows should be restricted to natural pigment watercolors because the modern synthetic industrial pigments are not traditional. Or the argument; shows should be restricted to paintings created with natural hair brushes because the modern synthetic hair brushes are not traditional. Or the argument; shows should be restricted to paintings created with natural papers because the modern synthetic papers are not traditional. The point is; a lot of modern synthetic improvements have been made to the art of watercolor painting. The only restriction should be; if it doesn’t look like a watercolor (looks like an Oil painting) it’s not a watercolor. Marie, you’re right, sometimes it can be very difficult to tell the difference between thin acrylic and traditional watercolor. For example, while I was at the TWSA website I looked at the 2005 show on line. The rules state - “unacceptable entries: Paintings created with the use of white paint, acrylic, gouache, ink, pastel, metallic/iridescent paint, collage or surface constructions; the use of gesso, priming, embossing or varnishing as well as Yupo or any other type of alternative surface.” I’ve seen the work of some of those artists at other shows and I’m 90% sure one or two of them use acrylic mixed in with the transparent watercolor. I don’t know if their TWSA entry had acrylic in it, but I would not be surprised if it did. There are lots of pranksters in the world. | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 126 Registered: 8-2006 |
Marie, That is certainly true, as George has pointed out in many previous posts. However, you would hope that reputable artists would be willing to work on the honor system! | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 261 Registered: 8-2006 |
Sometimes it can be difficult to tell the difference between thin acrylic and traditional watercolor. | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 122 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, It seems to me that the question should not be whether or not paintings are done impasto, with visible ridges in the painting, but whether or not the medium itself, however applied, should be included with gum-based watercolors. If the show is titled "watermedia," then anything that it watersoluable should be acceptable. If it says "watercolor" (implying traditional gum watercolor), I don't think acrylics are appropriate, no matter how delicately applied. Just my own opinion -- not how it necessarily should be or must be. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 259 Registered: 8-2006 |
Of course, I'm from one of the state societies that requires aqueous application of paint, so the impasto stuff doesn't tend to be a big issue for us. However, I'm fairly active in the organization and so I can provide some statistics. We usually review the slides before they go to the judge and eliminate anything that doesn't meet the administrative criteria (size, date, or exhibited in a previous show). At the same time, we flag anything that we think violates the rules about paint application (aqueous manner or collage). It's interesting that we never have much debate about whether a particular piece is out of bounds --- there will be a unison chorus of "non-aqueous" as soon as the slide comes up. We give the judge a copy of the rules, tell him/her which ones we think violate the rules, but then defer to the judge on the final decision. In our show last spring we had 400+ entries of which 75 were accepted. We flagged 15 as "opaque/non-aqueous." The judge didn't take any of them. There was one piece accepted into the show that I would have considered heavy impasto; it wasn't obvious from the slide. We kept it in the show; it was actually a very well done piece. In the fall show, the judge took a liberal definition of 'aqueous' and accepted some impasto pieces. There were 49 pieces in the show, and I considered 6 of them be outside the aqueous requirement. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Kisha, sorry, I didn't see your 8:15 post. But answers to the two additional questions would helpful to me. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Hi Kisha, I never used the phase; “getting to the bottom.” What I said was; “help me get my mind around this issue.” If that is tactless it was not my intent. It would be helpful to me if you could answer these questions too please; 1. What percentage of the paintings in your shows were in the style of an oil painting? Please include only those paintings that contained visible ridges in the paint layer. 2. What percentage of the paintings that won awards in the shows were in the style of an oil painting? Please include only those paintings that contained visible ridges in the paint layer. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Please disregard the last comment George. I needed to have been more clear from the start. Apologies. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Marie, granted I don’t know much about the American Transparent Watercolor Society, but I really don’t think it was formed as a reaction to AWS and NWS allowing impasto work. First of all, I can’t find any evidence that AWS and NWS does allow impasto work. Also, going by the information on the American Transparent Watercolor Society web page they seem more upset about anything “modern” than about impasto work (they take a hard slam at what they call “Modern technology”, but mention nothing about impasto work). Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
200 members -- regional. XXXXXX Watercolor Society. George, obviously it is simply a matter of tactless phrasing, but getting to the bottom of something that I have been forthcoming and clear enough about seems rather prosecutorial in stance. I know you don't intend that so I thought i would point it out for your edification. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Kisha, I have some additional specific questions for you. Is your club a National level club, a state level club, a city wide club or a neighborhood club? How many members does it have? Is the word watercolor included in the title of the club? Sorry about the extra specifics, but I think this is the only way we are going to get to the facts of this issue. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
I’m having a real problem believing this is true. I’m not suggesting anyone is not telling the truth, but my mind keeps telling me something isn’t right here. Therefore, to help me get my mind around this issue I’ve come up with two very specific questions. Anyone who has been to a WATERCOLOR show that included paintings in the style of an oil painting please answer these two questions; 1. What percentage of the paintings in the show were in the style of an oil painting? Please include only those paintings that contained visible ridges in the paint layer. 2. What percentage of the paintings that won awards in the show were in the style of an oil painting? Please include only those paintings that contained visible ridges in the paint layer. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 256 Registered: 8-2006 |
I couldn't find an AWS prospectus last night, but I think they *do* allow impasto work, although you don't see much of it in the pieces that get selected. I have always heard that the American Transparent Watercolor Society was a reaction to AWS and NWS allowing the impasto work. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Eugene, this is all new to me! How does your friend explain the heavy build up of paint on a watercolor painting? Are you saying she used this style you describe to become a signature member of AWS, PWS, or did she switch to this style after becoming signature member of AWS, PWS? | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Kisha, it seems to me that if the paintings allowed are not in the style of a watercolor (in an aqueous style) the sponsoring society is no longer a watercolor society by definition. Did they change the society name at the time of the vote? Is your society in the UK or the US? | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 204 Registered: 8-2006 |
