| Author | Message | ||
  jdaneman |
--Actually Charles Reid says that in the initial phases you are concentrating on the subject but as the painting develops you are focussing more on the painting. It may not exactly exemplify my point but it relates to it. -- Ah, that's interesting! I just did a picture of our town hall, and spent 90% of the time looking at the picture, rather than the subject, which I know because I found the subject photo buried under my newspapers when I had finished the sketch. Interesting point. I was not aware of what I was doing, but apparently it was looking at the painting to make sure I had what I wanted. (I didn't 100%..so time to redo it.) | ||
Anonymous |
please help me with this topic "language and aesthetic in architecture".my email address is moraks@usa.com.thank you for your help. | ||
William Band |
I love the response from Kukana regarding chinese white, " Good for holding window up for air circulation." The magic of transparent watercolor is its transparency. To me White or Opaque is a crutch used by Illustrators. Some of my successful art friends use white, I do not, never will and want to sleep with a clear concience, knowing that I have used my transparent paints properly. | ||
Dake |
I don't know that Americans are the only society that is infected with the disease of raising a particular flag and paying homage to that symbol rather than understanding what that symbol represents. I don't pretend to be a sociologist but I think that wherever there is media saturation and a dollar to be made from forming and manipulating opinions, and therefore markets, that the consumer is vunerable to losing sight of reality. Making the broard statement to demonstrate what group you belong to seems a trendy thing to do. We all do it to some extent, it's a default reaction. You just have to stop, try to disgard the dross, and think. As for watercolour and art in general, social interaction amongst other artists can lead you away from your true self and vision. You can become a *club* painter. You see this in local communities where there seem to be a concentration of impressionistic pastelists, like the community has been infected by some strange affliction. It's a bizarre phenomenon. In my local community ultramarine blue, white and raw sienna must be the best selling pastels. There is a proliferation of coastal scenes all in the same composition and palette. In Melbourne the number of wonderful impressionistic watercolourists is staggering, streetscapes, cafe scenes, mediteranian, tuscan villages, boats etc. There seems little diversity in the larger sponsored competitions in regards to genre and style. There are usually two or three artists that have overwhelming influence like vampyres preying on the unsuspecting, spreading their insidious veil of sameness and suffocating true expression(not deliberately of course). Subjugation to style and media is a danger we need to be mindful of. In this discussion on the merrits of transparency vs opaque it is important to keep it in prespective as Robert has said. If I feel totally free and believe that w/c is the best way to express an idea then I choose to follow some tradition. However, as an artist I recognise that watercolour is not always the right meduim for the job. I will not allow the limitations of watercolour to dictate the parameters of the idea. | ||
Robert |
I don't think there are really "rules" that have been written out, but the masters have passed down their wisdom to us lesser mortals informally. Fundamental to the canon is to always respect the medium of watercolor for what it is. This leads to some of the following advice: 1. value transparency and do nothing that will compromise the transparency 2. When possible reserve the paper for whites rather than use opaque white paint. 3. Have a variety of edges--hard and blended. 4. Don't go into a semi-dry wash with a wet brush. etc. etc. Things like that. Noone to my knowledge has ever listed these as rules (in the sense of the ten commandments of w/c) and for us to be talking about rules is a convienance for discussion purposes. Actually what the "rules" are are simply advice from masters about what produces the most characteristically "watercolor-like" effects. The use of the term "rule" causes people who feel that art is always about pushing the envelop to counsel "break the rules." But is this really the point? The point is to produce art. A few tips from those who have developed great art in the past can't necessarily be a bad thing. One is free to violate any precepts; however, to put a wet brush into a drying wash is to invite ugly botches--that's a fact of the chemistry of water, pigment, and paper. The reliance on white paint instead of paper would circumvent the "rules" designed to produce maximum brilliance and sparkle in the painting. One should always feel free to do what one likes, but others can feel free to see it it as amateurish and poor quality art. Should one play piano by the rules (ie, with ones ten fingers) or is it okay to play with one's elbows? The answer of course is that anyone who seriously maintiains a non-judgemental position and proclaims that wither is just fine is in fact an imbecile and is not worthy of most people's time. But most people are too squemish to call a spade a spade, a terrorist a terrorist, or amateurish art amateurish art. "It's all opinion!" My concern is that Americans bend over backwards to be non-judgemental and to not tell others what to do to the point that sometimes they never take a stand in matters of aesthetics (or for that matter morals or national security). But that's all just my opinion. | ||
jandrle |
Could some really left brained person list the rules? The ones I know are don't use white, mix black and mix green. Oh and mud... don't make mud! I am pretty well trained so I probably follow them but in reading the passion of these posts I am at a loss about what, other than white, is actually being talked about... Jane | ||
Anonymous |
Hi K-- Your words--"When it comes to your friend and the Al Queida analogy...being open-minded and just plain stupid are two different things! I would never call her open minded. She was obviously not the brightest crayon in the box." No, as good as a friend as she is, I would have to admit that in matters politic she is more of a sepia than a Cad. Yellow! I am assuming you picked up on my irony in praising her open mindedness. I think many Americans are caught up (raised as they were to be PC in all matters) in valuing the appearance of open-mindedness above common sense. The venom re. the war on terrorism is an upshot of that, I feel. But in terms of watercolor, I agree--there's always kept in reserve the "the right" to break the "rules" but these exceptions, to me, demonstrate the validity of the rules. At a recent "watercolor exhibition" locally the entire set of winners in the show were gouche or acrylic on paper paintings that used tube white. Yuk!!!! Not one of the excellent traditional watercolors made it to the winner's wall. How pissed I was to see this! | ||
