Underpainting - Trying it out

[Steven Sweeney]

The light-bulb has just come on.

Clive,

I wish I could properly attribute this recently-read comment, but the paraphrase would be "You can understand everything you need to know about painting in one day. Unfortunately, you don't know when that day will come along, so until then you just have to keep working at it."

[Patti Del Checcolo]

Karin, ditto to Enzie. I've also started a underpainting because of your responses to Clive. From this last post of yours, I realize what you've been saying also. Now I'm doing the underpainting without detail.

Thanks to both Clive and you for all your efforts. Hope you are still considering that video, Karin, but if you keep explaining this well we might be able to save some money!

[Lon Haverly]

Am I the only one who cannot see the images posted above? There are only two little red x's. They are rather perfectly painted, if they indeed are painted.

[Steven Sweeney]

Lon,

You may want to check with Billing -- it sounds like your SOG membership dues might be in arrears.

No, actually, the red and white "X"s belong there. They're a lot harder to paint than you'd think -- you'd should have seen what they went through with the underpaintings alone.

No, actually, if you refresh your web page, that usually takes care of it.

[Jeanine Jackson]

I can see all images except Karin's last. I would love to see what she did to the excellent second attempt.

[Mari DeRuntz]

Jeanine, try this if "refresh" at the top of your browser doesn't work: right click on the photo that won't show, and then click on "show photo". Mine only acts up in this manner when visits to the internet clog my memory. A program like Norton Systemworks includes great tuneup tools, including "Cleansweep".

[Leslie Bohoss]

Hi!

This is a really fantastic topic -- a "hyper" thread. Like a blue sky without clouds (though there are a few, still.)

I, too, understand it, at last. I make almost everything wrong. I misunderstood the whole material, better said in my books, what I have haven't explained correctly.

Quotation from the book:

The basic idea behind this technique is that color and form are kept separate. Composition and volumetric form are established in a monochromatic underpainting, or grisaille, and color added in transparent washes or glazes. The preliminary drawing may be as loose and flexible as any action painting, but the point is to establish the framework for a very clear underpainting. If the grisaille more or less expresses what you want to say, then all else, especially the color, will automatically fall into place. With that in mind, it's easy to see why in the past so much emphasis was placed on solid drawing techniques. In one very real sense, glazed paintings can be considered colored drawings.

Basically, it means that instead of mixing two colors directly to create a third, you instead layer one over the other separately, treating each like a piece of colored glass. In each case, the resulting third color has the same final hue identity, but not the same visual effect. The glazed one will appear to have more depth, more of a glow than a mixed one. The glazed color seems to reflect light, while the mixed one appears to absorb it.

(Note: Everyone can confirm this "glowing" in a museum (but you can't photograph it!). I think it is a physical process of multiple lights breaking through multi-layered transparent materials. Therefore I do not understand completely what Marvin Mattelson (a high quality artist, too) says --in the topic, "'Direct painting versus glazing' -- "Today we have a vast array of pigments available so glazing is not needed nearly as much.")

Light-value underpaintings give the best results. In fact, the closer to white they are, the better, because each glaze will darken the overall tonal values.

I think, it is not soooo wrong, but tells nothing about halftones, lost edges, flat shadows, no highlights. etc., all of which seem to be very important, so that one can continue in both directions (lights and darks).

Thank you, Clive, for posing the questions here. Thank you very much for your free online lessons, Karin Wells! A book or online demo is a very good idea (processing from start to end).

I still think I have more courage than talent.

P.S. I'm so angry, I lost $XXX spent on other books.

[Marvin Mattelson]

Leslie,

The primary use of glazing in the past was to be able to create more intense (chromatic) colors due to the unavailability of a wide range of pigments, such as those available today. As more pigments were introduced over time glazing took on the role of being used to modify smaller areas with subtle hue and chroma enhancements after the bulk of the painting was completed.

I recently read somewhere that by the 19th century glazing was considered pass

[Marvin Mattelson]

I just wanted to make an additional point about under painting and the relative thickness of the paint. Karin

[Leslie Bohoss]

Good morning,

A lot of thanks for your declarations, Marvin. I think I understood it. A single point where I am not sure is this comment about "glowing". Sure, I understand about the translucency of oil. More layers, more color. But, if I see two pictures (in museum, no photos), first done alla prima (e.g., a landscape), second done with glazing, they have an obvious difference. The glazed color see somehow deeper, more lustrous and more reflective, and this remains for up to 400 years. My explanation (only for me, of course) is that the thin films of glazing have an additional quality, which leads to strengthening its translucency effect or ability. It's maybe a "side-effect". I'm afraid one can't photograph it. Like diamonds, it looks better on the finger, than in the photograph (isn't it so, ladies?).

Please, forgive me, Karin, I manipulated (a little bit) your living picture of Whitney Niels, by 3D software, to show what I had in mind.

She has made it like this (in cross-section). On the left side is a scumbled chin with highlight, more opaque color in the mixture (and thicker), like a mirror for the light. On the right side, at the jaw and neck shadow field, the rays of light reach the underpainting (therefore you can see the underpainting) broken and streaked by thin films of glaze. Maybe this little trip of light INTO the picture makes this field warm and lustrous, satin-like and gives the whole picture more 3D plasticity.

I hope the picture is legible enough (in its compressed and limited size). Again, all that is here, is as I imagine it in me.

By the way, I found an other way of underpainting on Net. It is from A. Antonov at www.artpapa.com. (I can't remember whether he wrote here anything). He makes more still lifes than portraits, but I think his way is more complex (7 layer) and time consuming than the one from Karin Wells.

Honestly, not completely understood, but one must see her brass, copper and ivory (piano keys). Without glazing, it is very difficult to reach this realistic level.

(Never say never. For example, I didn't like pastel particularly, until I saw what a disciplined artist like Hanna Larsson (a beautiful lady from Sweden) can do with this medium. Or Paul W. McCormack with watercolor.)

Sorry for my funny ideas and comments, but I find it interesting. More sense, more ability.

Respectfully,
Leslie

P.S. Thank you Chris, again. At the end, either my English becomes better or my paintings (or both ... or neither. )