|
Dear Mike and Doug
You are now two of my favourite people. Thanks for the unlooked-for compliments. Such are always appreciated and inspiring.
It seems that when I posted my note earlier, I had not read through the entire thread. I didn't realize that it was four pages long! We have been through a lot of territory, too.
In general, I would agree with the use of a limited palette.
However, on the subject of primary colours, is there not a qualitative difference between different media? This has already been touched upon by the use of terms such as "additive" and "subractive" colours. The cyan-magenta-yellow-black "primary" system uses the white of the paper for its white. Oil painters use white paint. This probably makes for a big distinction as to what is "primary". Also, which specific hues should be considered as primary? Not all reds are created equal, nor yellows, nor blues, nor blacks, nor whites, nor anythings, right? In the end, there are no pigments, nor combinations of pigments, that can match the full range of colours as we are able to perceive them in nature. So, we must use artifice or, in other words; the painter's craft. (Hooray for artifice!)
Anyway, for those who are extra keen on using colour theory to help in their picture-making, I would recommend finding a copy of Denman Ross's books. Is anyone aware of them? I have "The Painter's Palette: A Theory of Tone Relations; An Instrument of Expression". I won't go into explaining it because it is hugely complicated, but ultimately, fascinating. I have yet to attempt a picture based on his very precise instructions, but it is on my "someday-to-do" list.
Juan
|