Robert |
Dake-- Re. the statement by Charles Reid, I once heard it said that you can tell a good plein air painter from a beginner simply by watching how and when he looks at the subject. The experienced painter looks at the subject for a long time initially and then mostly looks at the paper, looking up at the subject only occassionally, whereas the neophyte will study the subject as he paints to get all the details "right." Re. this discussion in general, it has made me encounter the paradox or rules and expressiveness--to wit: the rules make it possible to be more spontaneous and expressive. What some don;t seem to get is that the "rules" of watercolor allow for the most expressive and free executions--they are deigned to fre the artist, not limit him. It's more to be seen as sage advice from those who have already walked the path. Here's my tale--- I have lately been under the spell of Christian Wharton whose book "Painting water in watercolour" is great for showing how to use a severely limited palette and drybrush to paint water. Her drybrush techniques violate most of the rules and her color choices --Ult., Cd, Red and Cad Yellow, and WHITE introduce a marked opacity to the paintings. Rules or transparancey and fluidity are violeted. As a result, my own paintings lately lack the effortless vibrancy of traditional watercolors and look more like tempera. Yesterday I received an order from Cheap Joe's containing one of Joe's painted thank you cards. The painting was beautiful in its simplicity--a few transparent washes and reserved paper for whites. I copied it onto a quarter sheet of Lanaquarelle cold press to get back in touch with what led me to w/c in the first place. I think I will return to the simple, loose techniques that comprise the "rules" of watercolor and feel my paintings will become more free and spontaneous appearing as a result. Great discussion. | ||
Dake |
Actually Charles Reid says that in the initial phases you are concentrating on the subject but as the painting develops you are focussing more on the painting. It may not exactly exemplify my point but it relates to it. | ||
Dake |
I was painting a watercolour last night thinking about Jerry's comment re negative and positive painting techniques. I decided this axiom is not always true. Like a composition, for every positive there is a negative (shape for example....but not only). It is a nonsense to contemplate separating the two...well it's not logical as Spock would have said. It made me consider my conscious veiwpoint or relationship to the painting process which I had not really focussed on recently. I think it largely depends on what you're painting and for what purpose. An illustrator who is rendering a visual narative or a portrait painter for example are to a large extent limited by physical attributes. In Sutures fine examples below there are elements which need to be historically correct, thus one must remain accurate. However in more *expressive* works the artist has the freedom to allow the natural characteristics of the medium to create a more abstract design that reinforces the sentiment or feel of the piece. This requires the artist to be perceptive and sensitive to unplanned directions that the work may take and to voluntarily submit(is that an oxymoron) to these changes. I think this is why I like watercolour, the ellusive *happy accident* becomes an integral element in the design and creative process. The recognition of cues that may be of subconscious significance to the artist is to me a step in "positive technique" terretory rather than citing these changes to the initial idea as being a stimulus to employ a negative technique to regain control. What I am saying here is that to me, the painting process(especially in watercolour) is a fluid and dynamic set of infinite interactions in which you the artist must commence but at some point in the process must submit to and become passive. Charles Reid states this in one of his portrait videos. Initially your perceptions are focussed upon the subject but somewhere near the midpoint of the activity the painting takes over and is self motivating and self directing until you are satisfied. I hope I'm understood here.....apologies for the long winded expression of my thoughts...I feel satisfied now so I'll stop. | ||
Anonymous |
Kakuna-- I wasn't speaking about you, but rather those who take a thrill in proclaiming "rules are meant to be broken" regardless of the context or significance of the rules. ie. Those who haven't progressed past adolescence mentally. Such an attitude displays little artistic integrity and much naivite. Not you. | ||
Kukana |
PS I am not a self-indulgent pontificator. Fortunatly, however, I am thick skinned and take no offense. | ||
Kukana |
I was the one who actually who made the "rules should be broken" statement on this thread yet at the same time I agree with you. (Is that you, dollere??) Yes there are basic rules that must be followed to be a sucess...in art and in life. Obviously. You can't choose to chop off your legs and expect to win the Boston Marathon! Basic laws!!!! I believe that is true in every aspect of my life, including the very strict, orthodox religion I choose to practice. I find it very interesting that when people find out what religion I am and see my Wacky art or meet me and see that I am not the stereo typical vision they have of one of my faith they assume I must be breaking a lot of "rules" Quite the contrary. I consider myself very obedient to the laws of my faith. The difference is that I know exactly where my "line in the sand" is and I do not cross it. But I explore the world around me up to that point with zeal and do not follow the crowd by what they assume I should do, wear, act or think. I hold the same attitude when it comes to my art. I choose not to use white. I hate it in a watercolor painting. I think its yukky... yet I would never refuse to try it again if I happen to have a brainstorm idea for it. Thats where my line in the sand is for it. When it comes to your friend and the Al Queida analogy...being open-minded and just plain stupid are two different things! I would never call her open minded. She was obviously not the brightest crayon in the box. | ||
Anonymous |
Dake wrote: "For all those who espouse the idea that "rules are made to be broken" show me your masterpiece where you have broken the rules otherwise pull your head in and stop misleading the watercolour neophytes who read this. " Amen, amen, amen. I think there is a problem with current communication that goes way beyond watercolor and bleeds into (American) politics as well. "Sounding" mentally liberated seems to trump pragmatic reality. It sounds good to make a lot political statments that make one seem open minded. Just yesterday I had a friend assert that Al Quieda wasn't not a terrorist organization but was a group that had a cause and were choosing their own methods to achieve their goals, just like any group with a cause. How openminded. How superior my friend felt because she was able to see past the tunnel vision shackling the masses. How liberally accepting of her! Break all the rules and achieve great art in watercolor is another shining example of self-indulgent pontificating that has no bearing on reality but is a statement born of a need to feel more open minded and superior. I too would like to see a work that tosses watercolor conventions out the window and is still worth hanging. | ||
