| Author | Message | ||
  Kukana |
About whites...Here si a thread that was started a long time ago that my answer some questions. Somewhere in the thread the disscussion got rather heatedand has been a running inside joke among a lot og the regualers for a long time. | ||
mrfloppy |
Todays tip, Cobalt blue stains more than ultramarine on arches paper. | ||
Cathy |
Sounds like reproduction within the illustration... if you can figure out how to have a painting reproduce it's subject matter you probably would have something pretty unique to sell, Lex... :-} Like you could paint an original of a thin lady eating and she doesn't stop of course because you painted her eating, so she just gets bigger and bigger... reproducing fat cells I guess.... poor lady... gee Lex I guess you better think carefully about what you paint in your reproducing illustrations. :-) I better go to bed... Silly Cathy | ||
Lex |
Getting back to the definition of illustration as art intended for reproduction: ...if a jeweler hand carves a penny in silver and the darned thing reproduces in pockets and other dark places, just like a real penny...is it art or illustration? ...if Carrie paints a portrait of someone's pet rabbit instead of their beloved doggie...and there's more rabbits in the painting every time you look at it...art or illustration? ...if I paint a nude of a real model and decide to give her a bit of a potbelly in the painting (I love the pregnant body)...and the model winds up pregnant...is it art or illustration? Just wondering about this connection between illustration and reproduction... | ||
Kukana |
Didn't mean to post that anonymous, that me, your local agitator! | ||
Anonymous |
Who said illustrations weren't art? Are we reading between the lines again??? | ||
GuessWhoo |
I have reached the conclusion that if opaque white is used it must be an illustration and not real art! | ||
feather |
Very well said dirtybird! | ||
dirtybird |
I think I'll add my two cents worth to this discussion about what's fine art and what'not. I think that an object, wheather it be a painting, sculpture, rock or piece of wood is fine art depending on two things, the owner and the creator. If the person creating the art thinks it fine art during creation then it is fine art. If the person buying the object buys it as fine art then it's fine art. Nothing else matters and only time will tell.( sometimes a lot of time.) | ||
islandartist |
Carol & Laura So that's the area you're talking about. I entered the old forge show for years. Had a two person show there with a sculptor in the eighties.And taught a watercolor workshop there. They have one of my silkscreens in their permanent collection. I have fond memories of the area. | ||
jandrle |
I paint architectural landscapes, I do commission paintings of people's homes. When I do an illustration I even feel different doing it. Usually it is message directed, it is a composite of a variety of source material, and is pretty much directed by a client (but not the same as the house portraits). I just completed one roughly 24" x 30". It was a fictional town. I used colored pencil, gouche, Design markers, pen and ink, pastels, anything to accomplish the look and feel I wanted. If necessary, I would have cut out a section and morticed in new paper (luckily that wasn't necessary). The buildings have signs in front with the company logo on them. I left them blank white. The plan is to send the art out for an 8" x 10" transparency, scan it into the computer, fix any blips etc and put the logos on the signs. The client is thrilled with it. In no way is it a painting, or fine art, but it is definitely artwork. I use the same skills, the end result is planned for the use intended, generally multiple and I don't apply any of the rules that I use in my watercolors... Maybe this is helpful. I know the difference in how it feels, maybe just am not too good at translating it into words. Jane | ||
Laura36 |
I agree, Cathy. I'm not sorry to have mentioned anything-it just intriques me to read and learn how others think. That is what this forum is all about after all. It's also interesting to see how we go off the beaten path........... | ||
Cathy |
Good comments all, I think this has been an interesting discussion. I appreciate that you just happen to mention it Laura. Whatever kind of art we do, it is a great blessing to us in our lives and gives us fulfillment in being able to flex our creative muscles. I think this forum is a celebration of Art! There is a lot of good things going on here. :-) | ||
Laura36 |
Wow, this all goes back to one little comment I made about no matter what the "style", "genre", "intent", final outcome, art is art if it makes me want to be a part of it. It is so interesting reading all of the opinions generated by one innocent remark. I often think that "illustrators" have made more of an impact on humanity than "artists" have. I'll bet you that Walt Disney would even consider himself an artist in some form. I remember being in high school and my art teacher giving us a quiz on art. One of the questions was to list five American artists. I was sixteen and I drew a blank. Once we were done and reviewing the test, she suggested the following: Walt Disney, Norman Rockwell, Winslow Homer, Andrew Wyeth, Frederick Remington. Of course, I kicked myself afterward. But why do we feel this need to categorize everything? Especially Art? Separate here and there, and we suddenly get all these division lines we feel we can't cross over. The Metropolitan in NYC is full of artifacts that are not conventional "art". Most museums are. | ||
piper |
So, is it like an illustration is a secondary, something intended to compliment or define something else, and fine art is a primary created to stand alone? Both have something to say and often both can stand alone. Yeah, I think there is a smoke screen hiding some smug and pompous art critic types who perhaps feel the need to sway public opinion as they raise their noses into the air. (Aren't those the same guys who had nothing nice to say about the impressionists?) Thanks guys for all the input. | ||
Dake |
Sorry for my staccato postings but i just read Cathy again and agree 100%. I have no more to say on the subject. Was that a collective sigh of relief or what?!@! | ||
Dake |
Because a work of art or illustration can and is reproduced has nothing to do with whether it is or was an illustration or work of fine art. | ||
Dake |
Hi Kukana and friends, by Why, i mean; What was the motive, why did the person produce the piece ? To me, an illustrator is describing the subject. He or she is not trying to say more than the subject itself. In combination with a written or otherwise described idea an ilustration may describe 'that'idea. With fine art I think the artist is trying to evoke something beyond the subject. The subject is a motif to carry an idea,emotion or to stimulate thought. Illustration is literal and descriptive. Fine art may be metaphorical for instance, however illustration is not as a stand alone work metaphorical or symbolic. The artist allows the viewer to complete the story. Your flowers, I feel describe a mood, a place of mind, an atmosphere,they evoke something beyond a bunch of gladiolis. The illustrator wants us to see the flower or a defined story involving a flower.If i'm not mistaken Picasso himself illustrated stage backdrops for a period in his early adulthood. The work Michaelangelo may be described as illustration i guess, it's surely not a bad thing. | ||
Birdpainter |
