A quickie lesson in layering warm and cool paint

[Mary Sparrow]

I am one of those people that had a HORRIBLE time in art classes, because following someone else's instruction on how to create completely left me uncreative! SO, I quit and tried to learn by trial and error. It has been 13 years since college, and I have had plenty of time to "piddle" and learn on my own.

NOW that I have a better understanding of how I paint naturally, I am in a much better position to learn the the different techniques without being so overwhelmed. Did that make ANY sense at all? LOL As Cynthina said, "there is more than one way to skin a cat" and I find it fascinating to see all of the different ways each gifted artist here paints a face. I feel that I have learned more through this forum in the past few months than I could have learned from any other form of art education.

Your work is beautiful, and you explain yourself very well. SO PLEASE DON'T STOP!!

[Pam Phillips]

Karin,
I'll second what Joan said!

I find your discussion of techniques fascinating. I went to college in the 70's and majored in art. I learned ZIP about techniques because none was taught. The philosophy was that technique instruction would stifle our creativity. For the most part I produced such ugly garbage that I still cringe when I think of it, lol.

For the past year I've been studying art by reading books, viewing the work of many artists, and reading this forum. I'm grateful that you are taking the time to explain your Old Masters style of painting. Whether or not I incorporate this information into my paintings, it will help me to better appreciate much of the art I see.

[Steven Sweeney]

I was born with an underdeveloped conflict gene, so my impulse was to say "Oops, excuse me", back out of this thread, and quietly close the door behind me.

But the subject matter intrigues me and I think there's likely some arbitrable common ground, however slight the overlap may be.

Because I came to the practice of art pretty late in life (mid-40s) and I didn't have 20 or 30 years (or the patience) to slowly acquire through trial and error the myriad techniques and tips for satisfying, professional work, I spent some years in intensive study with professionals whose work I admired. After putting in between 4 and 5 thousand hours in that effort (drawing and painting 40 to 50 hours per week for three years), I got pretty good at representing on the paper or canvas what was in front of me.

And yet, I still can get completely flummoxed by what is "wrong" with a piece that just won't come around. I suddenly feel like a rank beginner again. I look and I look and I look, I measure, and I know something's not on, but I can't spot it. That's one of the times when the "formulas" become useful to me, as places to start in analyzing problems.

If I have confidence in my drawing and I think the problem with form might be related to color, then yes, absolutely, I will enlist a "formula" -- to TEST my work. I might say, okay, I have a quite warm light source, and so as a rule I would expect to see relatively cool shadows. I look at the subject anew to see if that expectation is borne out. If not, then I simply proceed to another step in the analysis. But if indeed with a new focus I discover cool violets and greens in the shadows, and then look to find reds and oranges in those areas of my painting, I don't ever say, well I can't change it, because then I'd be painting to a formula. I say "Eureka! That's it! How could I have missed it?" (And in fact, part of my analysis will be to try to determine why I put the reds and oranges there in the first place.)

No less a contemporary master than Daniel Greene makes "formulaic" assumptions about the location of features on the face. He gets stuck into a drawing very quickly, and the eyes aren't where the eyebrows should be and the mouth isn't rubbing elbows with the nose. But he ALWAYS TESTS those assumptions against the actual subject, which controls. The assumptions remain valid and useful, even if they may not in a particular instance have resulted in an accurate representation and have had to be modified.

Another award-winning master, Peggy Baumgartner, kind of employs an assumption after the fact in the initial portrait sketch: if her eye tells her that something is "off" but three measurements confirm that the drawing is correct, she accepts the measurements and not what her eye is "telling" her. Yet could anyone look at Baumgartner's work and say that she was painting to a formula and not her unique perception? Hardly.

I have an expectation that the tannin-hued sands on the bank of a particular river can be captured by various proportions of ultramarine, cadmium orange, and white. That's a formula, and most of the time it's useful. Of course it doesn't excuse me from making a judgment as to whether the expectation provides accurate readings on a particular bend in that river on a particular day.

Richard Schmid, much of whose work is heartrendingly beautiful, expresses disdain for certain mechanical and formulaic tools and approaches. He says he "feels sorry" for those who employ them. With all respect to Schmid, whose palette I'm not worthy to clean at the end of the day, people don't need such pity or deserve such contempt. I'm just doing the best work I can do, using every resource at my disposal, trying to excel at and enjoy my artistic vocation.

I suspect that what most folks addressing this matter are concerned about is what Harry Chapin sang about, the soul-killing straitjacket of "flowers are red and green grass is green, there's no need to see flowers any other way than the way they always have been seen."

I don't believe anyone here has suggested any sort of regimen or rule like that.

Of course, sometime flowers are red, and green grass is green.

Steven

[Steven Sweeney]

Mr. Mattelson --

Congratulations on your acknowledgment at the recent portrait artist conference, and a great pleasure to read your contribution -- please get as addicted to it as some of us have become. The membership on the site -- folks extremely eager for your caliber of advices -- has now doubled in a very short time, but I suspect that hundreds, thousands, likely tens of thousands more are tapping into the well anonymously and printing out lots of postings.

It's a bit of a rub that you encountered the Maroger thread first, because that was probably the worst example of anything that's ever happened here -- by rule of order an extraordinarily civil, decent, informative home -- but the lapse was rather deliberately engineered, I believe, by the provocateur, who I hope has by his behaviour become an uninvited and quickly -- perhaps unprecedentedly so -- unrespected guest here and self-defrocked expert "contributor" to a civil and informed forum.