rainbow |
Since we had an incident last fall with the drywall, I am wishing I had thought to use the stuff for a plaster substitute. It amazes me that, as a whole, artists are creative and pretty accepting of one another's differences, whether other artists or humanity in general. We see wonderful portraits of CEOs and the homeless, all ages, all races and so forth. I've seen landscapes that make me think I've just glimpsed Heaven and others that make me feel I've just glimpsed Hell and they are all beautiful and moving in their way. But this one topic creates such a polar reaction, like discussing politics or religion. We all have our different styles and muses, as evidenced by this. I never really expected to get a reply. I've been in a funk since the incident mentioned above. I wish someone would post some of their new stuff to help push me beyond the "I want to's" to the "I gotta paint now's!" | ||
Dake |
As always beauty is in the eye of the beholder. | ||
Dake |
But one must establish a philosopy of approach before one can make a mistake otherwise how do you know it's a mistake and thus employ a negative technique to re-establish control? I think your sentence in summary is most appropriate Suture. | ||
jandrle |
Well said. That pretty much sums it up. Next?????? Jane | ||
SutureSelf |
  | ||
SutureSelf |
Maybe the files are too big. I'll try one more time.   | ||
SutureSelf |
Not being a watercolorist, I have either a disinterested view of the subject or an ignorant one. You can decide which. To me, there are two aspects to the subject. One concerns the conceptual or intellectual mastery of the medium. The other is the physical mastery of it. The two are closely related. There are two classes of technique. I call them positive technique and negative technique. That doesn't mean good and bad technique. Positive technique brings us closer to where we want to be in a painting. Negative technique brings us away from where we don't want to be. Every stroke we make on a painting that is a correct stroke, every daub, spatter or any other use of the medium that supports our vision of what the painting should be, that doesn't make us go "Ooops!", is an example of positive technique. It is a correct step on the path to completeness of the statement. Every now and then, though, we do go oops. Even the best of us can make a mistake. The question becomes how do we proceed from here? The technique we use to backtrack from the mistake is a negative technique. It is a step away from the wrong path. When we become experienced enough and have a thorough-enough undestanding of our medium and our artistic vision starts to mature, our negative technique becomes less and less detectable. I remember when Errol Gardner was on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson years ago. Gardner was a master of improvisation. During the interview, Carson asked him whether he ever made mistakes. Gardner replied that he made mistakes all the time, but he knew what to play after the mistake so that you wouldn't know it was a mistake. Gardner's conceptual mastery of his medium was so thorough that his negative technique was undetectable. A beginner cannot use opaque white as a positive technique. The contrast between transparency and opacity is so glaring that only an exceptionally gifted beginner can understand how to intertwine them intuitively to pleasing effect. Beginners, of course, are more prone to mistakes than mature watercolorists are. Opaque white provides a powerful negative technique temptation. But since a beginner doesn't understand how to use opacity and transparency in a mutually supportive way, a beginner cannot use opaque white as a negative technique. Therefore, a beginner cannot use opaque white. Over time, explorations of the medium can show us ways to use unconventional paints, including opaque white, in effective and even necessary ways. I made the following illustration for a children's history book about twelve years ago. I did it in transparent watercolor, but the wisps of gunsmoke hanging in the air are in opaque watercolor. It's not apparent in reproduction, but in the original, the opacity of the smoke lends it an acrid "real" appearance that would have been lost using some other technique.  When you've gained enough understanding of the visual characteristics of transparency and opacity, there's no reason that you can't exploit those characteristics in a single painting. The shapes of the transparent and opaque areas should support one another; their edges should explain some relationship between them; etc. In the final analysis, the proof is in the viewing. If it looks like a mistake, it is a mistake. If it doesn't, it isn't. | ||
jandrle |
When I was beginning to take my paintings to shows for sale I thought they were wonderful. Then I painted a whole series that showed marked improvement and they looked even better. I continued to paint and was always intrigued with what I was painting. Then I joined the cooperative gallery I have now belonged to for four years... and I thought I was good then. I paint more than ever now... And I wouldn't hang most of the work I was doing four years ago! What I am saying is the best work I do looks wonderful at the time. I have never looked at my work and thought it stunk compared to someone else's. Why is that? When I encounter a person with amateur work at a show and they pump me for info I tell them about the first show I did where I wrapped ten or fifteen odd sizes paintings in saran wrap and laid them out on a card table with outrageous prices on them. I didn't sell any, did get compliments though which encouraged me to forge ahead. Then I tell them what I learned in art school. Draw every day. It is all in seeing... I am not a teacher. I can only pass on what I have learned by experience. Because my background is so extensive in graphics and digital imaging I find artists usually want to talk about that, too. It doesn't take much to go over their heads, equipment is so expensive and the software, while often intuitive, is hard to use without classes, which are expensive if you don't have an employer to pay for them. I am wandering. I do know that artists don't grow if they don't have the foundation to build on. I can see that at the gallery. Year after year a few of the artists pump out the same bad work. They try different paper, different palettes but don't pursue classes and workshops where their skills could really grow... And I painted all day yesterday and broke no rules and didn't use white!!! | ||