Lex Giclee's printed on good watercolor paper sure can come close. Why can't we say that the painting was "fine art" which was then reproduced. I'll bet most "collectors" who buy the prints consider what they have purchased to be "fine art." I sometimes wonder if all this fine art vs. illustration debate is worth the time and trouble!! There are people on all sides of the debate and most will never change their minds anyway. My motto is paint what you want, how you want, and don't worry about what others will call it (unless, of course, they call it "bad"!!!) Sid | ||
Lex |
I think jandrle's succinct definition said it best...better than my wordier version. Illustrations are created for reproduction, traditionally in publishing. Many of us would agree that some illustrations make pretty fine art. And, as jandrle wrote, illustrations aren't limited to a particular style. Consider this: much of Toulouse-Lautrec's work, now regarded as fine art, was actually illustration by definition - those wonderful advertising posters for the Moulin Rouge. Good thing because Toulouse-Lautrec was the single most powerful influence in my interest in art when I was a kid. If his work had been considered disposable and hadn't survived into the past century I might not have begun painting. So, if you believe Rockwell was a fine artist you'll get no argument from me. I love his stuff too. Here's a quandary, or perhaps a paradox: Now that so many fine artists are creating work with the intention of selling reproductions in giclee or other form...are they creating art, or illustrations? After all, wouldn't we agree that the impasto of the original oil or acrylic is an essential part of the work? Sure. That's why a form of reproduction has been developed to mimic that impasto in the copies. But we watercolorists also know that there is essential texture and depth - more subtle, sure - in our paper. That can be reproduced to some extent in copies by angling the light. But what about those subtle strokes of color and brushmarks? More importantly, what about those exquisitely delicate differences in how each pigment reflects light...some so flat they seem to defy the eye...others almost sparkling. Even if we could see only shades of gray we'd still be able to discern those nuances of light. Have you ever seen a watercolor reproduction - however costly or complex - that could do justice to those subtleties? I haven't. | ||
Cathy |
Ok, guys... hmmmm... I went to Websters on this; Fine art: as painting, sculpture, music those chiefly concerned with the beautiful. Illustrate: to make clear to the mind: to exemplify: to explain, or to adorn by pictures. An example: a picture or diagram accompanying letterpress. Illustrated: having pictorial illustrations. Dake, does this explain the WHY? Illustration has a purpose to explain, whereas fine art is to bring beauty into our lives. However, there are illustrators that transcend (Webster: to rise above, to surpass, to be outside the range of, surpreme in excellence, surpassing others) above the norm of illustration. Norman Rockwell did this in his unique ability to capture humanity in his illustrations. Consider this, perhaps the definition of what fine art is lies within the opinion of the viewer. The art may fall under the description of a word such as illustration, but by some, as in the case of Norman Rockwell, he is considered a great artist and his prints adorn their homes as art, not as illustrations. Here is an example of art in the eye of the beholder; Recently my son and I did a street festival together. My son does pen and ink illustrations that are quite humorous. He sold an illustration to a young man who was visibly thrilled with his purchase. Once the transaction was made he just stood there and gaped at the illustration. Then he walked down the street still looking at every detail of it. About 5 minutes later he came walking by again heading the opposite direction, still just staring at it with a smile on his face. We had to laugh, because he was so happy with it. Later he brought a friend by to show him my son's other pieces. For this young man there was no doubt that he had thought he had bought a piece of fine art to honor some spot in his home! Here's another thought...We cannot define illustration as made specifically to be reproduced either, because look at all the 'fine' artist who make prints of their works, often times created with the intent to sell as prints. Well... that's what I am thinking on this topic... to summarize; fine art is to beautify our world, illustrations give us further insight and explanation in an art form, but there are times when the illustative art may rise above it's purpose and become truly works of art. However, all the definitions can be wiped away with the simple thought that whatever you think fine art is, is! Perhaps that is the beauty of this concept we call art. | ||
Kukana |
I don't understand, Dake. | ||
Dake |
Hi Piper, I think the difference is in the WHY not the WHAT or HOW | ||
piper |
I too would like to know the difference between an illustrator and an artist. Norman Rockwell's work is discounted because he is `only an illustrator', and upon reading the letters of NC Wyeth I discovered he yearned to be a fine art artist and bemoaned the fact that because illustration fed his family he had no time to work on Fine Art. I truly am confused on this issue because I think both N C.Wyeth and Rockwell are excellent artists. Is it technique? Is it subject matter? Materials used? What is the difference! | ||
Laura36 |
Carol- We have had bears in our camp at Forked Lake- just little yearlings. They raided a cooler that would not fit into the larger metal bins for food storage- rolled the large rock off the top and ate all of our eggs, carton, shell and all. This was three years ago. Last year, no bears, but we also had our dog with us. I did several paintings of Pilgrim Mt. which is at the end of Forked Lake. When we go back, we will stay in one of the lean-tos at the far end. Did you venture down the Raquette River? It runs from Raquette Lake to Long Lake, with Forked inbetween. CV Whitney, son of both Vanderbilt and Whitney families, owned several thousand acres bording that lake. His Whitney Preserve is smaller now, but owned by his widow Mary Lou. Didn't expect a history/geography lesson in the discussion on white, did you? | ||
Kukana |
That's interesting J, I have a friend who is a very well known author in Religious and Christian book market named Blaine Yorgason. He also paints the most amazing HUGE pictures that become the covers of his books.( And let me tell you...His art is GOOD!) Many years ago when I expressed what a great artist he was, he said, "Oh no, Im an illustrator" Now I wonder what he meant. Anyone else have any insights to this interesting term??? | ||
jandrle |
Illustrations are created for reproduction... It isn't a term that denotes a style. | ||
carol |
ah yes forked lake.... memories... that bad ol' bear tried to push our kayaks out in the lake one night there. we got out of our tent and had to chase him/ her. away wearing nothing but a flash light. thank goodness there wasn't a full moon that night. we were camping at the upper end and not at the public sites. i'll look your friend painting up. this is the regional show where they hang all entries, not the national. the diluted gesso was used on dry paint but might be interesting on wet also. | ||
laura36 |
Hi Carol, I will try the diluted gesso and pouring into the wet paint. Sounds fun and interesting. I do not have a painting in the Old Forge show, but I believe that a friend of mine does, Jan Palmer. Jan lives in North River (North Creek area). She is an illustrator/artist. I have yet to try entering these national shows. Working a full time job saps a lot of my energy and time. Old Forge is a beautiful area, we camp a lot at Forked Lake which is just up the road a fur piece, something like 20 miles or less. Enjoy yourself! | ||