My state w/c society (PA) I don't have a prospectus handy, but I have seen impasto in their shows. A friend of mine paints beautiful transparent figurative watercolors. Then she "vignettes" them with heavy white acrylic. So heavy it looks like it was put on with a palette knife. She doesn't use acrylic as correction. Frames under Glass or plexi. She's a signature member of AWS, PWS and many other societies. And is accepted in many, many shows. I am not saying this is right or wrong-- just stating a fact. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Impasto acrylic is certainly okay in my w/c society. I was told that if we excluded these artists the society would die on the vine. Ironically, the transparent watercolorists in our watercolor society are dying on the vine as a result. | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 110 Registered: 8-2006 |
I should have specified that the paper treatment that permits easier corrections for watercolor is an ACRYLIC varnish that is mineral spirit soluable -- it sinks into the paper and prevents watercolors from sinking in or staining the paper. It's a little tricky working with that kind of prepared paper -- you have to use very little water, or the paint beads up. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
That should be "rationale". | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Marie, if your random sampling is accurate then this thread has come full circle and returned to the topic of the original thread - Questioning Authority. The members of those societies should question the authority responsible for allowing acrylics (in the style of an oil painting) into watercolor shows to find out what the rational is, and then challenge that rational. Is anyone on this page a member of one of those watercolor societies? | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 253 Registered: 8-2006 |
I just did a random sampling of about 15 or so watercolor societies chosen at random, and they seem to be divided about equally between those who require "aqueous" application of paint and those that don't. I didn't write the results, but my impression is that the ones in the southeast (Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, etc.) seemed to be more restrictive ('aqueous') about application of paint than the ones in other parts of the country. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Marie, I’m not sure I understand why anyone would hang a heavy impasto/opaque painting under glass. Just the mental image of it is too strange for words. I’ve always assumed that all watercolor societies are like your society and requires the paint be applied "in an aqueous manner.” My personal experience is that your society and its rules are typical. You said you get the impression a lot of watercolor societies are becoming almost exclusively impasto/acrylic. What is it that gives you that impression? Have you seen paintings like that in other watercolor shows? What about the others in this group. Have you seen impasto/acrylic paintings in watercolor shows? If you have seen this, do you know what the rational of the society is for allowing such paintings? Eric, Eugene, Bonnie, are you guys saying your watercolor societies allow impasto/acrylic paintings in watercolor shows? If so, can you say something about why they do this? | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 252 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, that's close. Heavy impasto/opaque pieces are often accepted, but they usually have to be framed under glass or plexiglass. I can't find the rules for AWS, but the NWS requirement is simply "water based media on paper" that is framed behind plexiglass. It doesn't say a word about how thickly it's applied. My state watercolor society requires that the paint be applied "in an aqueous manner", which I think is reasonable. What is considered "aqueous" varies a bit depending on the judge, but for the most part I find it works reasonably well. I get the impression, though, that a lot of watercolor societies are becoming almost exclusively impasto/acrylic, which I think is wrong. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Marie, and Eric, WOW! We may have been talking about two different animals here. All of the watercolor shows I’ve seen the organizers made it clear that any acrylic paintings must be done in the style of a watercolor. But, you are suggesting that some watercolor societies allow acrylic paintings in the style of an oil painting into their shows (opaque and heavy impasto and not framed under glass). Is that correct? If that is correct, what’s the rational of the watercolor society in allowing this? | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 203 Registered: 8-2006 |
Marie, you're right! When acrylics are used as watercolor, it's OK to be in a w/c show, but when they are used as heavy impastos--like oils-- they should not be in competitions with w/c's | ||
Eric Unregistered guest |
Exactly, Marie. And that's what I said many, many posts ago. It's the opacity. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 251 Registered: 8-2006 |
The real reason some watercolor artists use acrylic paint isn’t because of the ability to make corrections (that’s been over emphasized on this thread), but rather because acrylic paint can produce brighter colors than watercolor paint. That’s the real issue about the un-level playing field that Marie mentioned. I don't agree. Now, I'm not a complete purist. I don't have any problem with anyone adding a reasonable amount white or black or bright acrylic or whatever to get what you want in a painting. Where I start having trouble with acrylics competing with traditional watercolor in watercolor shows is when acrylic paint is applied in such an opaque and heavy impasto fashion that it ceases to be watercolor. At some point it becomes a different beast. It reminds me of a quote from a supreme court justice in an obscenity ruling several decades ago: "I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it." (Not that I'm comparing watercolor or acrylic to obscenity :-) ) I'm sure others will disagree, and that's okay. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Marie, thanks for the clarification. To be honest, I too can understand (in part) the frustration some watercolorists feel when competing against acrylics. I think it is mostly the watercolor purist (who bans certain pigments and techniques) who feels this frustration over the fact that the playing field isn't quite level for him/her. Bonnie, I agree that watercolor is (when using certain techniques) a medium that is more difficult for the beginner to learn or to master than both oil and acrylic. As both Joe and Jack suggest, there are ways to lower that learning curve, but I know that’s not your interest. And, I think that’s fine. You’re right about watercolor being; “harder to get the values right because of the mixing and the fact that it dries lighter.” But, here’s an interesting fact you may not know; in acrylic paint it is harder to get the values right because of the fact that acrylic dries darker. In fact that annoying shift from wet to dry values is greater in acrylic than in watercolor. On the issue of transparency - My guess is you’ve seen lots of paintings you thought were watercolor that in truth had acrylic paint in them. Acrylic paint can be every bit as transparent as watercolor. If you put a layer of gum over the acrylic no one will be able to tell it’s acrylic. The real reason some watercolor artists use acrylic paint isn’t because of the ability to make corrections (that’s been over emphasized on this thread), but rather because acrylic paint can produce brighter colors than watercolor paint. That’s the real issue about the un-level playing field that Marie mentioned. I agree with you 100% when you say about watercolor: “it is like dancing with nature. That aspect of watercolor is what gives me such joy. I am no longer painting alone, I am working with the materials to bring something to life.” You are right on the mark Bonnie, but did you know that to do this in oil or acrylic paint is difficult. I just now went and pulled the Encyclopedia of Acrylic Techniques by Hazel Harrison off my bookshelf and found the following words concerning the wet on wet skill needed for the above mentioned use of materials to bring something to life. With acrylic; “it is slightly trickier than with traditional paints.” By the traditional materials I assume he means watercolor. In fact, I could imagine an acrylic artist misusing this fact as proof of a overarching statement that acrylic paint is more difficult to use than watercolor paint. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 249 Registered: 8-2006 |