Kukana |
I DO agree with you Dake. I was next to an acrylic artist this weekend with very juvenille work...One of those kinds of displays that is good to look at when one is feeling a little down and wondering if one has made any progress. One look into her booth was enough to make me feel a little "full of myself" for she was failing to keep ANY of the most basic of rules. She couldn't figure out why she wasn't selling a thing. She kept asking me what she was doing wrong and I kept avoiding telling her as, bottom line, I didn't want to piss her off at a show and make her feel worse about her work. I left suggesting that she take some workshops and ask the teacher for some critiques. But yes, rules must be obeyed, stricty to produce everything from a good painting to good quality of life. As a writer I struggle with the rules of grammar and spelling. My dyslexia makes it even tougher. But I write from my heart and use and use grammar and spell check to clean it all up.Does it make me less of a writer because I use the crutch of spell check? Was Sargent less of an artist because he daubed white here and there? No, he just didn't plan it out before he painted it and forgot to leave the white there. But he was enough of an artist to see, that after the fact, he needed some white in those spots to pull off a finished piece. How many of us can consistantly see that? Keep stirring Dake... this is getting interesting> Still not using white.....Kukana | ||
Dake |
Oh and one more thing, just because you have mastered the basics doesn't mean that breaking the rules makes for progress. I don't think that there are too many who would consider Sargent's watercolours improved when he daubed opaque white onto them. His best watercolours were the totally transparent ones. I think Eric already mentioned this somewhere here. | ||
Dake |
Jandrle understands the point I was making. I'm also a muso and the basic scales, modes, chords etc must be understood and practised until they become part of your thinking and language before they can be used to create something one would call music. We may have a well of creative ideas within us however we need a means to reach the contents of the well. Frank Lloyd Wright understood the fundamentals, and no doubt the subtleties of design and engineering before he could bring into reality his deeper aesthetic vision. Chuck etal also spent a large proportion of his life learning the basic rules before his great achievements. Michael Schumacher still drives go-carts in the off season to keep the basics close to him. I'm always trying to stir the pot Kukana, and I have emense respect for you as both an accomplished watercolorist and creative being. But we take it for granted that all who read these postings have been through that jungle I mentioned. I have students as have you and they are prone to take even the off the cuff comment as gospel and take it out of context. And such a simple misunderstanding can lead them up the garden path to frustration and disappointment until they just throw it all in. So i s'pose yesterday I became acutely aware of this and let it rip. | ||
Kukana |
OK Dake, You win. I"ll roll over and play dead. (You must have had a bad day to rip into me! Luckily Im to thick headed to take it personally. I actually agree with you about some learned concepts. But if an old sea captain had failed to learn new ideas and reach outside the box,he,... Christopher Colombus never would have set sail to the edge of the flat world. It wasn't Colombus's contempoaries lack of courage that kept them from exploring but rather their illusion of knowledge.They thought they possessed all the ruled needed to live by. Do you think that maybe some (not all, but some)of the preconcieved art "Rules" we now believe to be gospel truth could someday be ol' wives tales.Will we look at them as primitive cave drawings. (The cave men artist most likely thought they were the Michaelangelos of the day and were the last word on composition and color!) Then there is Frank Lloyd Wrights answer to it all. "Rules are necessary for Ordinary people" He, of course, considered himself far superior and just look what he did breaking the rules of architeccture. His creation of "Falling Water" is a testimony to dreaming without rules. (Yeah, I know, the house leaks, but finally, after 75 years the engineering has caught up with his vision and could be built today without the soggy roof. Bottom line, he built it anyway. He did what they said couldn't be done. He ignored the rules of his day and today, new rules replace the ones Frank faced...rule that include his work. Who is the next Frank Lloyd Wright...Who is the next Chuck Yaeger that will not only break the sound barrier, that they said couldn't be broken but will travel the speed of light? (Hey Dake, were you just trying to stir the pot??? Good job, dude!) I still don't like white paint! | ||
jandrle |
Bad day? I agree that it is important to "do it right" before breaking a rule. I remember my first life drawing class when a student was drawing a very distorted figure. The instructor told him, and the rest of the class, that until he could draw the figure perfectly he wasn't allowed to abstract it... and I agree with that to this day. For the most part, I believe the "rules" make the most sense in the "backward thinking" watercolor requires. I wouldn't scrap a painting that I believed worked because I failed to follow a rule. But a painter needs a pretty solid foundation before this will happen. You are right though, that a lot of what is being said on this posting is by much more experienced watercolorists... I would suggest classes and workshops for a new painter, lots of them. Sorry if I added to anyone's confusion. Jane | ||
Dakeonabadday |
This is not so much about white but about the silly postings below re "rules"! How ridiculous is the notion that "rules are meant to be broken"? The "rules" are precepts that have been established by generations of dedicated people who have toiled through the trial and error stages to carve a trail through the otherwise dense jungle that confronts every artist that decides to take on the challenge of watercolour. There are millions of examples of very poor watercolours done by very competant and successful oil painters out there. Their watercolour work looks immature and juvenile compared to their work in other media. Why is that? Because they apply the same thinking to a watercolour that they do to their oil, pastel or whatever. Watercolour will not tollerate a controlling approach. By this I mean that water becomes stagnant when coralled and over manipulated, it must be allowed to flow and take it's natural journey. Watercolour offers so much in it's natural ability to present the abstract, why not exploit that? The attitude of the artist is so visible in the of making a watercolour. Sure it's our duty to expand the medium but lets not get that full of ourselves that we disregard the "rules" established by past masters and geniuses for the sake of experimentation. Experimentation for it's own sake is not art and should not be the foremost attitude or idea expressed. For all those who espouse the idea that "rules are made to be broken" show me your masterpiece where you have broken the rules otherwise pull your head in and stop misleading the watercolour neophytes who read this. | ||