carol |
laura 36... have you ever tried taking the diluted gesso and pour in over, or into a section of a painting gone bad. fun stuff. | ||
carol |
wow laura... we were typing at the same time...... | ||
carol |
laura 36.. that web page you posted is interesting and one i want to look at in depth. i'm going to the southern adirondacks tomorrow to relax and dip my feet in streams and brush in the bucket ( old forge area). do you have a painting in the regional show that's at the art center now? alex powers works have always won my attention. he juried a show at the old forge art center a couple of years ago. i would have loved to listen in on his jury comments. | ||
Laura36 |
Acutally, the site at {http://fineartsemporium.com is very interesting and informative, and you can view another Alex Powers painting by clicking on the South Carolina Watercolor Society link. By the way, Alex uses white paint and sometimes charcoal in his paintings. | ||
Laura36 |
I did a little searching, and found that Alex is listed at the Fine Arts Emporium site. You can see one of his paintings at: http://fineartsemporium.com/springs/instructors/alexpowers.htm | ||
Laura36 |
I think Gordon's work is very illustrative of the American West and I thoroughly enjoy his depictions of tough women. Being one myself and having worked on a farm, I feel like I can put myself into these paintings, I feel like I could be there, and to me that is what makes it art for me. If I feel like I can walk into a painting, or reach in and grab a part of the still life, then to me it is art. It doesn't matter whether it is representational, abstract, illustration or whatever we want to call it; if the work takes me to another place, if it makes me want to be a part of it, then it is art. Another painter that I truly admire is Alex Powers, whose work is totally different than Gordon's. It is very loose and abstract, and yet I feel like the people in his portraits could speak, I feel power, motion and solace. So much can be said with a brushstroke. Back to Gordon's work, I work in gouache a lot and I like that it is heavier and opaque and yet tougher to handle even than watercolor, I feel. Color can get muddy very quickly, so to master this medium is a challenge. Guess that's why I like Gordon's paintings. He has truly mastered the medium, and shown a side of life I can relate to. | ||
Lex |
Suki brings up an interesting term. I tend to think of illustration as accompaniment to editorial work in the fields of journalism, book publishing or advertising. It's generally, tho' not always, less "finished" in terms of detail and relies more on line drawing rather than subtle shadings. And it's almost never abstract; seldom even impressionistic. While Gordon Snidow's style and Western art in general do tell a story and in a sense illustrate the remnants of the Old West, this style stands on its own and needs no editorial content. Just my humble opinion, of course. Any other personal definitions? | ||
Kukana |
Suki, His medium is gouache which as you know is a more opaque than transparent watercolor and is a ind of water based medium. He is one of the most accomplished western artists that is not in the oil catagory. | ||
Suki |
Gordon is a very good illustrator.But not a watercolor artist right?? | ||
Oma |
Just checked out Gordon Snidow's web site. Talk about luminosity! Incidentally, we are fairly distant neighbors since he is in Ruidoso and I live in Espanola, NM., but I had not heard of him until now. His work makes me want to try gouache. | ||
Blue |
Gordons work must be very sought after. | ||
Kukana |
Gordons work is wonderful! Thanks for the link, Laura. I like seeing all these different favorite links. Maybe we should start an area of "Favorite Links" Especially now that we can format them for instant access. | ||
Laura36 |
Has anyone seen work by Gordon Snidow? He works in gouache and he feels that the gouache will stand the test of time better than any other medium out there. I think that another factor in watercolor vs. oil is that traditionally, works on paper are harder to preserve and maintain. I have seen the collection of Winslow Homer paintings at the museum in Canajoharie, NY, and they look wonderful and rich. I like Gordon's work in gouache. Check it out at http://www.gordonsnidow.com. | ||
dake |
The patriachal sentiments of the past still haunt watercolor to some degree.Institutions promoted oil as the masters medium and permanence was an issue, watercolor was thought of as a preliminary sketch medium. Although in terms of permanence a watercolor will outlast an oil if artist quality materials are used and framing is properly done as materials have improved I am told.I know from my own experiments how much the life of an oil is dependent upon the users mixing technique oil vs turps, surface prep,quality of paint etc. So there are really no grounds to think that an oil is inherently of more value than a w/c. There are w/c artists pushing the boundaries of public opinion with great success in your country. It's up to watercolorists to promote and market their product so that it impacts the consumer and competes side by side with any other art medium. Sometimes size does count too. | ||
patinsc |
birdpainter and kukana, I find your comments on oil paintings extremely interesting because I started as an oil painter and could not give them away, that is why I began watercolor( which I think is much harder than oil painting). Here in the deep south and especially our state watercolor is king. Acrylic is queen, and mixed media the princess. | ||
Kukana |
Interesting comments Birdpainter and Cathy, about fewer watercolorist gaining the recognition and Money than oil. I do agree that in general and overall that is true. BirdPainter, you are the fortunate exception. But what I find most interesting is that my two favorite Western artists are both watercolorist. . Michael Atkinson, who is is every edition of Southwestern Art I have here in my office (Although he is about the only one!) and Nelson Boren, who's work I cited a couple of posts down. Its not just because they are watercolorist that I am attracted to them, its their different styles.I collect a lot of art and very little of it is, in fact, watercolor...(Which in itself is interesting to me as my primary medium is watercolor!) Also interesting is that when observing patrons in a gallery, they'll walk by the watercolors and "ooo and ahhh" over the beauty and movement of the medium. They do this ,however, while they are waiting for the $2000. oil painting they just bought to clear on their Visa and be wrapped up for transport!!! Another interesting fact, in my limited experience, is that when I do paint my watercolors with an "Oil" look (which is what my Yupo work ends up looking a bit like) they sell even though I think they are dreadful. Go figure??? | ||
Birdpainter |
Cathy: It does seem to be "common knowledge" that oil paintings sell better and are more valuable than watercolors. Look at Southwest Art Magazine and try to find a watercolor painting. Maybe because few watercolorists are painting western art? I paint birds in watercolor. In the local gallery that carries my work, my watercolors are priced size for size about the same as the oils and acrylics and I sell fairly regularly. Maybe its time to ignore those who think of watercolor as a "lesser" art form and just keep on painting!! Sid | ||
Cathy |
Kukana, I checked out that website and you are right, Boren Nelson is very good. You might be familiar with Al Rounds (he was the one that did the demo at our watercolor society). He has a new website, but it is still under construction, so he only has one print on display at the moment. But you can get an idea of what his work is like. www.alrounds.com Thanks Lex for your comments. I am going to check out those artists that you mentioned. | ||