By the way, I'm not personally bothered by competing against acrylics, but I do understand the frustration. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 248 Registered: 8-2006 |
George's quote: Therefore, if I understand correctly, the pure watercolorist is upset because the judge is perceived to be more interested the quality of the image than how hard the artist worked to create the image. That's not quite what I was getting at. The work should be judged by its quality. The frustration, I think, for pure watercolorists is that the playing field isn't quite level when competing against acrylics. This may be an extreme analogy, but I sometimes I compare it to a music competition where one person has the liberty of recording a performance, making corrections with some sort of audio editing tool , and then playing back the edited version that fixes all the mistakes while the other person has to do a live performance. | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 165 Registered: 10-2006 |
George, et. al., okay, I'll say it without waffling... I believe watercolor is a medium that is more difficult to learn or to master than both oil and acrylic. It is an opinion based on my experience. The learning curve is higher. There are additional tasks to learn. It is harder to get the values right because of the mixing and fact that it dries lighter. The pigments react with each other in different ways. The pigments react differently depending on the paper (or other surface) you are putting them on. You can paint your entire life and have very little knowledge about watercolor if you haven't experimented with all of the materials. Most of my time has been invested in watercolor. I bought some oil materials learned to use them from a book (with a couple hours of reading) and sold the 12 paintings I painted within days of displaying them. It took me years to be able to say what I want to say with watercolor and that knowledge transfers almost directly over to oil. It doesn't go the other way so easily--from oil to watercolor. Also, I am surprised to hear that some may have difficulty in spotting acrylic on a watercolor painting. To me it is like scratching the glass over a watercolor. The transparency is lost in a way you can't do with gum or honey based paints. As for lack of control--working with that is like dancing with nature. That aspect of watercolor is what gives me such joy. I am no longer painting alone, I am working with the materials to bring something to life. When someone else connects emotionally with the result, I feel a kinship with them that transcends the clutter of human language. I am away from the computer all day on Saturdays (selling art) and the discussions have moved on, but for what it's worth... Bonnie | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 106 Registered: 8-2006 |
In terms of the relative difficulty of the various watermedia, and watermedia as compared to true oils, I should have limited my remark to saying that it seems to me to be more difficult to correct mistakes or make changes in watercolor than in the other media. I know changes can be made, but they are not as easy to make. However, if the watercolorist is painting on a heavily varnished or gessoed surface, that difficulty goes away. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Joe, very well said! | ||
Joe New member Username: Joe Post Number: 10 Registered: 2-2007 |
I will say there is a strong return to realism in art. I think oil and acrylic is the easiest to use for this style. I do want to ask a couple of questions here. First are you marketing yourselves and selling your work? It affects your thinking believe it or not. Two, are the watercolorists purists or are you open to a discussion of technique? By expanding your technique you are expanding your mind and also your markets. By the way I have seen a number of good pictures here. I think something the watercolorists should consider is that J.S. Sargeant painted in oils for decades and came to watercolor in his later years. His training in oil painting shows in his handling of watercolors and they are spectacular. There is a freshness and joy/freedom there that I see mostly in his handling of fabrics. You can really tell he is enjoying himself. Done!!! | ||
Joe New member Username: Joe Post Number: 9 Registered: 2-2007 |
A lot of good design begins in the abstract and proceeds to realism. I think this validates abstraction to some degree but does not justify the lack of artistic ability, or perhaps lack of training, found in badly done abstracts found in some of the galleries and shows. I think here we need to differentiate between making art to sell and art for arts sake and the pleasure of creating it. If you are selling then it is easy for image to become everything. If you are a purist then "not". Many times what we see is a blending of both. Unfortunate, but then again not unfortunate, because it causes the public to buy art. They buy an image, a color or that frame will look good on grandma's picture. Happened to me once at a show and was done by another artist. I still laugh about it. I think there is no real solution to the issues addressed here but with understanding as to why they exist you can fare better. Want to win a prize? Enter the mixed media category by doing a watercolor reinforced with pastel or colored pencil. You usually will have little if any competition. Learn to think outside the box and make the system work against itself. It still looks good on the ressume. | ||
Joe New member Username: Joe Post Number: 8 Registered: 2-2007 |
George to answer your question as to which is most difficult I think it is unfair to compare them. My personal thought is you have to learn to judge values, and chromas, before you can work in acrylic or watercolor. Oil greatly facilitates this. It allows you to think about it, change your mind and add to or subtract from the paint. It is a great beginning medium for these reasons alone. I will defend it as a medium for a seasoned painter. Once having learned the above it will be decidedly easier to proceed in watercolor. Which for several reasons, totally unrelated to oil, is a wonderful medium. Having said this I will also defend it as a medium for a seasoned professional because it has immense subtlety to it as well. Here again it is unique unto itself. Acrylic is sort of, in my mind, a marriage of oil and watercolor, where you can produce similar effects to oil and again to watercolors by varying the amount of water. I have no doubt it exists because it is easy to market. Yet I guess it has its place. Marie I can tell you the judges are not interested in how hard you worked on a piece but only in the final image. Isn't a buyer interested in the same? I agree with your post at 11:56. Very accurate and very valid. Yes acrylics should be judged as a separate category but odds are it won't happen. A lot of the organizations are run by art clubs and it is usually political, it is judged by people not really skilled enough to judge and so on. I have run into this a few times. There was a show where the jurying in committee was run by members of an alumni. I doubt even one was an artist. I actually heard one say to another, oh isn't that pretty, we will let that one in. It was colorful but certainly not good art. Always remember you will be judged at the level of information of the person judging. It can be pretty scary. Then there is cronyism and so on. This post is getting long so I will end and respond to others in a new post. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Oh, I misunderstood. It's hard to always follow the correct train of thought in this sort of format. I see what you are getting at now George. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Kisha, I’m sorry! It was your post that started this discussion, but I thought we long ago agreed that you were talking about a different problem. My comment and question in my last post were in response to something Marie said about what bothers a lot of watercolorists (not including Kisha) about being judged alongside acrylics. Bonnie, if Jack is right that I misunderstood your post, and you were actually saying you believe that watercolor is more difficult than acrylic in skilled hands, please do let me know. Jack, I had thought about bringing the freedom verses control argument into this discussion but didn’t do it because, as you know, it’s a very abstract argument. But, now that you have entered into that line of thought I’ll go there too. Watercolor is difficult for the beginner because, as Jack points out, it is hard to maintain control with watercolor, but with practice watercolor offers a freedom of expression that is much more difficult to achieve in other forms of paint, thereby making watercolor less difficult in skilled hands to use and express oneself than when using acrylic. Thus, watercolor and acrylic are overall (considering everything) equal in difficulty. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Clarification for George re. my original complaint: George:" At the watercolor shows I’ve been to even a watercolorist would have difficulty finding the paintings that contained acrylic paint. Therefore, if I understand correctly, the pure watercolorist is upset because the judge is perceived to be more interested the quality of the image than how hard the artist worked to create the image. Am I understanding correctly?" Me:"The acrylic paintings that win awards in my group are painted by friends of mine who cannot draw, who cannot execute a watercolor painting that is hangable and so retreated to abstract smearing of colors and collage materials on paper with acrylics. These win prizes but though they show expressive skill, they evidence lack of most of the skills necessary for a watercolor painting to succeed.. Mind you, these are paintings in a watercolor society, not general art group. " Although all topics morph and get opened up to all sorts of twists and turns, please realize what I actually was saying. M<y point re. my point re. acrylios bears no resemblance to what you, George, are rightfully defending. | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 105 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, I think that Bonnie WAS saying that watercolor is MORE difficult than acrylics (certainly not that acrylics have no difficulties, however) -- not in the least because of the control issue I mentioned, even for experts. But, Bonnie, please speak for yourself. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Marie, Thank you for the clarification. I think everyone here will agree with you (it was Bonnie’s point too) that one medium is not more difficult than another in skilled hands. However, for beginners acrylic and oil offer advantages that speed up the front end of the learning curve. I think the first part of your statement needed to be said in clear terms because there are many watercolorists who don’t know that one medium is not more difficult than another in skilled hands. I personally believe the last part of your statement is true only for a certain style of watercolor painting, but I’ll talk about that later. I’d like to take a deeper look at the idea that because acrylic offers advantages that speeds up the front of the learning curve it is, at least part of, what bothers a lot of watercolorists about being judged alongside acrylics. When acrylic is done in the watercolor style it is almost impossible to tell the difference between it and a 100% watercolor painting. At the watercolor shows I’ve been to even a watercolorist would have difficulty finding the paintings that contained acrylic paint. Therefore, if I understand correctly, the pure watercolorist is upset because the judge is perceived to be more interested the quality of the image than how hard the artist worked to create the image. Am I understanding correctly? | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 103 Registered: 8-2006 |
Maybe part of the unique difficulty watercolor presents is essentially a psychological problem for us -- loss of control. Though oil can be scraped off and reworked forever, watercolor does its own thing. Experts control it much better and more easily than the rest of us, but no one controls it absolutely and perfectly. There are always "accidents" of one kind or another -- some wonderful and some devastating. I think many people prefer oil to watercolor because of this "control" issue. That may also be a spiritual issue to discuss on "Religion and Art." (Just couldn't resist! ) | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 164 Registered: 10-2006 |
There is nothing wrong with acrylic painting. I just think it should be Judged on its own merits and not with watercolors. It takes different skills. Maybe a good analogy would be ballet and hip hop. They both have value. They both take time to learn. It is just that the learning curve for one is higher and it should be respected as such. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
One note: My point below has absolutely nothing to do with a general attack on acrylic painting. This should be obvious to those who read it carefully. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
I am glad you pointed out the irony that watercolor is generally perceived to be a beginner medium. That is actually because it is THE beginner medium for preschoolers. But we all know that's not what OUR watercolor is about. My original comment that started all of this was essentially as much as I personally value the traditional skills necessary to create a great painting (drawing, technique, imagination etc) just is music (compare Mozart to Rap) the current trend is to value expression without an iota of underlying skill. The acrylic paintings that win awards in my group are painted by friends of mine who cannot draw, who cannot execute a watercolor painting that is hangable and so retreated to abstract smearing of colors and collage materials on paper with acrylics. These win prizes but though they show expressive skill, they evidence lack of most of the skills necessary for a watercolor painting to succeed.. Mind you, these are paintings in a watercolor society, not general art group. Here's the former quote: Of course this is all my opinion because the world is full of painting, music, and poetry that evidences little knowledge of technique and is very popular. Examples might be Rap "music," Hallmark greeting card "poetry," and opaque acrylic paintings in my watercolor art group that often win show awards though the painters cannot draw and mix nothing but mud when they try watercolors." | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 245 Registered: 8-2006 |
Let me refine a little of what I said in my last post. First off, I agree that watercolor, acrylic, and oil are different media with different characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages. One is not better or worse than the other. As for the issue of difficulty, I don't think that one medium is more difficult than another in skilled hands. For beginners and people of moderate experience, however, acrylic and oil give an opportunity to cover mistakes easily that simply doesn't exist in watercolor. I think that's what Carlson was getting at. Because it's easier to cover mistakes, an artist of beginning/moderate ability can produce a reasonably decent painting in acrylic or oil before he/she can produce a reasonable painting in watercolor. In other words, watercolor may not necessarily be more difficult, but the learning curve is different. I think that this is at least part of what bothers a lot of watercolorists about being judged alongside acrylics. The irony of it all is that watercolor has the reputation of being a beginner's medium, which it most definitely is not. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Joe, I agree with everything you said. But, you didn’t address the big question. It one type of paint more difficult to use than the others? | ||
George Unregistered guest |