jandrle |
Oh darn... Kukana, I though I might get a chance to bop by and say hi but I see you are going to be in Alabama that weekend instead of a Florida show. Oh well, sooner or later, now that you are on the east coast! On the color note, I never use green. Don't own green and usually can spot a tube green in any painting. I never really look for white but can see those greens across the room. DId have to break down and buy turquoise though, can't mix a good one for anything... Each to his own. Am working with a more and more limited palette though, probably the result of the Carol Carter workshop I did last fall. Sure makes it easier... Hope everyone is having a wonderful painting weekend! Jane | ||
Kukana |
Hey Jane, Long time... go ahead and cheat. Break the rules. I think there is a differece between Painting with White and touching up a booboo. I had some fun the other day using pastels over and old quarter sheet floral watercolor painting from my "Yuk Pile" that turned out awesome. I framed it up, gave it away to a local charity art auction and it fetched $266 bucks! I listed it as a mixed media as it was not a "watercolor only" but who cares? No Orlando shows. My current list of show is on both of my sites listed below. | ||
jandrle |
Hi everyone! I, too, was trained to NEVER use white! The truth is that I do have white watercolor on an addtional palete... I guess since watercolor is learning to see in reverse, it follows that the whites should be paper. It is seeing lights to darks. Am I making sense? It is just the logical thing to do. The more one paints the more this becomes the way of seeing. Anyway, I only use it for touch up, if a little color bleeds into a white area... and then I feel a little like I am cheating, though I agree with Kukana, that rules are meant to be broken. Kukana... doing any shows in or around Orlando in two weeks? I am going to Orlando on the 20th and then Smyrna Beach 21-23... Back to white, I really don't like the look of any of the opaque colors and really hate the way other colors interact with them. Still, art is such a challenge, if someone can create a piece worth looking at, buying even, that others truly enjoy, who cares how "purist" it is? I suspect someone who refused to purchase a piece they truly loved because it had white on it is more into what they know than what they see. We are fortunate to be able to create work that causes others to fall in love with a painting and enjoy it for perhaps the rest of their lives... I am leaving my soapbox now. Just couldn't stay out of this one! haha Jane | ||
Kukana |
I actually saw the same exhibit, although I don't think it was in Chicago...must have been a traveling show...anyway...I agree...although I still enjoyed the show. | ||
Eric |
About five or six years ago (I think)in Chicago there was an exhibit showing the great watercolors of Sargent, Winslow Homer, Burchfield, etc. I noticed that Sargent used opaque white, and I hope the watercolor gods don't strike me down for saying it, but I hated it. (the white part) Otherwise, the painting was great. | ||
Kukana |
Hey Dake, you're right, I did use it to crack open the window. The new house and studio are still not completed yet but we should be in by July. I can't believe all of it came from some cute little images I doodled. I just launched new line, once again void of chinese white,with two more lines in the works. It's amazing how once you get the gears in motion for production and distribution that it multiplies so easily. My newest line can be seen at www.tingleheart.com...the old one at www.suzytoroto.com But back to the white thing. I guess I'm missing something from white enthusist but why bother with expensive small tubes of watercolour if you're using opaques? Why not just use acrylics. I always thought the whole point of watercolors was to get the transparent look and feel. | ||
Dake |
Hi Kukana, It was fun indeed and I wish for the same spirit everytime I look in here. Discussion has been more vigorus lately which is great because I have to think about stuff which makes me more critical about my own lazy practises that gradually creep into the workspace. But Kukana I like your earlier use for white which I think was something to do with jamming your window open. But you see success has spoilt you, now that you have a new studio, house, car and life you no longer have windows that wont stay open without a tube of chinee white. | ||
Kukana |
I took a workshop last month and we were encouraged to use white and Black out of the tube as part of learning her technique. Well, wanting to be open minded I gave it a try... i hated everything I did. At critque time,I hated everyone elses too..including the instructors...who was AWS and NWS But as for whether it should or should not be used. I stand behind my "Rules are to be broken" rule. Who is to say what is right and what is wrong. If it the opinion of another towards our art, well that's subjective. If its a dollar value assessed to our work, well I shot that all to hell with what I've done with my WWW line of art and then again with my new line. A double wammy! Is it our own opinions of our work...I'd dare not say as once I did and was told I was too full of myself. I don't use white and I don't use Black. Will I ever again??? I don't think so but I 'Never say Never' Sean Connery had to eat those words. What a lively thread. But I do remember last time too Dake and you and I got blasted. Wasn't that fun? | ||
Dake |
I think the medium has evolved since the 19 century when white as used by Sargent appeared more commonly in watercolour. But if you go back to Varley, Cotman, Turner ....they appear to rely upon the paper for their lightest tones whether it was white or tinted paper. It was this element that attracted me to the medium in the first place and although I'm prepared to accept that others may differ, I can't see the point in using white myself. Also if a watercolourist finds themselves in a position where white becomes and option then to me it indicates there is a problem in their overall approach. I feel the same about masking agents too. | ||
Anonymous |