Kukana |
There is a great western watercolorist from here in Idaho that does some fabulous work. His name is Boren Nelson. One thing I really like about his stuff is that he doesn't fuss with the backgrounds. For the most part they are left light or even white. The other thing I love is the way he captures his moments from very different angles and perspectives. As a Photographer, Lex, you might find his compositions very interesting. Here is one of the many sites all over the web that his work can be seen. You can also type in his name on a search engine to get lots more listings. (He is not only a fabulous artist but a humble, righteous man full of integrity and honor!) Boren Nelson | ||
Maxi |
Apologies! Anonymous, I apologize for my off hand comment about anonymous letters. You do have some very good comments and I make a resolution to not enter into any more debates or whatever we could call what has gone on the past few days. It really doesn't matter what we call ourselves, as I said before I enjoy this page very much and have gleaned much information from it. I hope we can all refrain from all the childishness and press on to greater things with respect of each others work and opinions. As a 'not famous' artist, but someone who enjoys painting very much and just now getting back in to it after a few years of being dormant, I love the opportunity of hearings comments and information by fellow artists, famous or not famous. Cathy, thank you for a new topic of discussion. Perhaps that is what was needed as we seem to have run the other one into the ground. I speak peace! MAXI | ||
Lex |
Cathy, you presented the perfect entry point for something I've considered relevant to this discussion: what is or isn't the "correct" form of watercolor. The source: Watercolor Magic magazine. Readers of this magazine already know it is quite tolerant of all forms of watermedia. In 1998 interviews of two artists whose work I admire, Jacqueline Peppard (Winter '98) and Carol M. Sullivan (Summer '98), each reveals her personal and quite contrary approaches to watercolor. Peppard employs numerous glazes to achieve a rich glow. Sullivan believes glazes muddy her own work. Peppard's work is detailed, meticulously planned and executed; her scenes, tho' derived from real landscapes, have the appearance of fantasy art due to her amazing use of color. Sullivan's work is free, spontaneous, her seascapes rendered in deep blues, grays and browns offset by large reserves of pure white paper. I love 'em both equally. Peppard's work is easily found on the web; I'm not sure about Sullivan's. As for the use of white or any gouache (and, as at least one other person has already pointed out, what's the real difference between "gouache" and opaque watercolor, other than words on a label?), interviews of many European painters (contemporary artists who have pure white paper available) clearly indicate they consider the debate pointless - use what is necessary or desirable for a particular piece. As a lifelong photographer who once suffered from purism and regarded the use of color film as anathema to my art, I got over myself. I now use color film extensively and cannot imagine restricting myself to black and white again. | ||
Cathy |
:-) :-) Hi guys, I have a serious question here to discuss...(I'm serious, I tell you!) I have been wondering about how the value of watercolors compare to the value of an oil painting. I have been studying abit about Burton Silverman and his work. He does marvelous portraits both in oil and watercolor. For his watercolor portraits he works on Bristol with a plate finish because he has found that he can have a more consistent quality of style in the finished piece comparable with his style in his oils. He doesn't lose the wonderful qualities of watercolor in doing so. Another example of an artist trying to make his watercolor work comparable in value to oil is a local prominent artist here in my neck of the woods who recently gave a demonstration at our watercolor society. He said that because watercolors often seemed to be valued as less than an oil painting, he has strived to give his watercolors an oil painting look. He is really a purist in the art of watercolor, no white zinc here. His work is definately watercolorish but he spends many hours on a painting with lots of glazes. Any comments, friends? | ||
patinsc |
Anonymous at 5:57p.m. Please come back. Most of us welcome information,constructive critique and helpful suggestions. I don't know how all this got started but I feel it will end soon. Jean, Hurry home. Things are out of hand. | ||
feather |
Just to clear the air, Feather is not, and has has never posted, anonymously. I am not the great and powerful mysterious one that has you all so baffled. Sorry I'm walking out the door now to go to Wisconson on vacation for a week. You guys behave yourself while I'm gone. Have fun and play nice! | ||
Anonymous |
I am amazed by what I have read here. As an occasional "anonymous" poster who jumped in from time to time to answer a query, I am disappointed by the attitude that my anonymous opinion is "not worth the paper it is written on." I've made a rather nice living as an artist for over 35 years so I think I've learned some stuff that I could share -- and, in sharing, I am nearly always able to learn something new as well. The conversation herein has become base. Endless, offensive chatter about "crap art workshops", mean, insulting comments where good debate should happen (as I said once before, the Paragon was never resolved) and meaningless, off-handed compliments instead of constructive critique are a waste of time. I do believe someone left the back door open so I'll just sneak out and go back to making a living with my little (but expensive) brush. (Hey, that comment should require a nasty comeback!) Had CJAS intended that we ALL become involved here to the extent that some have done (not a criticism, OK?), there would not have been the opportunity to post as anonymous. So I shall remain . . . | ||
anonymousislandanonymousartist |
This might start another discussion but regarding the PP, do you prefer to follow the pidgeon so it is tube consistency or do you work with dried pans? | ||
Peg |
You people are a riot. It's just a good thing you're all not in the same room, or I have a feeling there would be paint flying. Since it appears you all love controversial discussions. You should check out www.abuzz.com It has all kinds of categories including art, but if you really want to get down & dirty & sling some mud, go into the political section. Whoooeee! Those people have opinions. As for me, I usually come here to get away from all that. I can always count on cheapjoes for art supplies & a good time. | ||
patinsc |
Dake, Visited your site. Very nice. Also visited the girl on your link. Thanks for the visit. As a sortatookituplateinlifebutnottoolate artist I enjoy the conversation BUT some people have gotten into a bit of mud slingling that I do not enjoy. A good converstion is one thing but insults are another. It reminds me too much of another site ( can't remember name) I went to and all they did was hurl insults back and forth. That is why I stick with Joe. HAVE been very nice people just like the staff a t Joes place but I am beginning to wonder who left the back door open? | ||
Mysterious |
That Elephant Phart is a warm transparent color, right? | ||
annoymouse63 |
This is so hiliarious, between triedittolateinlife and nobodyknowsmyname and a afeathertestingofpaper and all the poopgoingon...whatanintelligentgroup! illreturnlater-maybe loveandkissestoyouall! | ||
Cathy |