This is wonderful. It’s just the conversation I’d hoped to have. Raliegh, I think you make a good point. I agree! Bonnie, I read somewhere (was it on this page?) that the large majority of artists paint in watercolor. This was supported by the much larger sales of watercolor paints and supplies. I wonder if it just seems that there are more good oil painters out there than good watercolor painters because galleries tend to not like watercolor paintings. In part this is because the commission for the gallery is less from the watercolor than from an oil painting of the same size. But you’re right; that’s where people form their opinions about "serious" art. On an unrelated note; I also agree with you on the war. Marie, am I right that the Carlson quote, and the Strisik quote from Bonnie’s post, both suggests it’s best for beginners to paint with oil or acrylic rather than watercolor, for practical reasons? Is that the same as saying; watercolor is more difficult than acrylic or oil for all artists? Also, both your recent experience and the Schmid quote concern the difficulty of controlling edges in watercolor. I agree edges are difficult in watercolor, but there are also many difficulties in oil and acrylic. I guess what I’m asking is; did any of these artists come straight out and say; watercolor is more difficult than acrylic or oil? Could the sensitivity about the economics you mentioned cause watercolorists to read something between the lines in these quotes that was not intended? Or, do you believe these artists are actually trying to say watercolor is more difficult than acrylic or oil? | ||
Joe New member Username: Joe Post Number: 6 Registered: 2-2007 |
I think you are comparing apples to zebras here. Each medium is different in the way it handles, dries and flows. Each one is made for different reasons and effects. Oil paint may be kept open for weeks and allows you to mix and, most important of all, think. Oil allows you to control your values,chromas and work in half and quarter values. Its longer drying time is important and yet can be speeded up by using the proper medium. It will wait or dry at your command. Acrylic dries quickly, it can be kept open for a longer time, and must be put down quickly and precisely. It requires a sure steady hand. Yes I understand you can paint back over it but it still requires a sure hand. painting transitions and blending are difficult at best. Yes it is water soluble and yet handles like oils at times but it is not an oil. It is unique in its own way. Here again apples to zebras. Yes it can be diluted and used like watercolor but here again it will perform uniquely in its own way. It will seem to handle like watercolor but not exactly. Watercolor is difficult to handle in hitting the values right. Then there is hitting the exact chroma. It runs, dries too soon,or at the wrong time and so on. It is transparent and opaque. It is different than oil or acrylic. I have seen it used so opaquely it appeared to be oils. It is beautiful in its transparency and its happy little accidents. Controlled accidents. I think I appreciate all of them for their uniqueness and have long felt they should be judged individually. It annoys me to the point I no longer enter competitions even in oil. And just for the record I work in all of them. Not acrylic as much anymore because as it dries it throws off something that leaves me with a sore throat. Please, accept each medium as unique and master that which appeals to you or fills your needs. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 244 Registered: 8-2006 |
While I don't know that one medium is better than than the other -- watercolor and acrylic each have their own merits -- I agree with Bonnie about the challenge of watercolor. I did a commission in acrylic the week before last. It was a painting of three churches. I first blocked in the buildings fairly roughly, and then I refined and corrected as I continued with the painting. I didn't worry too much if the walls were perfectly straight and architectural details were exactly correct until I was pretty far along. It would have taken much longer and been much more difficult to have done the same thing in watercolor. I would have to have invested a lot more time in planning had it been a watercolor, and there's no way I could have made as many corrections. Here are a few quotes from non-watercolorists about the challenges of the medium: * From "Carlson's Guide to Landscape Painting": "Do not for at least the first year of your study, attempt to work in water color .... The speed of drying of the medium requires a masterly knowledge in its uses. ... The transparency of the water colors allows of no radical changes of color or composition in the picture." * From Richard Schmid's "Alla Prima": "A well-executed watercolor is a genuine tour de force, and I have nothing but humble admiration for anyone who can do it consistently and without compromising the subject to accommodate the demands of the medium. Controlling edges in watercolor ... is tricky---oil paint is duck soup by comparison. My nerves will only stand up to doing only a few watercolors each year." * From Ralph Mayer, "The Artist's Handbook of Materials and Techniques" "Because of the comparatively low cost and simplicity of a student's watercolor outfit, the medium is universally used as an introductory techniqeu for children and beginners. The production of a succcessful watercolor painting, however, calls for a considerable degree of technical skill and a well-developed art technique." By the way, I also think that watercolorists (including myself) get a little sensitive about the economics of the watercolor in comparison with other media. Often buyers will not blink at dropping a few thousand dollars for an oil or acrylic, but will balk at spending more than a a couple of hundred on a watercolor of equal or higher quality from the same artist. | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 163 Registered: 10-2006 |
I would say that people think of watercolor as being more difficult because if you take ten people who have never painted before, make all mediums and materials available to them and ask them to paint a barn from an existing picture, they would be more likely to have something recognizable first in acrylic and then oil. Paul Strisik (oil and watercolor)A.N.A, N.A.W.A., A.W.S., suggests: "It is best to begin painting with oil or acrylic rather than watercolor. When you learn to sculpt, it's better to start with clay than with granite, so that you can correct your mistakes and thus come closer to your intention. So it is with painting. Oil paint is a malleable medium and allows you to make changes as you work. I feel that I can get a better sense of a student's abilities by looking at his work in oil. He's worked and reworked the canvas till he feels he's come as close as possible to his intention. Watercolor can be scrubbed and sponged out, of course, but it has its limitations. It can run away with you, and you often have to be content with mistakes which do not show what you really intended to say." He goes on to say that you can write a letter with a typewriter, a pencil, or a crayon. What you have to say is the important thing. But we are talking about difficulty and I believe that more people paint in oil or acrylic because of the steep learning curve involved with watercolor. It only makes sense that the majority would know, purchase and revere that which they are exposed to the most. Let's face it, there are many more good oil painters out there than good watercolor painters. As a result a gallery that has excellent oil paintings may have some pretty crummy watercolors. That is where people form their opinions about "serious" art. Majority perception is not always reality--which we can see in hindsight when it comes to marching into Iraq. | ||
Raliegh Intermediate Member Username: Raliegh Post Number: 83 Registered: 8-2006 |
