Is Raw Sienna a "Shortcut" ?
 

I just read an article by John Sanden on the website "The world of portrait painting" about pigments and shortcuts.

article by John Howard Sanden

I agree with him, that there is nothing wrong with using pigments like his pro mix colors. Others find that these pigments are shortcuts and that you should only use pigments that are on some official list.

I mixed my own set of pro mix colors and put them in tubes, John is very open and clear about what's in them (I would buy them, but they are not sold in The Netherlands as far as I know). You can call it a shortcut, but really it is just common sense, why mix a basic color every time you need it, when you know you need it so often?! It enables me to concentrate more on painting because I mix the color I need much faster.

If I tell other artists the system I use, often their first reaction is negative and they also think of it as using a shortcut, but when I explain that the colors are just a mix of existing pigments they are milder. But what is it with us artists that there seems to be a (strict) consensus about how you should, what you shouldn

??? Bianca, that some painters avoid "convenience mixes" either as offered by some makers, or tubing their own is what I find strange.

Directness of approach and efficiency should be the hallmark of a professional. Oddly, there prevails a certain mindset among some that makes one think that somewhere there is a committee overseeing the Olympic Rules of Painting . . . Results!! "By their works shall ye know them." ;)

There are baseline principles for the correctly using oil paints in a craftsmanlike manner. However, using convenience mixes wouldn't necessarily break those "rules".

I think artists should be more concerned about learning how to draw than about shortcuts.
Who cares about pigments if the drawing is dreadful?

Claudemir, your comment could prompt a healthy discussion. No argument that we all should strive to develop massive skills as draughtsmen/ observers. In fact, that's a life quest. There is no "first this, then . . ."

However, once one launches into working with paint, it behooves the craftsman to master the materials as well as the hand/eye coordination necessary to render accurately. Past that, many, many painters of note (my old teacher Robert Brackman was one) who consider that as a skill in a plastic medium, painting is far different from drawing which considers line. Not the accuracy of judgment and placement, mind, but the medium.

Bianca, I recently posted a minor rant in the same direction as yours.

Artists such as Daniel Greene, Michael Del Priori, Marvin Mattelson, and others get ooohs and aaahs for pre mixing a large number of puddles of paint on their palettes before starting a painting session.

Sanden mixes (or used to mix) just 10, three of which are "neutrals," and he gets kicked around for doing so.

Mind you, I take nothing from Greene, Priori and Mattelson. They are very fine artists. No one can fault them their talent.

But why are they great with their premixes, and Sanden is a scallywag for his?

I've studied with Greene, and used all of these other "systems," and find Sanden's quite logical and reasonable.

One artist/teacher I particularly enjoyed was a man named Jose Parramon who, in one section of his book, The Big Book of Oil Painting, shows you how to mix every possible color using only white, Prussian blue, cad yellow medium, and alizarin crimson. I learned more about color and mixing from Parramon than anyone else.

Sometimes, I think Sanden must feel like Liberace, who laughed all the way to the bank. I think folks get cranky about Sanden's "system" because they didn't think of it first.

Mixing it up a little!
 

For the sake of clarification, Richard, I don't start with any standardized shadow, highlight, light or halftone colors. I don't have any pre-mixtures that are combinations of different hues, save for my neutral grays.

I premix each hue string according to value (light-light yellow, light yellow, medium-light yellow, etc.). When facing my model, I mix the exact colors for my flesh tones by combining different hues of the same value. This allows me the flexibility to mix and modify each color without preconceptions, recreating the subtle variations that bring flesh to life.

My palette gives me the flexibility to respond to each unique subject objectively. Based on the infinite variety indigenous to the human species, no one's coloration is ever the same as any others. I work very deliberately but my painting progresses rapidly. I highly recommend my approach to anyone who aspires to achieve similar results.

My premixing saves me an enormous amount of time, because I don't have to waste my precious model time trying to adjust the hue, value and chroma simultaneously, as anyone who has attended a class or workshop can attest to. My "system!?!" needs to be seen in action to be appreciated. Artists from DaVinci to Bouguereau used similar palette arrangements themselves.

I believe there are more than enough oohs and aahs to go around.

Marvin:

Please be assurred that I was not taking "shots" at you or anyone else. I hold you and your work in the highest regard.

The point I was reaching for is that many artist often pre mix something. And, in all the cases I know of where pre mixing occurrs, the premixed colors then must be modified in some way . . . from a little to a lot, and that this premixing thing is, among other things, a time saving for the artist.

I don't see any sort of premixing as bad. I just wonder why some artists are praised for doing it, while others are sniped at. If premixing is "bad," it's bad and if it's good, it's good.

When you think about it, every color we finally put up on our canvas is pre mixed, whether than means it was mixed far in advance of the painting session, or whether it was mixed in that tiny moment during the painting process.

What's the difference between mixing a series of colors before the model arrives, or after the model has taken the stand before us. It is a rare moment when a color right out of the tube meeds our flesh-color requirement, and thus, 99.9% of all color is premixed, anyway.

My question, which I obviously did not state well, is, why are some praised for doing it, and some criticized?

Richard, my impression is that Sanden is criticized by some for selling his pre-mixed colors, not for pre-mixing them. Many artists premix strings of color because they have found systems that work for them. Other artists mix colors in ways that may appear more haphazard, but are actually based on certain color combinations that work well for them. And I'm not talkng about mixing the same colors every time--on the contrary, there could be an infinite number of mixtures, but along certain consistent principles.

Marvin, the fact that you are asking people to come see you in action points to the fundamental difference here. You are saying this is YOUR method, and you are willing to show anyone and share it with anyone who wants to see how you do it. You may have adopted the Paxton palette, but it has become "Marvinized" or adapted to your own preferences. You are not offering to premix your strings and sell them--you want to show people how to do it themselves. At least this is how I understand what you do from talking to you and hearing what your students have to say.

Back to the general discussion: In my experience, the process of mixing is essential. If you have any premixed tubes, you are not experiencing the process of mixing for yourself. There's a discovery that happens when you go through the process of choosing your own palette and using the colors. Over time, you wear familiar paths through the wilderness of possibilities, and when you see a color in life, you know how to mix it.

Just a note on colors like clear colors vs. earth colors: they are so different. They have different textures, consistencies, degrees of opacity and strength. I would choose cad yellow for very different reasons than I would choose ochre or raw sienna. Sure, I could start with cad yellow medium and mix up something that looked similar to raw sienna, but to get really close I'd have to use some earth browns, and then why not use raw sienna? In fact both cads and sienas are pretty "pure" pigments in their own way. In my mind they are a far cry from premixed pigments.

Alexandra -- Hmmmmm . . . .

Sanden does sell his colors, as you say.

However, he gives detailed instructions on how to mix each of his colors in his book, Painting The Head In Oil. Thus, you don't HAVE to buy his colors. If you can get a copy of his formulas, you can mix them from whatever you have on your palette without spending any more money.

I certainly don't want to sound like some kind of Sanden-champion, but he does seem to take a lot of flack. I've never studied with him, never met him. I've watched his instructional videos, and what he says makes as much sense as any of the other instructional videos that I've seen . . . in fact, more sense than some.

As I recall, I read somewhere that Marvin Mattelson premixes his colors and tubes them for his own use. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I do not mean to throw mud with any of my comments. I said it earlier in this thread, and I mean it . . . I hold all of these artists in the highest regard, and I'm sure thier commission checks bear out their talent and ability. Bully for them.

And, bully for any other artist who finds a way to get where he's going from a color point of view. You're right when you say that each artist, over time, finds little paths in the bramble to which they stick mighty close.