I guess we don't mind if your anonymous, Anonymous as long as we know it's really you. You know, the Famous Anonymous! Back to Pigeon poo... if any of you really use that in your art... well... refering to a previous discussion on "what is art"... I'll have to call your art Crap! | ||
Anonymous |
I didn't expect so much response. I think I feel honored. The best way to get back at someone, Dake, is by ignoring that person. Obviously, this is not what I am trying to do. I apologize if I really, really offended anyone. You all have a nice day now. Oh, as much as I wish I were, I am not famous and don't expect to ever be. This probably could have been my 15 minutes of fame. BUT NOBODY KNOWS MY NAME. This is the story of my life. You know what? I am having fun. | ||
okillbedakeanonymousthen |
Now lisn heer all you big gronups if i wanna be a kid i will. do you member what it woz lik to have sily fun, poo poo, snotty, wee wee fun. So bottoms to you. sumtimes i paint wiv mi fingus its fun to | ||
featheranonymous |
Don't ask feather, she's up to her neck testing watercolor papers! However, it's a grand idea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | ||
Kukana |
Pidgon Poop?? Dake I want the acid tests done on PP before I add it to my pallette. The possibilites sound interesting to say the least and I wouldn't object to CJAS renaming their white after such a descriptive title. It goes right along with the Sour Lemons, Red Hot Mama and Passionate Purple. I can even invision paintings entitled "Poop on the Mountain" ,"Poopbirds Nest" and "Study in Poop #3" and last but not least "Anonymous Poop" We can start a whole new movement in the direction of watercolors to include the secretions of native flauna from around the world. We could have a whole multitude of colors like Koala Krap, Buffalo Bung and Elephant Phart. Who could we get to head up the color testing lab???? | ||
trying really, really hard to be Anonymous, oh so Anonymous |
how many posts can the cheap joe's community put on its watercolor artist topic board without saying anything meaningful about watercolors? go for the record, kids, and get it over with ... | ||
dake |
Not really Cathy, I think at the moment all that can be said about white has been said and that the truth lies somewhere between br..i mean drollere's expounding insight and my facetious blab. | ||
Cathy |
Dake, Would you consider pigeon poo an alternative to zinc white, and is this just your way to get us back on the topic of this discussion? :-) | ||
Dake |
One thing i've noticed since dropping in here like some unwanted motherinlaw is that people are very sensitive, and possessive of their little bit of space. It may be a whimpy trait found commonly among tookituplateinlife social refugees, of whom anonymous is the lead player. The only reason this particular topic is so full of vitriol is that there are so many guilty consciences around and obviously way too much pidgeon poo being mistaken for watercolor. | ||
maxi |
More thoughts on anonymous: A rule of thumb that I have learned is that if you get an anonymous phone call, you hang up; if you get an anonymous letter it goes into the trash can - not worth the paper it's written on. Anonymous, if you are so famous that you don't want anyone to know who you are, choose a handle so far out that nobody will ever guess, at least we would have something to identify you by. We don't care if you're a king, queen or ex-pres. Bill. Not trying to be mean, just giving my thoughts. | ||
maxi |
When I first found this site a few weeks ago, i was a little hesitant about using a name (don't exactly know why) and was rebuked by at least three ofthe regulars who contribute to this page. Sooo I decided it was kind of silly to remain nameless, after all we can be whom ever we want on the web, right? So what is with all the anonymous stuff? And what does it have to do with anything anyway? Y'all seem to be such a great group of artists, so why all the elementary stuff? The discussion about white in w/c was very informative and took away some of the guilt I've felt when using gouche or white acrylic in my w/colors, so thank you. Can we each have and share our opinion without mud slinging and insults? I love this page for it's friendliness and helpfulness. Can we please act like adults? Just my amatureish thoughts. MAXI | ||
Kukananonymous |
Oops, I forgot to sign out..Kukananonymous | ||
Kukana |
This has gotten truley hilarious and is more addictive than a soap opera.! I have actually gotten to the point where I log on to see what is going on in this area. Talk about cheap entertainment! And all brought to us via the world wide web!!! | ||
Lexonymous |
Silly us. I spent last evening with my youngest grandson who reminded me that most things in life are pretty funny, as long as they don't involve falling off of furniture and hitting one's noggin. | ||
Anonymous |
Yeah Anonymous, get over it already! | ||
Anonymous |
What's with the "anonymous", Anonymous? | ||
Anonymous |
Cathy, A regular who shall remain nameless in this discussion. It is getting too heated and technical for me. | ||
Cathy |
Now, which anonymous would you be? :-) | ||
Anonymous |
jfleetwo, AHMEN! Please EVERYONE GET A LIFE! | ||
Dake |
This is a very active little board with extremely qualified people contributing.It's easy to become sidetracked from the topic i can't help ageeing with drollere. A little personal interchange is not always a bad thing though. It provokes thought and research. I certainly have learnt something in the short time since I entered the discussion.As well as #meeting# other artists and schollars.How do others feel about censorship of these type of discussions? It happens very blatantly I find. | ||
drollere |
piper, you're quote from hilary page is accurate, but the context could be confusing, as page may still be running under the umbrella of "seem to exude." in any case, page will have to speak for herself; the figures in my earlier post are correct. | ||
drollere |
for what it's worth ... public bulletin boards have pretty routine dynamics. everyone has a different style of communication. the easiest way for us all to keep the focus on watercolors is to keep the focus off personalities. if someone annoys you, ignore it. if they appear to be insulting, ignore it. if they appear to be insulting *you*, ignore it. if you don't like what they say, respond to it factually, ignore it, or get off the topic. i'm personally not a fan of the kissy-kissy decorum in bulletin boards, because it creates the atmosphere that the group deals in approval, and that somehow always seems to create permission for some members to exert disapproval, and then it's a flame war again. it's great some people want to use the board to support others, but i think you can best support people by discussing facts, experiences, suggestions. if you want the emotional stuff, click on the blue name and write 'em a letter. | ||
Cathy |
Amen to that! I do appreciate the opinions expressed here, it is a necessary part of the discussion forum. However, as has been mentioned the original spirit in this particular discussion has gone by the wayside. Kukana come back! I have appreciated all that she has posted and have found her very willing to share if she thinks it will help someone. She has even called me at home (in another state) just to help me prepare for my first street show. Don't judge her to be 'full of herself' when in reality it is very much a willingness to share her experience to help others. I think those who have participated on this board for sometime have a developed a comfortable rapport, and just respond to the discussions as if with old friends, not to show off. What would we learn if everyone didn't contribute what they know? So, boys and girls, no more rudeness ok? :-) Dake, your description of John Singer Sargeant's work was perfect, I have to agree that the beauty of it stirs my soul and makes me want to weep. Ok, I said my peace. Thank you all for making this such a good forum. | ||