Hi Dake-- Thanks for responding. I think the argument (not yours but some I've read below) that since the pioneers of 19th C watercolor sometimes employed white it's perfectly acceptable. (that's not exactly what you were saying). I think things have evolved, especially toward appreciation for the purity of the whiteness of the paper as the sole transmitter of pure white. Someone else argued below that rules are to be broken. I agree. I think, however, the problem is that when taken too readily it's like playing tennis without a net and is a very sophomoric attitude. Sure Jackson Pollack dripped enamel. Does that mean he liberated the rest of us from all the rules? It means that if you want. But for those attempting to perfect the art of watercolor, paradoxically, some rules are broken at the peril of the artist. Why do it the hard way? For the same reason that great pianists learn technique instead of just banging on the keyboard with their knuckles. Because the potential for greatness of expression increases exponentially. | ||
Dake |
Hi Anon, (unusual name)......You know i said the same thing as you say here about two years ago on this board and was immediately attacked. I still agree that the use of opaque white is no substitute for white paper. The point though I believe is not whether someone uses white or not but if the work has life. I agree that if you are going to use opaque white then why toil with watercolor. Acrylic, or oil, even pastel may be the medium more suited to that type of artist. Watercolor at it's most respected level can still employ white however....Sargent, Brabazon et al, because the articulation of their ideas/visions was direct and economical. As our friend Suture on this board says, it's not the use of mud or(or white) that creates a poor painting but the idea and the thinking. Any laboured painting regardless of the medium falls short. A great watercolor can be painted with white provided the brushstrokes and washes are sensitive and put down with confidence and accuracy. All the *work* in a watercolor should happen before the brush hits the paper. | ||
anon. |
To white or not to white. . . The people that assert (below) that those who insit on not using white are some how non-0creative analretentive loosers is ludicrous. All of the great watercolorists i have seen work avoid white --a few--Zoltan Szabo, Mel Stabin, Elio O'hara, Dominic D'Stephano. True like Robert Wade use an occasionaly white touch just as some oters use masking fluid judicioudly. But in these cases it's simply to not interrupt a large wash by painting around a tiny bird or highlight. With them the exception proves the rule. On the other hand the most skill-challenged, mediocre, analretentive timid artists I have beheld use white a lot --AS A CRUTCH. It's a lot more difficult to plan for white areas of the paper and to paint around them than to just paint it in later. And man can you tell it when opaque white has been used to add highlights! It might as well be an oil painting. Thus a watercolor that uses white paper or an occassional white fleck of opaque paint seems fresh and brilliant. I defy amyone to show me a watercolor that uses white paint instead of white paper and claim it is just as good. It's not. Some claim traditionalism is always bad (these have the mentality of college sophmores at a sit-in in the dean's office) but others understand that some traditions exist for very good reasons--the proscription against white paint in watercolors is one of them. | ||
Gloria |
I am fairly new at watercolor, but I must tell you I was scared to death of the "white monster" long before I ever painted my first stroke. Every book I read instilled in me the fear of white. Believe me, you have done your job well, I just couldn't bring myself to touch that stuff for anything other to just leave it in the box and know I will never run out of paint. | ||
Anonymous |
Use white anywhere and any way you like. The only restrictions I put on any art material is is it permanent. Why do you set limits on creativity? closed minds make for ugly art. Also aureolan is fugitive, as in not permanent. | ||
Joni St. Martin |
Unryu, You may want to check out the discussion thread; "Do you use alizarin crimson?" Drollere provided some good advice concerning the use of aureolin. Just FYI. :) | ||
lyn |
Good discussion. I use the paper for my whites (Kilimanjaro 300# is fabulous), but am not opposed to whites in the work of others. Even the great watercolorist Charles Reid has used an opaque white in his work; whether it was to cover an "error" or planned, I do not know. I saw the painting after it was completed (it belongs to the woman who owns the studio where I paint). It is interesting to note, however, that one of us viewing this new acquisition is a watercolor "purist", and he immediately honed in on the white, while the rest of us did not. I have W&N Permanent White and Zinc White in my box, but feel that they are too opaque for the work I am currently producing. I've tried adding a bit to a pigment, but the look is too tempura against my watercolors. I enjoyed the comment about washing the paper first in the white, and am going to try this when I take a break from my current series; it has interesting possibilities. The color formulas used by old masters is of little to no interest to me. | ||
Eric |
In my opinion, "white paint draws the eye" is NOT a silly statement. Opaque white paint used in a painting with transparent watercolors looks like it doesn't belong. I don't really care about any "rules", I'm more concerned with the end result. And when I see opaque white paint used in a watercolor it ruins the unity of the picture for me. That's just my opinion. | ||
Dake |
The objective is lost once the focus of the painter leaves the subject and becomes fixated on the materials. But it can provide a topic for discussion, a related diversion for those who like to talk about art rather than do it( and I place myself in this category at times for various reasons). What is so precious about watercolour that it should deserve such concern as has been expressed on this matter? If you find yourself getting bogged down with pigment opacity issues then change mediums and give yourself a break. And as for Drolleres astute observation re "parroting prejudices"...too true but aint that a common human trait. Also.....I thought Albrecht Durer(1471-1528)was the "father of watercolour".....see!!! it's a bastard of a medium... an illegitimate, troublesome child. | ||
rmarz |
I'd like dollere's opinion on this,some of my favorite paintings are done with raw sienna burnt sienna and ultramarine. I think of it as a fall palette. the greens aren't much but the granulated darks and oranges are terrific! | ||
unryu |
Color Chords: Wintering south, did not bring those heavy books that keep me informed of things like color chords, nor did I bring along my favorite "Quiller" color wheel which I may be able to replace here. Mainly, I want to use Rose Madder. Cobalt blue, and aureolan(yellow) and as of now I believe all are considered transparant and liftable. If I'm remembering right, Jeanne Dobie and Judy Betts both present "color chords" in their instructional books. The idea, I believe, is that these chords relate to each other better than the hither-thither selections most of us make. Iwant to try the color chords ... hmmm, not sure what they are. Can anyone out there help? Thanks. | ||
drollere |
