Direct painting versus glazing

[Clive Fullagar]

Marvin,

At this stage, I am not sure whether I agree with you or not.

It seems to me that a lot of new painters on this site are trying to learn the technique of glazing over under paintings.

I fear I may be one of the perpetrators of the recent underpainting "frenzy" on this forum. However, let me explain my motivations. I have no delusions that by using the techniques of the old masters I will end up painting anything like they did. I merely engage in the exercise of underpainting to teach myself more about values and their range, and to give me options when it comes to choosing an approach to portraiture. In all probability I will return to direct painting after this exercise, but I am sure it will be with a greater appreciation of value.

I also think that we need to be careful here in presuming that underpainting was the only approach that classical painters used. Many of them used a direct approach mainly due to the time constraints of underpainting (waiting for each layer to dry). Direct painting meant you could produce more paintings quicker.

In my opinion you first need to learn how to paint directly and master wet into wet technique. This is the only way to learn the subtleties of manipulating oils. Even artists that extensively employ glazing still must rely on opaque paint handling for certain passages.

I agree, direct painting is an excellent, perhaps the only, way to learn about shaping paint. I think that we tend to ignore the three-dimensional aspect of paint - and glazing is not going to teach us anything about that.

Finally, I too am an admirer of your work. I could not find a more persuasive argument for using direct painting and the wet into wet approach than your portraits.