dazey |
jfleetwo, it is not your fault. And your comments were good ones. My favorite watercolor instructor almost always uses both saved whites and zinc white in his demonstrations. He would laugh at loud at the emotional positions people take in defense of one over another. I am just a novice at all this, but seems to me that each has its purpose. | ||
jfleetwo |
Back when this string first started I had to make my two cents known and turn a technical question into a philosophical debate. I mentioned originally that I am an amateur, some would say rank. I also purchase original art but I wouldn't define myself as a collector. It is my effort to use what I do have to support those with the courage to pursue art professionally. It is obvious that I am way over my head here. I wish I had never said anything. I promise to never even look at this board again let alone post if everyone will get back to the spirit that used to prevail. | ||
piper |
In the book Color Right From the Start by Hilary Page, on page 70 she says about the cad yellows, " The pigments have a radiant quality, making them seem to exude more light than the illumination warrants. If you hold your cadmium test samples sideways you will be able to see how the color emits more light than the paper." However it is a moot point and I say lets all kiss and make up as we realize we are each coming from different levels of experience, different vantage points, and all of us are still learning. Lets just be artists. OK? OOOOOXXXX's to all. PS Anytime an id name appears in blue you may email that person by clicking on that blue name | ||
Lex |
I am sometimes too blunt in my expression. My apologies to kukana who has contributed far more to this forum for much longer than I. If anyone knows her e-mail address please forward my apology. I don't wish to be the cause of anyone leaving what has been, judging by the posts I've read, an unfailingly polite source of information. | ||
Dake |
If someone hadnt made some noise in here facts such as presented below would not have emerged See ya | ||
drollere |
i'm so glad i showed up after the food fight. they don't call this cheap joe's for nothing. back to neffi's original post: yes, sargent and most other painters of his generation used chinese white (zinc white) in one or more different ways. once it was introduced by winsor & newton in 1834 it became quite popular. the principal uses: 1. coating a sheet of white paper with a wash of chinese white, prior to painting. this was done to increase the brilliancy of the colors 2. mixing with a "transparent" color, to alter the color characteristics or make it slightly opaque, for example, to mimic smoke, fog, haze, etc. (j.m.w. turner sometimes dropped a little in his rinse water, to give all colors a slightly hazy appearance) 3. using it almost full strength to "paint in" a white -- seagull in the sky, whatever. the concept of "transparent" watercolor is a misnomer. in fact, almost all watercolor paints are slightly to significantly opaque (they have a refractive index greater than 1). the 'transparent' colors were almost all natural organic pigments -- which faded badly -- and have fallen into disuse. there is, technically, no such thing as 'transparent' watercolor. watercolors appear transparent because the particles of pigment lie on the paper with some small distance between them. paper shows through the spaces. (watercolors are "transparent" in the same way a layer of dust on a polished table is "transparent.") if you don't believe this, just apply several layers of a modern "transparent" color over a heavy black felt pen line on your paper. in four or five coats you can mask the line enough to make it look gray, or the color of the paint. what would happen if you put on four or five layers of gum arabic, or a varnish? well, the line would still be black, of course -- because varnish is transparent and modern watercolors are not. point of fact, sargent did not use gouache or chinese white because he used tinted papers. i've seen the sargents in london and new york, and i guarantee you, nearly all are on a soft white or ivory paper. (my man hercules brabazon brabazon is a different story.) winslow homer also used chinese white, and he also painted on white papers. why then did they use chinese white? because, for the particular effect they wanted, it was the right tool to use. on that point and others, dake is not being pompous, merely misinformed. the harangue about transparent vs. opaque watercolors began almost immediately after chinese white was introduced, with the "old guard" landscape painters insisting on not using chinese white -- and all the progressive, magnificent, creative, beautiful painters -- turner, cox, lewis, palmer, north, hunt, ruskin, rossetti, burne-jones, homer, sargent, marin, and even my man hercules -- trying it and concluding that THIS STUFF ROCKS. sargent and homer knew how to scrape, cut, sponge etc. with the rest of them -- but sometimes you need a paint. in other words, the "transparent only" purists have never been anything except a reactionary fringe. personally, i don't use zinc white much at all, mostly because it quickly pollutes rinse water, and i work a lot in the field. i can't imagine why anyone would *not* use it, if it helped you get where you wanted to go, or did something magical you couldn't do any other way. other users have offered some great tips below -- they are well worth trying out! i'm not aware of any watercolor show throwing out someone for using chinese white. using gouache throughout is a different matter. one more thing ... i can't believe hilary page would say that cadmium lemon is more luminous than white paper. luminosity is reflectivity, and the only paint that is more reflective than pure white paper is -- pure white paint. most watercolor papers have a reflectivity of about 97%, and the brightest cadmiums are at 95-96%. jeez, guys, argue if you want to -- but at least get your facts straight. | ||
Kukana |
I just re-read all the posts and the funny thing is that we all seem to be in somewhat of an agreement. When did everyone start getting pissy??? I'm off the board. I don't need this! | ||
KUKANA!!!! |
Anonymous, Lighten up and get over it. At least we sign our names to our post. You don't even have the courage to sign your name. And by the way, what I'm full of is life! I love it, I show show it and I have a healthy self esteem. | ||
dake |
Alternatively To anon. You've got no idea at all. You seem happy to sit in judgement behind you shroud of annonimity you self righteous clown!! Since when have we been governed by a rule being nice to each other..I didn't see anything about group therapy on this site. Maybe you should take your pills and go to bed. | ||
dake |
To anon...Okay i love you too...you May engage me if you wish on an email basis daki98@hotmail.com I don't think here is the place for abuse. You're obviously confusing this place with a group therapy room. | ||
dake |