there are some glaring misconceptions in this thread that everyone should set aside, once and for all, and forget about. the idea that "white paint draws the eye" is silly. white paint, especially chinese white, can be applied as a glaze, to produce veiled colors, or mixed with very dark or very opaque paints -- dioxazine violet, chromium oxide green or cadmium orange -- to produce tints that differ in several ways, including opacity, from diluted values of the same pigments. what draws the eye is bad color harmony, bad brushwork, or both. people who dislike any pigment lay the blame on their eyes; people who dislike black say it offends their eyes. they are spouting mere prejudice, not perceptual facts, when they say so. (incidentally, one "traditional" and very effective use of chinese white was as a foundation glaze or coating applied to the entire paper before painting. this raises the reflectivity of the paper and makes the colors painted over the coating appear much brighter.) the claims that "traditional watercolors are transparent" or "traditional watercolors don't use white/black" are flat out false. it doesn't matter what point you take as "traditional": if you mean 1780, then watercolor painters used mercuric sulfide, indian red and orpiment (all very opaque) as well as carbon black (paul sandby, the "father of watercolor painting" especially liked the black made from burnt peas); if you mean 1880, then many watercolor painters used cerulean blue, emerald green, chrome orange, venetian red and cadmium yellow, along with gouache (all very opaque) as well as carbon black and chinese white; if you mean 1980, then we can add to the list of opaque pigments chromium oxide, cadmium red and many synthetic organic pigments. indeed, in modern paints only the quinacridones and phthalocyanines are the only lightfast pigments that are close to truly transparent. what is really being parroted here is an arcane dispute between two competing watercolor societies in victorian england, in which the staid society expressed displeasure at the use of chinese white, and the upstart society endorsed it. i suppose if victorian mores still have meaning for you, this dispute does also. finally, i have in hand the recent catalog from the 2002 national watercolor society exhibition, and several of the paintings show clear use of opaque pigments, even in reproduction. at this point it's feeble consolation to be told that "you can go ahead and break the rules," because the "rules" (whatever those are) are being formulated and debated by people who obviously don't know what they're talking about. the better guidance is to accept that most people who talk about watercolor painting are often merely parroting prejudices ... and it's never a question of "breaking the prejudices," but of simply ignoring them. | ||
Kukana |
Yeah..I've actually seen it used great, in a sparingly manner or snow too. | ||
Joni St. Martin |
One of my favorite watercolors, in my own collection, is a landscape of a gentle waterfall flowing through a lush, blue green forest. Although the artist used a small amount of white gouache to create a spray of water over the rocks, it is used so sparingly, it doesn't detract from the painting at all, but rather enhances it. I don't use white in my paintings, but I think it worked well to create the water spray in the painting I mentioned. | ||
rainbow |
I am thinking my best use of the white paint at this point would be to find a nice bench to sit on and paint en plein air & squirt a little of the white in the space beside me to ward off inquiring minds. I think I may have picked up some Mars Black way back when to add to my little trompe l'oile. Tee Hee | ||
Kukana |
As a very free spirit, I hate rule being imposed on me, so I agree that rules do not count in watercolors. But just like Jandrle who can spot a tube green in a painting, when I see opaque white in a watercolor my eye becomes so glued to it I am distracted from the rest of the painting. Not a judgement reaction, it just becomes my focus, like it has a neon sign wrapped around it. Thalo green and sap green straight out of the tube is the same way for me! Just for fun once I painted a lighthouse using all opaques...basically I mixed all my colors with white except for the background which was all transparents. I hated it. I then rewashed the background with some opagues and it fixed it. I still wasn't fond of the opaque look but at that point the painting worked. I guess my preference is to not mix them on the same paper... All things have their place...find the place it works for you. don't worry about anyone else.However, because "traditional" watercolor doesn't use white, I doubt that my very best art could ever win an award in a watercolor show if it had even a touch of white in it. I just think that the "judges" would take issue. Just my opinion!... | ||
John Preston |
Rainbow, Great attitude! It's a mystery to me why people feel a need to import rules and canons into the ONE activity in life where the end CAN justify the means without anybody getting hurt. An unsuccessful painting may be the only truly "victimless crime". | ||
rainbow |
Thanks to everyone. One of my first paintings that I ever showed anyone, was a white tailed deer for my dad. I, not knowing any better, mixed white with, I think it was sienna, for his underbelly. Dad is thrilled with it and shows it to everyone. I think I got his nose crooked so I cringe everytime I visit and see it. I just got so frustrated when even my half pan palette came with white, like why couldn't they give me a real color if I am never supposed to use this. I try to be open-minded in most areas and would probably have used the white subtly someday like some of you have suggested but I wanted to make sure that made me a risk taker, a rebel rather than some bumpkin who didn't know any better. I wholly agree that if it yields the desired effect, why not try it? Of course, I watch Bob Ross then Jerry Yarnell back to back on PBS too. The contrast in attitude and technique inspire and amuse me, especially those days when they essentially get the same result. | ||
jandrle |
I used to use white acrylic to hide a tiny mistake, then I found it in the watercolor section and use watercolor white to hide the tiny mistakes. Somehow I feel much less guilty when the tube has watercolor on it. I do a lot of arcitecture and love the details... to me it represents the investment people make in their surroundings... I never use it to actually paint because the opaque paints are hard to paint around and hard to wash over... Of course I was trained to never use white, black, purple or green. To this day, the only color I have ever owned is white... habit. but I can spot a tubed green in a painting in a minute. I am not an art snob though. I really am very commercial about what I paint. Love to sell and develop markets... Jane | ||
Shyone |