Every once in a while it's good to take a break and try a different medium. I don't think one is more difficult than the other, how many strokes does it take to cover the paper with pencil? There is never a time when I smell oil paints, turpentine, etc. that I don't remember the grand lady who mentored me in the wonderful world of art. She lived to her 90s. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Eric, great insight! Thank you! Jack, you have my apology for hijacking the thread, but I think this is an interesting and important topic. And, we have just now (thanks to Eric) gotten to the heart of it. Bonnie, I’m going to make some comments, and then ask a question, and I plan to do this by using your post to represent the views of others I have met (not on this page). I think you know you are one of my favorites on this page - keep that in mind. First some background. I began my hobby, starting with oil paint, over 35 years ago. After a few years I switched to acrylic paint because of the mess, and slow drying time with oil paint. I worked with acrylic paint for over 20 years and got to the point where I won awards with my acrylic paintings. Then I discovered transparent watercolor. I got hooked! I have no plans to ever use oil or acrylic again. When I switched to transparent watercolor I was stunned by the number of watercolor artists who told me watercolor is more difficult than acrylic or oil. But now, thanks to you Bonnie, I have the opportunity to understand why so many believe watercolor is more difficult. Anyone who wants to jump into the discussion – please do. Bonnie, you are right that “watercolor is the only medium where you have to work with and try to anticipate the flow and mixing of the pigment”. And, you are correct about that being difficult. What you may not know is the lack of that fluid quality in the acrylic paints is part of what makes acrylic painting difficult. Acrylic is a tacky paint even when thinned with lots of water, and is therefore hard to control in a way that allows the beautiful and soft detail that is easier to get with the more fluid transparent watercolor. You are not exactly right when you say; “watercolor is the only medium where you have to preserve the whites and pure pigment colors”. This can be done in acrylic paint too, and often is. And, I should add that yes, you can paint a lighter or purer layer on top in acrylic (if by lighter you mean thinner). I think you are talking about glazing here. Glazing was invented as a technique in oil paint and is often used in acrylic, as well as transparent watercolor paint. Your comment that acrylic paint requires less skill is not my experience at all. And, I have never heard anyone who has mastered both watercolor and acrylic say one was easier than the other. That statement always comes from a traditional watercolor artist. As to your enjoyment of watercolor because it is for you the “ultimate challenge”, I deeply respect that attitude. Now for my question! Can you help me understand why so many watercolor artists believe watercolor is more difficult? Is it because of what Eric suggested? Do watercolor artists resent that the general public believes oil is more of a "serious" medium than watercolor? Or is it more complex than that? | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 162 Registered: 10-2006 |
Watercolor is the only medium where you have to work with and try to anticipate the flow and mixing of the pigment. If that doesn't make it more difficult, I guess I don't understand the meaning of difficulty. Watercolor is the only medium where you have to preserve the whites and pure pigment colors. You can't just paint a lighter or purer layer on top. Yes, one of the reasons I paint watercolor is because of the challenge. I first tried acrylic when I was eight or nine years old. My thought was--this is too easy, anybody can do this. Sure it takes all the other knowledge, that none of us will probably ever master, to produce a great piece of work, but with acrylic the path is more direct and takes a lot less skill. The pleasure of capturing life in a way that is new or better than I have done it before in a medium that I consider to be the ultimate challenge is why I paint. To mar that challenge with acrylic and call it watercolor is the ultimate insult. It is not a matter or rooting for a team, it's a matter of prefering basketball over football. I find it akin to those who do crossword puzzles, or play chess, or do any of the other activities that take a great deal of mental acuity. Of course, this is my opinion but it is based on spending a lifetime of contemplation over painting. Grizrev--I do feel like I'm questioning authority here. Thanks. Bonnie | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 101 Registered: 8-2006 |
Hold on, you guys! This thread has been hijacked! George, Eric, Bonnie, Kisha -- one of you should start a thread something like "Should Acrylics, Watercolors, and Water-Based Oil Paints All Be Considered The Same Category or Genre of Painting?; If So, Which Do You Prefer/Respect Most And Why?" Of course the title will have to be a little shorter! Would one of you, or someone, get back and pick up on our thoughts about design -- maybe with my 10:07 a.m. post on the 15th? Happy Presidents' Day Weekend! P.S. -- George, in your 3:37 p.m. post you say "...tend to make the board seem HOSTEL (emphasis mine!) toward any acrylic based watercolor artists that might visit." That's an interesting psychological or spiritual slip of the pen, since a "hostel" is a place that practices hospitality, while a "hostile" place is just the opposite. A board that acts like a "hostel" is just what your gentle and welcoming heart wants us to consider! Bless you for the attitude, even if it turns out that water-based oil paints don't belong among watercolors, even though they are water-soluable! Interestingly, I think your heart concern here is actually a spiritual issue. I would love it if more people would join the discussion of such issues on the "Religion and Art" thread!} | ||
Eric Unregistered guest |
George, I'm sure you're aware I'm saying all this with a smile on my face! It's like rooting for sports teams. I'm a fan of the "watercolor team". But to answer your question about the "chip on our shoulder", maybe it has to do with the thought out there that oil is more of a "serious" medium than watercolor, and since our opinion is that our medium is more difficult than the others, we like to challenge that prevailing thought. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Eric, you’re a good guy! I don’t think there is anything wrong in believing transparent watercolor is the best type of paint. I believe it myself. But, it seems from what I’ve seen (even beyond this board) that many watercolor artists have a chip on their shoulder toward the acrylic and oil painters. I can’t understand why. Any insight to share on this? Bonnie, good questions! I’ll do my best to give you what I know. Others may have additional information too. Acrylics are accepted in watercolor societies because acrylic is a water based paint and when it is thinned out and applied to paper the result for all practical purposes is a watercolor painting. When you say; “you can paint an acrylic painting over and over until you get what you want”, you’re suggesting acrylic is easier to do. It’s not! It’s as difficult to get it right in acrylic paint as it is to get it right in gum paint. When you say; “If acrylic painting offered the same challenge as watercolor, I doubt there would be many watercolor painters left”, you’re suggesting gum painters only paint for the challenge. To be honest I don’t know anyone who paints only for the challenge. Do you? And, as I said above, both are equally difficult. As for your comments on judging, I’ve never seen any bias from a judge at a watercolor show. Is it possible that the bias you see is in truth a reflection of your own bias. For example, tonight I just returned from a basketball game. I noticed that every time the ref made a call against our team our fans booed, and every time the ref made a call against the other team their fans booed. Is that what’s this is all about? | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 161 Registered: 10-2006 |
Why don't they have acrylic societies? If they do, why are acrylics accepted in watercolor societies? They are not the same medium. Period. You can paint an acrylic painting over and over until you get what you want. If I were King, the acrylic painters would have their society and the watercolor painters would have theirs. If acrylic painting offered the same challenge as watercolor, I doubt there would be many watercolor painters left. It is a sorry state of affairs that acrylic paint is allowed to compete with watercolor. And as for Judges giving awards...judging is subjective. If the Judge uses acrylic, he will look kindly on others who do. If the Judge is a purist, that will show in his judging. If he leans toward the abstract, so will the prize winners. I would bet that all of the other human biases that are known to the Judge enter into the arena of the show, ie., religion, sexual bias, age, friends of friends, and certainly former students. Art is simply too subjective to consider judging to be anything but one man's opinion and should be taken as such. We've all heard the stories about a painting that didn't make it into one show and was an award winner in a show of equal stature. | ||
Eric Unregistered guest |
