Color can be high key, low key, saturated and flat.

Linda Ciaello posted a perfect example of a painting tho' grey - actually grey-green, it works a color harmony by the small touch of the pink flower-it's complement.

High key
Low key
Flat
Saturated

It seems to me there are 2 or 3 themes running through this thread.
One theme is line vs. color.
Did you know that that discussion has been going on for hundreds of years? According to Gardner's Art Through the Ages, there were "Poussinistes" and "Rubenistes". The Poussinistes were "conservative defenders of academicsm, who held that drawing was superior to color, against Rubinistes, who proclaimed that color was not only more important to a painting than drawing, but that it had wider appeal than the more intellectual, and thus restrictive, quality of line."
Delacroix, the colorist, and Ingres, the draftsman, took up the controversy in the 19th century. Here's a cartoon of Delacroix and Ingres jousting with paint brush and pencil in hand.

Steve,

I agree. The original thread was a discussion of what a colorist is. If you din't mind I will now prune this thread so it makes some sense.

Sharon, it is nice to "meet" you. I had the pleasure of viewing one of your paintings in a gallery in Boston when attending the PSA conference a few years ago - a gorgeous, large pastel of a ballerina in red, hung behind plexiglas. It was gorgeous, quite high chroma, if I recall correctly :), and a skillful colorist work.

With regard to my post and the above quote, I think we are actually in agreement. I also really like Mr. Craighead's succint description of what a "colorist" is. This is what I was attempting to do on that beach in Provincetown. I am certainly not holding out the studies I posted as examples of great paintings. Far from it - they were merely rough records of figures in late afternoon sunshine, morning sunshine, a cloudy morning and midday bright sun respectively. The goal was learning to see the color spots and relationships between the colors. Students of the former Cape Cod School of Art use the term "colorist" to describe their approach and I was using the term in that context. Maybe your definition does not agree with theirs. With regard to high chroma, I know some painters (one of my teachers, in particular) who do not like the work of the Impressionists, which was largely done out of doors, because of the bright colors they used as opposed to the more subdued, low chroma, indoor paintings of the old masters. I don't think I mentioned anything about form in my post, so I don't think we have an argument there. However, without light there is no color, so I respectfully submit that light has a lot to do with being a colorist. If I went beyond the parameters for this thread, I apologize. Going back into the woodwork now!

Laurel,
Do not even DARE go back to the woodwork:) It's a pleasure to have you here.

Oh good heavens! Double Ditto!

What comments -refreshing and a totally welcome addition to this thread!

Of course it does not hurt that you like my painting! :)

Laurel, of course light has everything to do with color in western art. It makes form. However in eastern art it was not necessary as the pictorial plane was flat and the color arrangements had more to do with color harmonies-ie complementary color etc.

The impressionists were highly influenced by the arrival in Europe of the art of Japan and China . They began to experiment with flattening out their art, relying more on color than on form until form was replaces entirely by color, especially with Klimt and Redon. Finally color eclipsed form entirely with abstract art.

Here are two examples of the use of complementary color arrangements.

Benson: Red Orange and Blue Green.
A Japanese scroll, Kubo Shunman, 1757-1820, Edo period : Blue and Orange.

HURRAH FOR HENSCHE!

The quote quite literally sums up my perspective of the challenge of painting and more clearly expresses what I was trying to say regarding all of us being colorists (to one degree or another).

The way I try to use color is to suggest what the subject is doing. In other words, on a face, is the plane I am focusing on turned toward the light or away from it. Observing the surrounding colors, do any of them influence the color of the flesh of this plane in relationship to the light? How bright or dull is the color compared to its neighboring planes. Is it closer to my eye or further away?

All of these questions and more go through my mind when I am trying to determine what color to use. This is why I think of us all (portrait painters) as colorists.

All portrait painter are not colorists, even good ones.

Some are excellent at making form and subtle skin variations, but are not particularly good colorists. As I have said before color and color compositions can be independent of form, even in portraiture.

I am posting an early one of mine as an example, it has form but is really a black and white painting. It goes from light skin-tones to dark skin-tones. There really is no color. Tints maybe, but you could get the same effect coloring in a photo.

The next is a Bronzino. The form and design are beautiful, but the face goes from light skin-tone to dark skin-tone. The dress goes from medium to dark red. The is really no color composition. The color areas are FILLED IN with tints of color.

The third is an Ernest Major, who is a fine colorist. The skin reflects different colors AND temperatures of light. The white dress is not simply white but is alive with many variations in color, especially the orange reflection of the fan. The dress does NOT simply go from light to dark as does mine. Notice the cool blue tints in the skin, especially in the arm. This is missing in the Bronzino.

Sharon,

I think we must agree to disagree.

All of your examples still impart to me the artist's decision, whether conciously or not, to manipulate color. Even in a charcoal the artist decides to abandon color (maybe this is too extreme for my point).

Regarding your dress in your first post, you did use color to create the forms even if it flows as the same hue from light to dark.

By the way, the painting is beautiful.

Thank-you John!

That little portrait got me quite a few commissions. It was done more than 15 years ago. I think I have learned (I hope) a bit more about color since then!

Using A COLOR is different than being a colorist or using color well. I can use, let us say, an orange color and go from light to dark, depicting the fruit. That mean I am using a color to fill in rather than using it as part of a field of harmonious color. In that portrait I FILLED IN each area with an appropriate color.

Filling in areas of form, even with the appropriate color is, as I see it, is not being a colorist . That would be like a child with a coloring book filling in the individual areas with crayons. even IF they got the right colors in the right place. It is getting the colors into a harmonious union whether they be flat or have form, that is the role of the colorist.