I was taught never to use white or black at all!!! ever!!! you could die or something!!! However, one night, when no one could see me, I made a painting with all the pigments on my palette, the center part being everything mixed with a little of white, and the outer surrounding area being everything mixed with a little of black. I still refer to this occasionally for reference, it helped me see how my palette looks with the white and black added to each pigment. It's just a tool to use or not, but it's helpful to see what happens. The kicker is, I still don't use white and black in my paintings! too heavy or opaque or something. But the exercise was fun and that painting is kind of cool looking, but I can only enjoy it secretly... :) :) :) | ||
Kukana |
Besides the butterfly out of the can of worms, didn't we decide that Pigeon Poo was more of a more warm transparent white?? Or was that the Elephant Phart?? | ||
Dake |
G'day Rainbow, I think the discussion we had on white previously was very productive and informative. From cans of worms the occassional butterfly will emerge. Bring on them worms! | ||
Mike Scott |
Dake has, I think, a balanced perspective on the use of white paint in wc. When I first began watercolor painting I almost never used white paint or gouache in my paintings. I still prefer the look of a wc painting created by using only the white of the paper. It is both a challenge and uniquely beautiful. It makes no sense to limit the tools at ones disposal, though. If gouache or chinese white or, for that matter, mud, will help one to achieve their creative vision, they should use those tools. | ||
rainbow |
Thank you to everyone for your responses. I apologize to you. I had read the older post when I first visited the board this summer but got mired in the tension and apparently blocked it out. I did not intend to open a can of worms and I thank you that that did not occur this time. It was simply so frustrating that as I looked for paint, any starter set seemed to have the white in it and all the while, the board, the books and the instructors I have worked with are saying save the whites of the paper. I am currently a stay at home mom of a very active 2 year old. The budget is a bit tight some times and I don't think I will incite a bidding war for my work any time soon so...I did get an idea for somewhere on down the road. When I was a complete newbie, I bought this pad of tinted watercolor paper on clearance at my college bookstore. If I can just get the hang of my transparent colors before the Magic Marker (and Crayon) Man discovers it without my knowledge. Thanks everyone. | ||
Dake |
White is for those who have mastered(what am i saying)...for those who are fluent in watercolour. Premature use of white in ones artistic life can be very confusing. The availability of white in the student sets gives the w/c paints the versatility of becoming gouache. This is fine provided the student has a clear vision of what they want to do....W/C or Gouache. It does not often make a thing of beauty, a piece of work with a split personality. Learn to paint w/c with fluidity saving the white of the paper where you can. Don't become lazy and use white where you can because it will cause a chalky tone to your work. If saving your white paper causes you to compromise on a small shape or form then so be it. The end result will have a fresher, freer feel to it, it will have air. Sargents work to me demonstrates how an artist works under great inspiration. The use of white must be seen in context.....should one remember here that Sargent's medium was primarily oil? Working quickly en plien air in w/c he used white to highlight if he found the piece needed it once it was too late to save whites. I don't believe he would use white as a tint...to make pink or light blue for example. Sargent captured the vision before him as efficiently as the setting and environment would allow with apparent disregard for *rules* .It's clear to me that Sargent did not use white if he didn't find himself having to. He was not that anal that he actually suffered any white anxiety. This is the greater lesson to me: Yes, you do have the freedom to capture your vision in the most efficient way available! If you choose w/c as your primary medium however it is wise to forget about white for as long as you can...it's just good a practise. Most importantly......relax and enjoy because how you feel is what the world sees. | ||
Kukana |
I love my chinese white.I use it to cram in the window jam in my studio to keep the window cracked just a bit for circulation!!! You mentioned how all starter kits include the white..I think this is because most starters have a background in some sort of painting. Be it high school poster paints or even acrylic and oils. They have it ingrained in their heads that in order to make pink they have to mix red and white. I taught a one day workshop to a bunch of high school art students who where working from starter pan sets. They all had white. I had them do a quick exercise of taking the darkest color they had andthen slowly watering it out to see how many values they could create with out using white. Without exception, every one of them at some point allowed their brush to sneek into the white paint. The next time I taught the workshop, the first thing we did was to dig out the white paint and tuck it away. Its nearly an irresistable temptation to a newbie even though in their heart they want to learn transparents. There is nothing wrong with white paint. It can have glorious applications. It really depends on personal preference! I actually prefer not to use it because I love the transparency that I am able to achieve with leaving white paper and usuing only the most transparent paint I can find... but the only rule I ever follow is that there are no rules in art!!! | ||
John Preston |
Rainbow, You can do what you like with white, forget the rules. If it works, it works. Sargent and Homer used it a lot,(they violated most of the watercolor rules). Sargent put it on so thick it cracked with age. Here's a good use: It's hard to mix a duller or darker version of yellow without it moving too far toward green. White + raw umber +yellow does it with minimum greenishness. | ||
rmarz |
The answer is not much. You can spatter is over a picture to emulate falling snow. You can mix it with other pigments to make gouache. I have used it to paint tree shapes on black mat board. The classic British watercolorists often used it to produce whiter highlights than they could get by scraping. | ||
rainbow |
I'm fairly new to watercolor but I am enjoying it. I keep reading how you should use the white of the paper for your whites and how you can tell the newbies because they use white paint. Have you ever noticed that nearly all starter sets, regardless of brand, include Chinese white? Isn't that oxymoronic? Do the companies set up nouveau watercolorists to show their newness or do they hope that we will start a new trend away from the purist transparent watercolor and use the white paint? Being cost conscious, just what do you do with that paint? Use it for white out? |