Please wander around SOG's topics, especially the critiques and topic headings for courses offered by you. You won't be reminded of any other website you've visited, save in occasional lapse that is inevitable and has become, particularly in the one instance you referred to, nefariously and legendarily sourced and predicted, and others, aberrations. Differences in procedure and protocol are accepted almost universally -- indeed usually eagerly -- here. Speaking only for myself, of course, your brand of tolerance, interest, professionalism, and eagerness to investigate all procedures and protocols is very welcome.

Cheers

[Abdi R Malik]

Karin,

I hope you are not upset, I think Steve was trying to test you. If I were you I would say "Ok I appreciate what you got but I believed mine is easier for everyone."

Ingres once forbade his students to see Rubens paintings because the master felt they would be corrupted by his color. I am trying to say let's take only the good things from the Masters.

I have a true story happened during the reign of a Tyrant from 1965-1998. I recalled in 1985 there was an artist got locked up behind bars because he painted a figure of future president in the year of 2000. The tyrant was being harassed and ordered to punish the fool. In 1998 by student movement/people power, the dictator fell down and the artist was set free. Miraculously, as if the artist knew that the tyrant were not gonna make it until 2000. The point is "Free to express the idea."

In my opinion contemporary art doesn't suffer at all in determining the value of classic/realism. I saw Nelson Shank's paintings which are amazing, realistic skin tone, texture, woods etc. There was time where the glorious classicism/realism faded by the emergence of impressionism. It doesn't matter every style has its audiences.

I admire yours just like everyody else.

Okay Karin I supposed to share my work and have your suggestion regarding precised skin tone. Actually, "I paint what I know" so adjustments are needed.

My work in progress, life size (24"x32"). Pallete for skin I used: burnt umber, titanium white, talens yellow, talens red, french ultra.

After various attempts I failed to have sharp and natural light. I use 700k pixels Digital Camera, indoors with daylight fluorescent. I plan to buy a tungsten floodlight which is cheap.

Regards,
Abdi

[Abdi R Malik]

Hello Karin & Steve,

I didn't mean to interfere but I remembered what Mr. Daniel Arredondo said "artist helps another artist." That's a nice words.

Actually I agree with both of you, any artist can do either paint by seeing it or by his/her knowledge. Depends on the artist skill, favor.

I believed some of the Old Masters painted what they did see, they emulated all the conditions of the subjects, the surroundings at that time on the canvas. And some did not instead they created the conditions, meaning what they had in mind. Rubens, for instance, sometimes he painted very yellow for skin and elongation of the hands which had been followed by his pupil Anthony V Dyck.

That doesn't mean they were not capable to do such realistic illusions. They were, but they just liked to paint that way. Realistic painters are not similar, Jacque L David, Rubens, Ingres, Rembrandt, Delacroix had their own techniques, differed one to another. I admire Ingres for his photorealistic portrait painting. I also like Rembrandt for his stroke. He scratched the subject's face eagerly and still looked realistic. Goya for his bold stroke, deep color etc.

The way out is up to the audiences to select each of the painters that he/she favors the most.

In 19th Century There was dispute between two most influenced painters. I think we all know that, Ingres and Delacroix. They threw bad remarks each other. In my opinion the Masters should not do that, bad image, disgraceful. They could not pacify their egos. Every artist has the ego but don't let the ego burst out uncontrolably.

I apologized for my words and my English.

Regards,
Abdi

[Joan Breckwoldt]

Dear Karin,

Please don't stop posting all the information you have been sharing with this forum. As a beginning portrait painter the information I get from your posts has helped me immeasurably. You have given me so much food for thought, in fact, I can't paint fast enough to try to incorporate all the ideas you generously share.

Having this forum available and a constant stream of helpful information has helped me further develop my style, some things I read on this forum work for me and others don't. But I enjoy reading them all.

Joan Breckwoldt

[Joan Breckwoldt]

Karin, I have a couple of questions I think you can help me with. I have been studying this post of Rubens as I'm working on my first underpainting. I think I'm getting it! But . . . could you explain 5 and 6 in a bit more detail. .

"5. Deep Shadow (cast shadow at the origin) is hot. Darkest value, hottest color paint.

6. Reflected light within a shadow is as close to pure color as you can make it. The reflected light should match the value of the shadow and it can be either warm or cool in color.

I like to make reflected light by mixing two color opposites (i.e., red/green, purple/yellow) to neutralize each (can look like mud). Add enough white to this mixture to match the value of the shadow (and sometimes a touch of blue in addition)."

How do you get that 'hot' color besides just using red? How does it look like Rubens did it here?

I understand how reflected light within a shadow is close to pure color, but could you explain why you mix two color opposites? Is it because two color opposites give you some 'movement', some excitement/light in the reflected shadow? This makes me think of some of the Van Gogh's I saw at the VG Museum, for example green and red to create movement. Is this the same principle you're using?

Thank you!
Joan

[Yoshiharu Himata]

Karin,

I'll third what Joan said!

I often transcribed your information and pasted it on the wall beside me.

[Steve Moppert]

Karin,

This isn't neurosurgery. It's observing, relating, measuring, and making an effort to paint
what is before us. Why have the subject sit if he is to be ignored because we have a supposed better knowledge of what is there than the truth before us? None of this is easy, but I trust my eyes more than a laundry list of what supposedly might be there.
Let me restate what I said in my previous note. I said "four or more colors." More can be any number above four; that's not "very limited." I don't understand the infatuation that so many artists have with formulas, recipes, tricks, supposed secrets, and "lost knowledge." I think that if an artist abandons his or her judgement and vision and instead depends on formula, he is lost. The highlights, lights, halftones, shadows, reflected lights, etc. can be warm or cool, or any color, depending on the circumstances. Their true color can only be discerned through observation of the subject in a particular setting, time of day, time of year, color of dress, etc. No one can know this by relying on what Rubens or anyone else did on the day he painted his portrait.

Steve