Thanks Dazey and Kukana I'm relieved that you did not take my comments as condecending I didn't mean them to be or feel particularly superior when i made them. Speaking of condecending in Lex's retort, I have immence respect(although envy is possibly more adequate term) for those that did paint on cave walls and in some parts of the country in which I live, still do. Their expression is pure and in so many ways dependent on millenia of traditional @#MARK MAKING#@.Their stories do not stop and start with I and ME and NOW but relate a continuum of experience generation upon generation which is based on union with Mother Earth. I wish I could wipe out what I think I know and start over. But I can't. We sometimes learn too much and it blocks our vision. Lets not pretend to imagine that our precious brushstrokes are prettier and more sophisticated than the line of another person from another time and place, style or medium. Believe me, they are no more than A MARK . As a person who ALWAYS becomes intoxicated with a glance at a well executed watercolor i can't help but seek to discover how it was done. I'ts just that they always seem to be the ones that are transparent that I like the most. I don't have @#selection criteria#@ before i like a watercolor, i'm far from judgemental and ecclectic to the point of it being a hinderance to my own progress. If you have a look at Handprint.com > click "Watercolors"> "Artists" > scroll down to "Brabazon"...that, including its opaque white is beautiful..smiple and direct on tinted paper, Js Sargent...I weep after his magic too. White paper has nothing to do with the beauty or otherwise of a painting. What does matter is the impression of immediacy and directness that is achievable in the highest order in watercolor but certainly not exclusively. Left whites are merely a side effect of the techique. Hey Kukana Idaho is a long way from Oahu, i do believe you would miss the Islands,i certainly would as i like to surf. You tease re your work.....can I have a little peek sometime. | ||
Anonymous |
Well I totally agree with Lex. Dake sounds plenty condescending, even pompous. His response to Chris was rude and uncalled for. Politeness is always in good taste. His writing is not. And, without naming any names, there is another peson there taking his side who is pretty full of herself. This site is supposed to be meant for discussion, not to put others down. Enough said. | ||
dazey |
Dake, and everyone else, please feel free to express your opinion. I love seeing the various points of view, especially when they do not all agree. I did not find your comments condescending. | ||
Kukana |
Hey Dake, Nice website. So you're an Aussie. Now I'll read your posts with a whole new accent.!! (I was raised in Hawaii for 16 years and moved to the mainland for college. Been here, between Utah and Idaho, ever since. My heart is still in the Islands) | ||
Kukana |
(Read this with a sweet and not a condescending tone in your mind:-) Oh...I don't think anyone is trying to to be condescending. Its really hard when we can only read something online instead of hearing voice and tones. Its easy to add our own condescending tone as we read. I know I can be guilty of that, especially when its something I disagree with. I love reading everyone opinion and I love the ocassional "Devils Advocate" that jump in from time to time. It would be a boring board if we all agreed all the time! Keep it up dake, you can "badger" me anytime! | ||
Lex |
At the risk of inciting a riot I must object to dake's apparently condescending tone in this discussion. For example: "I see no reason why you may not throw cow dung on your work if it needs to be there, but don't pretend it is watercolor." It's entirely likely some of our brown pigments contain a certain amount of ancient dung. Perhaps that's why some painters insist on creating their own browns through mixing - revulsion at the thought of soiling their hands and brushes. And the haughty: "There is nothing "wrong" with using anything to make a mark with but we must try to preserve definitions." If dake believes there's nothing wrong here, why emphasize it with quotation marks? That's a gimmick typically used to frame a discussion in the pejorative. As for the phrase, "make a mark," that may be the most offensive, as if those working in transparent watercolors are the real artists while all others are Neanderthals slathering dung and clay on cave walls. Save your definitions for yourself if they enhance your self esteem. Art isn't created by dictionaries. Others, especially newcomers, should feel encouraged to experiment, even flout the "rules" (yup, that's a pejorative) and, above all, enjoy the process. They'll learn for themselves as they progress what works and what they like. | ||
dake |
Kukana is right. There is nothing "wrong" with using anything to make a mark with but we must try to preserve definitions. Let the new have it's own identity and not be limited by trying to be too categorical. Thank you for your input. If you would like to see some of my work (in my very new and still developing site) pop into say hi at www.geocities.com/daki98 | ||
piper |
If I understand the theory correctly the white of the paper reflects light back out through `transparent' watercolors creating a luminosity which is unattainable with any other medium. However, paints themselves each have reflecting abilities, and according to Hillary Page cad yellow light has more reflecting power than the white paper. I have seen some exquisitly luminous results from non transparent paints, especially the oils. I guess I think the real point is that one does what needs to be done to achieve the desired effect. And as Kukana says just call it what it is and there should be no problem. | ||
Kukana |
Ok, I said I wasn't going to post today but I can't stand it.! I think the problem with this discussion is definition. Transparent Watercolor is Transparent Watercolor. You cannot have a transparent Water color with gouche on it and still have a transparent Watercolor! It becomes a mixed medium. It is a good painting? It can be or it can't be. It depends on the painting. Mixed medium is Mixed Medium. Chinese white is water soluble but its similarities to transparent watercolor end there. You can not use Transparent watercolor "only" and called it mixed. Is one art form better than the other? NO They are different! Are Gouache paintings beautiful. They can be and they can't be. It depends on the painting. I really think the whole question is what you call it...There is nothing wrong with calling something a Gouache or a Mixed media if thats what it is. Somehow we've gotten off track here and came up with the idea that the term mixed media is a dirty word! I think I paint some of the most beautiful transparent work out there. I love to save the whites and let them glow through. I also think its fun to try new things. It's what makes the whole idea of the creative experience so great. It is a bit narrow minded to assume there is only one true art form on the face of the earth. God doesn't work that way and I don't either!!! Yes, there are catagories for shows and clubs that define their perimeters for themselves,. Nothing wrong with that. If you enjoy mixed media you simply enter them into a mixed media catagory. If I entered my "Transparent only" work in a mixed catagory it wouldn't win. Why would I try? To me its like entering a watercolor, gouache or collage in a Oil catagory. Lets just all agree that it isn't the medium that is good or bad..the work from the hand of the artist is the true definition of talent! Gotta go paint now.. | ||
dake |
It was not uncommon for Sargent and his pal Hercules Brabazon to use colored paper(usually a warm tone).This was when they used white paint to represent a white object or reflected sunlight. It is of course fine to use it when no white paper exists. | ||
dake |
