Most Popular Paintings
 

After studying much this past year and teaching many seminars, I am becomming more aware of what seems to be the most popular paintings' similarities. (Other than the basic art "tricks")

I've turned several of the old masters paintings into black and white and analyzed them. It is striking what can be learned from them in that state.

Perhaps many of you may have already studied this. And this may have already been discussed on the list and, if so, then would someone please point me to the thread.

Would anyone have anything to share as per your experience with this subject?

This appears to me to be perhaps a natural thing and yet it also appears to be a deliberate application of two or more secrets of these masters. Any discussion on this subject would be greatly appreciated.

Percentages
 

Celeste, the b/w study is helpful. I think another thing is percentages or ratios of shapes. Most really awesome works will have asymetric value percentages. (In other words, if you classify, or group, values into middle, light, and dark values these will not be 33-33-33. More likely you'll see say; 61-16-23% or-50-21-29% or even 70-25-5% distribution. This is pleasing to the eye.

Monet's Sunrise
 

Yes, Tim, you are so right. I think that people sometimes use the gallon/quart/pint analogy also. This is very pleasing.

However, this black and white (no changes made at all) of Monet's sunrise astounded me with it's values. Compare and see that this is part of his secret.

Monet's Black and White Sunrise
 

Now, observe the black and white version.

Side vision
 

The Monet at the Getty is like a neon light when you are looking at the other paintings. It draws you back to it.

There is something about his and some of the other old masters paintings that has the same effect as looking at the night sky. You cannot look directly at galaxies with the unaided eye and see them, yet indirectly you can see the glow better. This is some sort of secret or something that I have found in many of the old masters. But I can not explain why it is successful.

Famous Portrait
 

Here is Van Gogh's color and black and white. Totally not what I had expected.

Black and White picture VG
 

Here is the black and white. I think that this is amazing but I think that I need someone else to confirm what I am seeing here.

Take several famous pictures off the internet and save them in both black and white and color and put them all on a page. And make sure that they are the most popular paintings of the most popular of the old masters or else you won't see it. I have compared Monet, Van Gogh, Da Vinci, Rubens, etc. This is one of the most interesting things that I have ever done.

Colors
 

I think that I have also been struck by the colors used in the most popular paintings. It's amazing how simple that this is yet, I have always just ignored it.

Celeste, I must confess I don't understand exactly what you're expressing with these. Are you noting the value ranges and blocking, or how the warm/cool juxtapositions define form (which disappear in the b/w versions)?

Maybe you're seeing something I'm not noticing. What is it? I don't understand what you mean by "side viewing."

Thanks
Lisa

Your portrait
 

Dear Tim,
In the portrait that you posted...was that a self-portrait? It's great. I turned it into a black and white photo and compared it with the others. Very interesting!

With the exception of the white collar and the face/neck area, then most of the rest of this painting almost met the same criteria for the old master's similarities.

You got one of them
 

Yes, you guessed one of the things that I am noticing in the pictures, that of the colors (being near equal in values in the black and white versions) appear to be very different in value in the actual colored versions.

What or why exactly is that? And the old warm/cool wavelength thing doesn't actually explain this well enough either. Because that does not deal with it's value issue. He could not have lightened this with a yellow white and still maintained the overall weight of the area.

Dear Lisa
 

You said, " warm/cool juxtapositions define form (which disappear in the b/w versions)?"

Yet, he is not defining "form" in the sky?

Also, if you are looking at the night sky and see something that you want to see better, then don't look directly at it and it will appear brighter. This is a common phenomenon. But unfortunately I can't explain it. I'll have to Ask Jeeves I guess. :)

Tim's Portrait!
 

Hi Celeste,

I believe that the portrait that Tim posted is "The Laughing Cavalier" by Frans Hals, 1624. But I have to admit that the cavalier does bear an uncanny resemblance to Tim, given a little change in styling of facial hair. Also Tim does, on the whole, tend to dress a little better than the cavalier. Still, it's not too surprising that you might mistake this one for a self-portrait! :sunnysmil

I'm a little confused too at what you're getting at. In the Monet, the sun appears to be entirely produced by color contrast, with no value contrast whatsoever.

John

Celeste, That's about the nicest question anyone ever asked me. Not mine, I will strive to be able to paint so well.

I understand the points you are making about value.

Rembrandt
 

I always was told I look more like Rembrandt, but John is right about the dress.

I think the "looking off" away from the viewer is less confrontational and less engaging to the viewer. Figurative work that is not "purely" a portrait often does this. Most people would be hard pressed to say what is the difference between portrait and a figure paintiing. It's almost like the difference between naked and nude... but this is another subject.

Secret
 

Surprising that the values in black and white look so different from the perceived values in the colored version. Can anyone explain that?

And why was that so important?

Looking away
 

Dear Tim,

Looking away as you say is another very important similarity in many famous portraits. Example: Mary Cassatt. I can not think of even one of hers that is looking dead on at the viewer of the art.

But that is not one of the three that I am seeing. But that could be a very important fourth.

