A quickie lesson in layering warm and cool paint

[Steve Moppert]

A Novel Idea:

Get 4 or more non-fugitive colors, preferably including red, yellow, blue and one white. Get canvas, 3 or 4 brushes of your choosing. Look at your subject, squint occasionally, and paint what you see.

Steve

[Steve Moppert]

No Karin, I don't "get it". And furthermore, I don't want it! I gave up "paint by number" at 9 years old. Thank you.

Steve

[Juan Martinez]

What a fascinating thread this is and one that is near and dear to me. As Marvin put it so well, I won't add to his comments about seeing except to include one of my favourite quotes. It is from Robert Beverly Hale: "First, we draw what we see. Then, we draw what we know. And then, we know what it is that we see."

This picks up very well on what Adrian mentioned about anatomy, for example. Knowing anatomy perfectly does not in itself allow you to draw a convincing human form. Just go ask your doctor to draw a person. What it does do, though, is allow you to better understand what is in front of you when you are faced with the human form.

Similarly, chromatic and/or value changes that occur as the form (plane) turns away from the viewer is very much a natural phenomenon, but it is not always immediately evident to the eye, particularly when that eye is untrained. However, just doing it on the canvas, in a "formulaic" way--"on faith" so-to-speak--usually results in the thing looking right. Then, if we were to look back to the model, sure enough, there it is.

So, all of the various forumlas, conventions, and systems--call them what you will--that have been devised for painting, are there as guidelines for the painter to better express their vision. None are truly "reality". They are all abstract mechanisms for representing three-dimensional form onto two dimensions. It often boils down to what works best and what you know best. Marvin mentioned his willingness to make changes as he deems them fit and necessary. I love that attitude. Moreover, some conventions work better within certain painting systems than do others and so we must fit the approach with the treatment of subject within those systems.

Also, welcome back Stephen. I hope you had a fruitful and enjoyable R & R.

All the best.

Juan

[Tammy Nielsen]

Thanks Karin for sharing all the techiques. I'm loving it. And I love to hear others opinons too. It really makes my brain ponder each point and then try to use what I digest. Tammy

[Adrian Gottlieb]

Although I don't support the manner of Steve Moppert's disagreement with technique and formulas, I believe that it is a legitimate concern. Right up front, I am in total support for the intellectual understanding of what we see. It is in learning these formulas that one can paint as the eye sees that much more accurately. The simplest analogy is anatomy. Sure, it can be abused, resulting in comic book superhero figures. Used wisely, however, anatomy can help you to turn a complicated form, illustrate a movement or tension, and to just understand what all those darned bumpy things are.

Any formula can be abused. But I'm not afraid to use them now and then, because the end result is what I see.

[Marvin Mattelson]

Hello everyone,

I