We may use anything to express our vision, feelings,thoughts,concepts. I see no reason why you may not throw cow dung on your work if it needs to be there, but don't pretend it is watercolor.If you don't see the need in your subject for the clean, pure, fresh glow of the paper or the crisp highlight that it provides then thats fine too....you're the artist after all it's your vision not mine or anyone elses. The main difference between using opaque colors and opaque white is that in MOST (but not all instances)the artist is trying to depict the reflection of LIGHT off the subject for this the white of the paper is cleaner and fresher..period! Some of the greatest watercolourists in history have used white paint..Turner, Brabazon Brabazon, JS Sargent, one would not say however that they used it as a lazy alternative to white paper(when they had access to white paper that is).I think the only problem is in the proclamation made by so called "watercolorists" when in fact they are using mixed media... | ||
chris |
In response to dake, I truly disagee with your rule that w/c are always better when not polluted with white. We are all interpretating our emotions that a subject evokes and if an artist needs an opaque paint to capture it, then use it. I painted in the traditional way for 15 years. Then I started using opaque colors including white gouache in my work and felt I had finally found the method to express my feelings. Not using white is such an unnessary rule that has hung around much too long. If that is your method, great, but if one wants to stretch and explore, then no quilt should be involved over an arbitrary rule. So, those are my humble thoughts. | ||
Lex |
I know the popular concept of watercolor is as a transparent medium in which colors are used only to the extent necessary to sculpt light. It's something I'm teaching myself to do, albeit slowly. But my main influences are the European watercolorists who tend to paint rather heavily, almost in the style of oil painters, using light colors rather than white reserves to represent light and create contrast. In this style the lighter opaque colors are very useful. In that sense I see no difference between using opaque yellow, orange or white - it all depends on the color of light one wishes for a particular piece. | ||
dake |
I think of my blank sheet as a sheet of light. Every brushstroke interferes with this light it makes me think more and certainly results in light filled work.I guess I've never really considered using white but as I read in your comments some artists love it. Of course not all painters seek 'light'in their story.When they do however the light of the paper rules. | ||
dake |
One must ask ones self...what advantage does watercolor offer over any other medium when thinking about your subject. If you feel it important to show the value1 details in white and you can't leave white paper then paint the subject in some other medium. Watercolors are ALWAYS better when not polluted with opaque whites.You're better off lifting,scraping or scratching off rather than using white. | ||
Lex |
I'd say painting by the rules of a particular society, organization or show for the sake of a challenge (transparent paints only, no white, etc.) is fine. Doing so to preserve a status quo is silly. I haven't figured out how to use white to make up for my laziness in not leaving adequate reserves. But it sure helps in blending with other colors to create softer, pastel shades. | ||
Neffi |
Thanks everyone for all your wonderful input. | ||
Kukana |
I agree dirtybird. Limiting oneself is ridculous. Everytime we, as human beings limit anything in our lives, we stop our own progression. We begin to believe we have the corner on the market when it comes to the ulitmate knowledge. Frank Webb quoted in his class that "It was not fear nor lack of courage that prevented man from discovering that the world was not flat, but rather the Illusion of Knowledge!" This is not to say that we can't have specialty and favorites but experimentation is half the fun. I personally enjoy the challenge of saving the whites of the paper but this new trick of splattering the whites on top sound fun! I can't wait to experiment on some work I've got sitting on the table right now. This kind of stuff is the spice of life! | ||
dirtybird |
I do not have any bias about using white pigments, as a matter of fact I can cook up a great foggy background scene using chinese white mixed with another pigment. I personally don't think it is a matter of "limiting yourself" by NOT using white pigments. The limitation comes when you use white pigments and fail to explore the infinite possibilities of the white surface of watercolor paper. The watercolor paper surface play a more central role in watercolor than any surface in all the other paint media. | ||
pat c. |
I enjoy spattering and flicking Titanium White on my floral paintings. This pigment has the quality of spreading when spattered on a damp wash, creating a lovely lighter area. When spattered or flicked when the paper is dryer and the paint is thicker, it sits up on the surface beautifully, creating spangles of light. I usually don't mix the white with my watercolor pigments. Instead, I use the white on its own as an accent. Try it! It's fun! | ||
feather |
On my limited palette of a split primary, I can't make pink and baby blue without mixing in a little white....and neither can most of the paint manufacturers (if you read the labels closely). | ||
Birdpainter |
Although a lot of the basic watercolor books, and some instructors, lean heavily on "save the whites" and no white paints, gouache and Chinese white paints have been used for years by some of the most famous watercolorists. My motto (which I read somewhere and "stole") is use whatever you have to to get the results you want, i.e., whatever works! (Except for those "transparent wc only" competitions, although most wc competitions now go with "water media" on paper, meaning wc, gouache, acrylic and casein. Sid | ||
Carrie Stuart Parks |
Unless the show says "transparent watercolor only", white/opaques are a very acceptable medium. Many watercolorists use white or gouache in their art. Go for it! -Carrie | ||
jfleetwo |
I recently attended the Kansas Watercolor Society's seven state juried show and saw several paintings by Hugh Greer. He uses white and/or gouache extensively to produce beautiful work with great depth. I am an amateur and have been told over and over that transparent colors with saved whites is the only way to paint. However, after seeing this show I think that many people may be limiting themselves because of prevailing artistic bias. I would never detract from the beauty of transparent watercolor, this is what attracted me to the medium in the first place, but, for what it's worth, I am going to start playing with white and gouache too. | ||
chris |
Neffi, Buy the white w/c or gouache!!! It is so much fun and the effects can be fantastic. If you mix gouache with a little[or more] w/c it doesn't look as opaque. So many artists use it now and it is not frowned upon like it used to be. It is still wonderful to save whites, but the the white paint adds another dimension if you handle it well. So experiment till you get the feel for it. I have won awards for paintings with gouache in them in the state WC Society juried shows. Some org. still frown on it so you have to check out the rules. | ||
Neffi |
I don't own a tube of white w/c paint - good ol' H2O is my white paint and I "save my whites". But recently I was totally awed by the watercolor paintings (viewed only in a book, not in real life) of JS Sargent. It looks to me as though he used white paint highlights and occasionally may have even tinted the white paint with color pigment. And these are gorgeous paintings. I am just wondering, then, why the use of white paint (sparingly) in watercolor painting seems so taboo today? Is it a matter of aesthetics ("opaque = ugly"), or that white = gouache?? I could be tempted to buy a tube of white paint. Is anybody out there producing anything interesting with white watercolor paint? Just wondering...... |