Tim's portrait
 

Dear John,

I'm glad that you informed me of the portrait. Of all the women's portraits that I could name, I could probably only recognize about 50+ of famous old master portraits of males. So thanks for the info. Did resemble Tim a little though. :)

Tim's wardrobe
 

When Tim arrived that first day of the workshop dressed like that, well - we the students were a little shocked.

But, wow - you should see what he does to the paintings with the ends of his moustache - not to mention the feather from his hat.

:cool:

Dear Kimberly,

Wow, sounds like he is quite a cavalier type of guy! :)

Sounds like you really enjoyed the seminar with him also. He must be a terrific teacher.

Did you have any thoughts on the other topic of discussion? What about similarities in colors or color combinations? Or any other similarities that you have noticed in the most popular paintings of Monet, Van Gogh or ?

Hi Celeste,

Celeste McCall: You said, " Also, if you are looking at the night sky and see something that you want to see better, then don't look directly at it and it will appear brighter. This is a common phenomenon. But unfortunately I can't explain it."

The reason that we are most sensitive to stimuli slightly off the center of gaze under very low levels of illumination is the result of the duplex nature of the retina. There are two basic kinds of receptor cells in the retina: rods and cones. Under very low overall levels of illumination only the rods are operating, and they are distributed differently than the cones. There are no rods in the fovea centralis, the most densely populated area of the retina where we usually center objects of interest under daytime conditions. The rods have their greatest concentration about 8 degrees of visual angle outside the fovea. Hence under low levels of illumination (technically called scotopic conditions) maximum sensitivity is achieved slightly off the normal center of gaze.

Here's my version of Tim as Cavalier. Not a dead ringer, as you can see, but definitely a resemblance.

To John
 

First of all, John, Thank you for explaining that. Now, it makes sense why Monet's waterlily painting in the Getty kept summoning me back and back and back. That was very powerful.

Also, (laughing out loud), great job on the portrait! :)

Hope Tim doesn't mind being immortalized.

Celeste,

No, I do not have any other thoughts on the subjects you are discussing, sorry. I have not retained much of what I learned in college art history classes...I am reading with interest though.

John,
Even though you are clearly over-educated you are saved in my book by your sense of humor.;)

I am just wondering if that portrait had been painted full-figure - would we get to see the tights?

Oh Me
 

John that's really very good. I've not laughed so hard in a while.

Color choices of some of the most popular paintings, that I am comparing, are keeping their colors simple. They seem to have painted mainly with analogous, or complimentary, or triadic color schemes. The more simple the color scheme, the more popular it seemed to be.

And finally, the last thing that I am noticing is a LOT of emphasis on lines and contrasting (mostly diagonal) lines that are used in certain proportions.


This would be a really interesting thing to do on a portrait with the values, colors, and diagonals and proportions, and the overlapping of those lines that create depth.

I actually put this to a test by using just the simplest color schemes on pieces that I took the the World Show in July at Atlanta, Ga. I sold every one of them.

Does a complimentary color scheme make it more simple and therefore desirable? What about analogous?

Ok, that is what I am seeing besides the usual "correct" placement, and other important but generally known "tricks".

Like I said in the beginning. Perhaps you all already new this, but it is only with the in- depth comparisons that I have done this past summer that it started to become clear that this is, at the very least, a very common thread of many of the most popular and best selling prints.

I wonder if this is why I admire the paintings of Julian Robles of Taos so much.

Red/Green
 

The red /green thing has worked well for a long time with skin tones. (It has the least value contrast)

Good tip Tim. Thanks.

Greens are always popular it seems. In my art, if you put lots of pink colors in the painting then it sells also. The colors on the roses and grapes on the study that I recently put up (I did it about 6 years ago so it's old and ick, but the colors always remain popular) I put it up yesterday on the website and I sold two of them this morning. http://celestemccall.net/studies1.html) That is always a crowd pleasing color in my neck of the woods.

The old "popular" paintings are using a lot of blues and orange as well.

When painting a bowl of fruit, some artists paint using three analogous colors such as on a pear: orange, yellow, yellow green. That is good. But the problem that some are doing is that they use this idea all over the painting: leaves= yellow green/green/blue green. And then they add a wash of the color of the fruit that is next to it onto the reflected light or highlight, and then they do the same on the grapes and the orange and apple etc. and soon they have a rainbow going. Nothing wrong with that, to be sure, but each color takes up space on the canvas and breaks up the whole. So the old master's secret of keeping it simple was much more wise. Clearer message me thinks.

Richard Whitney is doing the same thing
 

Oh my goodness! I just viewed Richard Whitney's web page of his paintings. He is doing the same thing that I am talking about.

Please go to his website and look at the picture of the woman with the black dress standing in front of the red wall. He used red in the black dress. Some might have used a black dress with green in it, but this guy knows THE trick. The eye flows so much easier. It's "easy to look at".

And, after my studies on greys this summer and observing that analogous grays make the subject color glow, well, this just confirms more of that same thought.

But using analogous grays is another subject and one which can best be found on the internet with all it's colored boxes, etc.

Ok, thank you all for your input on this topic.