George, if you detected a sneering attitude at acrylic painters, yeah, it's probably there, although in a small amount. If I offended any acrylic painters out there, please accept my apologies. (I still think transparent watercolor's at the top of the art world food chain ) | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Kisha, you have my apology for misunderstanding your post. If, as you say, some awards go to “bad art” in your club’s watercolor shows, and this bad art is acrylic watercolor, I would think it might mean there aren’t enough good gum watercolor paintings to deserve an award. I guess all you can do is hope that at some point in the future a few good acrylic watercolor artists joint your watercolor club, and thereby improve the level of artwork in your club’s watercolor shows. Or, perhaps the gum watercolor artists will improve so as to take the awards from the bad acrylic painters. But, if I were a member of the club I’d recommend that the club reduce the number of awards, so that only those who merit an award receive one. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
George asked for me to reassert my point : Eric has it correct in his analysis, so I won;t repeat it. I am talking about bad art which , in my personal circumstance in my town in my club, tends to be acrylic in nature. It would be illogical to assert that acrylic art cannot be good art and that is not what I was saying. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Hi Eric, Perhaps I did misunderstood Kisha’s intent, and if so, then Kisha will let me know. But, allow me explain my concern. It seems to be the opinion of many on this watercolor board that acrylic paint is in some way inferior to gum based paint as a form of watercolor painting. For example, look at your own words. You speak of the “art of planning ahead” as if you don’t believe any acrylic watercolor artist can “plan ahead”. You suggest that acrylic painters “slap” their paint onto the paper. Comments like that, when they become the majority opinion on a watercolor board, tend to make the board seem hostel toward any acrylic based watercolor artists that might visit. A small footnote: You are incorrect when you state that it is my opinion that watercolor is not transparent. Watercolor technique is, and always has been, a sliding scale between opacity and transparency. | ||
Eric Unregistered guest |
George, If I'm not mistaken, I think Kisha is talking about transparency and the art of planning ahead to make a watercolor painting without slapping opaque colors on top of other colors. And yes, I realize it's your opinion that watercolor is not transparent, but I believe that's his point. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
I want to change the topic from the heading on the thread for a moment. Let’s not be so hard on the acrylic based watercolor painters. What they do with acrylic paint is every bit as difficult as what we gum based watercolor painters do with our gum paint. The paintings they create sometimes win awards because those paintings are every bit as beautiful as the paintings made with gum based watercolor. Let’s keep the mud out of our eye, as well as out of our painting. | ||
Grizrev Intermediate Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 100 Registered: 8-2006 |
Kisha and Marie have shared very helpful and important observations! Kisha is stressing that the laws of design can become second nature (a reality Marie stresses as well!) through much practice of painting in a manner consistent with those laws -- practice that in the beginning may be conscious and intentional, then becomes primarily instinctive. Of course it is possible that someone might possess the rare talent and instinctive genius to paint in a manner consistent with the laws of design from the very beginning, but such people are indeed rare. Most of us learn not to abuse the elements of design by transgressing the principles of design by first producing a great number of bad, distasteful (even to us) "failed" paintings, and by that process of "trial and error" learning what not to do the next time! It would be a shame (and quite boring) to have to listen to a concert artist whose primary offering was running the scales! But it would be very stressful to listen to someone give a concert who had no grasp of the principles and techniques that make music truly beautiful! Kisha, I think the folks in your watercolor society who use acrylics, cannot draw, and make watercolor mud may be making paintings, but they surely are not making art. The fact that someone grants them awards only reflects on that evaluator's lack of taste and education! Our society has become truly corrupt when what is bad is called good, and what is good is called bad -- but perhaps that is a discussion for Art and Religion! | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
I think the musical analogy is the most perfect analogy possible, Marie. Allow me to reiterate and expand. In the arts there are two seemingly opposing currents: the push toward technical excellence and the push toward unbridled originality and creativity. I think less experienced minds see these currents as in complete opposition and as mutually exclusive. You either spend your time perfecting academic technique and end up a sterile non creative clone or you dive into the unknown and do your own thing. How short sighted and naive is this sort of thinking. The minds that think this way may be so out of touch that they may not even be capable of listening to reason--that has been my experience in the past in addressing this debate with others. That's why music is such a great example. How could anyone say that learning how to properly bow a violin or how to use one's hands at the keyboard would hamper their creativity. Without the fundamental skills necessary to make pleasing sounds from an instrument, all manner of creativity would become grotesquely expressed. I do not play piano but am very creative. If I sit down at a piano I can hammer out sounds and follow my heart--but they are musically incoherent. But, I can play the cello and after years of practice I can now use it to the service of my creativity and play wonderful music. Imagine a poet not bothering to read or learn the meanings of words. Would that actually free him or her to be a vessel for the muse, or would it handicap him? I know people who would say the latter but my contention is that these people are blinded by their own Romantic (as in the school of romanticism) conceptions that art is 100% intuitive and any reigning in of the intuition by technical concerns is death to the artist. These are the same people who in my opinion produce consistently shallow and rather self-indulgent and not to say poorly executed art. Of course this is all my opinion because the world is full of painting, music, and poetry that evidences little knowledge of technique and is very popular. Examples might be Rap "music," Hallmark greeting card "poetry," and opaque acrylic paintings in my watercolor art group that often win show awards though the painters cannot draw and mix nothing but mud when they try watercolors. In painting as in any other art, one must pay one's dues or risk with almost certainty unskilled art. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 242 Registered: 8-2006 |
I think that "gut" reactions come from practicing a technique or an idea until it becomes subliminal and is no longer in the conscious mind. I like to use the analogy of playing a musical instrument. If I go to a piano teacher as a beginner and the teacher says -- "just do what you feel" -- I would wind up being frustrated. On the other hand, if I learn basic techniques and theory, then these things become subliminal over time. I learn over time that if I want to play a scale I don't have to think of each note separately, but instead I can think of a passage of many notes that I can play as a single thought. Sometimes art students make the mistake of wanting to make everything they do into a finished piece. Often, it is productive to think of things as an exercise. What you learn in the exercise will come into play in larger pieces later in one's development. What I object to upon occasion is when artists over-simplify the rules, following a formula slavishly simply because it appeared in a book somewhere. The rules are often subtle, and I regard it as a weakness when the rules are too obvious in a painting. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Eugene, good point! The term “gut feeling” is used to explain how artists go about making design decisions. The universal principles of design were devised as a rational description for common sets of spatial, color, value, and textural relations, which were found in all of the great paintings. Paintings that originated from the “gut.” But, what is the gut? Is it the head? Is it the soul? Is it a subconscious behavior that is learned? Is it a subconscious behavior that we are born with? Or, is “the gut” only a mechanical function of the brain - the place where visual data is digested so that nutrients (solutions) may be abstracted? I’d be interested in knowing what each of you think the “gut” is. For me to say what I think the gut is I’d have to drag the discussion over to the Religion and Art thread. I don’t think many would follow me there, so I’ll leave it here for you to discuss. | ||
