Underpainting
 

Tim,

The very reason I like underpainting is the layering of value and hue. Using say, a cool light and a warm dark to register values correctly, then "hanging" the color over it with scumble and glaze seems to be the "way" I paint best. It's the way I "see" my paintings.

To be clear
 

Let me be more clear.

My point is not about method as much as analysis. We can see values and hues and intensity at once (and do everyday, all the time). There is no reason we must consider a subject any differently than real life. Underpainting (and method) is really another discussion.

Ultimately, we get the right color (hopefully). Some artists just paint more directly than others, just as some will draw everything out beforehand. Bouguereau did that and how can I find fault with his results?

Great point, Tim, and a truly great still life!

Tim, do you underpaint? (I don't mean to get personal.) :)

Lon
 

I do on complex and demanding subjects on occasion.

Tim,

I am glad to see a successful painter who just paints what he sees, and states it so. I know it is OK to do it other ways. But why? It seems so simple to me.

I ain't never seen the need for underpaints. I never worn the con-founded things.

Tickled pink
 

You obviously don't need the analysis to see the world in front of you. However since the point is to interpret the world onto a flat plane and create the illusion of dimensionality there is obviously more than merely copying what's before your eyes.

The best painters have always combined their observations of naturalistic phenomena and incorporated these to enhance the effects they were trying to convey in the scene before them. It's been stated many times that a great painter paints not what he sees but what he knows. I teach my students not to merely copy what's in front of their eyes but to cajole, tickle, tweak, soothe, underplay and exaggerate to achieve their ends. That, in my opinion, is the art of painting.

To successfully "copy" the world in front of you, you can pick up a camera and snap away.

Flat
 

Too much of what I see called realistic painting is way too flat. I want depth. I still argue that painting something like the Grand Canyon helps an artist to paint a face. Stuff is stuff. Most portrait painters before 1900 could and did paint everything. Many today don't. Which era produced the better painters?

I can spot parts of most paintings where the master tried to fix nature. It's the weak spots with bad color or the parts out of drawing.

Wiles: richly done, good values and color

In the 17th century artists were specialists, one did still-life, another portraits, another did landscapes.

About painting what you see in front of you... A face painted by Rembrandt looks totally natural in it's colouring. However, when you look at the faces of the people in the museums and you compare them with the painted faces, you see that colouring can be totally different. Incorporated in the method of working were many codes to how to paint a face. It's not just painting what you see. There was a 'codification' of the face and when they painted someone they applied this codification to someones personal features.

What someone's method of painting is is related to someones' beliefs in colour-theory etcetera, that's why Marvin's work looks different than the work of Tim. I can appreciate the work of both painters.

Peter

You're absolutely right, Peter, on both the specialization and codification points. These are among the most notable and interesting issues in art history.