Eugene Advanced Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 198 Registered: 8-2006 |
Did old “Remmy “ think about rules of composition when painting? I think he just used his instinct or “gut feelings” (which were pretty good). And did anyone notice that this guy could draw? (without the assistance of a camera or computer) | ||
Grizrev Intermediate Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 94 Registered: 8-2006 |
Back to Marie's comment on "intelligent breaking of rules," there are rules and then there are rules! Actually the use of contrast is not a breaking of the principles (rules, laws) of unity or harmony, but is another rule or principle in itself -- used as a variation from gradation in changing values. I am reminded of the foolish "rules" of selection used by the Paris Salon judges that excluded the young Impressionists, when nothing in the paintings of the Impressionists violated the elements of design and the immutable principles or laws of design! Some "rules" needed to be broken, even as others shouldn't. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
And, now the excitement and energy of the asymmetry seen in The Night Watch: http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/aria/aria_assets/SK-C-5?lang=en Note that both paintings are in perfect Balance, and that the selected form of Balance in each is in keeping with the message of the painting. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
I thought it might be interesting or useful for the casual visitor to this page to illustrate the different psychological uses, intentions, meanings, or emotional responses to be gained from the two ends of the sliding scale between symmetry and asymmetry. First the stern formality of the Symmetry seem in The Cross on the Mountain: http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/friedrich/cross.jpg | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Exactly right! Everyone is really saying the same thing. As one designer put it; Unity in Variety and Variety in Unity. | ||
Grizrev Intermediate Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 92 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, Thanks for the confirmation. I guess we have freedom for individual expression within some limits or laws that we can't change (gravity, for example). I think what both Marie and Eric are advocating is the use of variation in creating a painting, which, I believe, is in itself one of the principles of design we observe in working with the elements of design, as well as the other principles of design. | ||
Eugene Advanced Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 195 Registered: 8-2006 |
Marie, well said. I agree. I don’t really *CONSCIOUSLY* think about rules and principles of design when I’m doing a composition. I use my gut feeling. This usually works for me, but only because I’ve had years of experience and study, both as a painter and a graphic designer. But the rules and priciples are great guides when you run into problems. | ||
Eric Unregistered guest |
I get what you're saying Marie. The key is to know how to use the principles. Repetition is good, but must be used with alternation. Repeat things, but vary them, so it doesn't look like wallpaper. Perfect unity (and harmony) is a blank sheet. You have to throw in contrast, but not too much or you'll destroy unity and harmony. You want balance, but not perfect symetry. You want dominance but not so much that one element is overwhelming, and so on. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
I should have stated it this way: in a good design, a rule of design can be broken but a principle of design cannot be broken. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Marie, I agree that the intelligent breaking of rules is useful in good design. But, there’s a difference between a rule and a principle. A rule of design can be broken. A principle of design cannot be broken. I’ll probably make a mess of it, but I’ll try to put it in simple terms. I’ll give an example of each. An example of a rule of design is; don’t place the center of interest in the exact center of the painting. This is a rule and can be broken, and is broken on occasion with good results. A principle of design is a law of sorts and cannot be broken. This seems counterintuitive until you understand that most (if not all) of the principles of design are sliding scales. That is they have two opposite forms of expression. An example of this type a principle of design is balance. Balance can be expressed on a sliding scale from complete symmetry to absolute asymmetry. These principles are used to arrange the parts of the design (lines, shapes, colors, values and so on) in ways that are appealing to the viewer. There is no correct or proper position on the sliding scale until the subject matter, mood, visual intent, and the elements of the design (lines, shapes, colors, values and so on) are selected, thus suggesting an appropriate form of balance (position along the sliding scale). Right about now I’d bet Jack is sorry he started this thread. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 241 Registered: 8-2006 |
Although I think design principles are important, it is also important to remember that much of what makes a good painting is the balance between harmony, unity, and such and contrast/dissonance. In other words, it's fine to say that repetition is good, but if all you have is repetition then the end result will look like wallpaper. (Not that I'm necessarily criticizing wallpaper :-) ) Also, the most balanced painting is where you place a perfectly symmetrical object in the dead center of the page; that's also about the most boring painting I could imaging. I suppose that the ultimate harmony is a blank canvas. So, I would add that the *intelligent* breaking of rules is a critical design component. Artists should first learn and understand design principles, but they should also understand how to break the rules. Sometimes, I get bothered when paintings are designed to the point of appearing contrived. Please don't take this to think that I have anything against design. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Although I will often choose what my gut is telling me instead something I have read in a book about how to design paintings, I'm not sure that my gut would be telling me the right thing if I hadn't spent a lot of time thinking about design issues. (Does this make sense?) | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Jack, I don’t think you’ll find any disagreement on this topic. Every artist understands that the principles of design are universally accepted as the basis for all good design. Some believe the principles of design are universal because they were abstracted from, and reflect, the laws of nature. Some have even theorized that the functions of the human brain (thought, language) are based on the same basic laws (contrast, simplicity, continuity…and so on). Artists might question, and challenge, the use of techniques, materials, craftsmanship,subject matter, and even the very forms of expression used, but they never challenge the principles of design. | ||
Grizrev Intermediate Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 90 Registered: 8-2006 |
The topic of this thread represents in many ways the spirit of our times -- people assert their right to do as they please, what seems "right" to them. How does this work when it comes to painting? How important are the principles (laws?) of design to good painting -- things like "unity," "harmony," "balance," etc. |
