Thomas Nash -- Portrait Academy Series, Norcross, GA -- What a great day!

[Thomas Nash]

Yes I'm very familiar with Nelson's procedure. As I mention on my web site he was probably my biggest single influence among living artists during the last 17 years. He has done four demos here in my own studio in the late 80's and early 90's, including one he painted of me.

I didn't want to spray anything in the room during this class and there wasn't even a minute to spare to take it outside. What I did worked out perfectly for what I was trying to do. I generally don't like to use spray retouch at all if I can avoid it but that's another whole story, beyond the smell and mess:-)

[Michele Rushworth]

It is pretty nasty smelling stuff and bad for everyone's health, isn't it. And every bottle I've seen seems to be made with Damar, which I don't like. Too bad Gamvar doesn't come in a spray!

[Bobbi Baldwin]

I am not sure about spraying the painting. Wouldn't it add a crystal like texture to the painting that could be disturbed by the next brush stroke, if the paint was even slightly thick?

Hi Tom ...
I like how the painting turned out and how much ease it was for you to carry through talking to 100 plus people. The idea of a fresh palette of color to see as you work and not restricting yourself to a limited palette keeps your paintings full of beautiful color and makes every response to color, that you have, show in your work. I feel that what you did was VERY successful.
I have used the Alkyd white in plein air and end up going back to the creaminess of the traditional oils because of the stikiness. But, you make it look like it worked with ease ... and you were so successful with it. I was impressed by the finished painting in so many ways. You caught the model in a way that showed him at his best for sure.
I was going over my notes from your demo, and noticed a note that I wrote to myself to ask you about the half tone color on the warm side of the face that you referred to as a color that almost feels like it should sit on the cool or shadowed side of the face. As I recall, that spot was right below his right eye in a plain that sits right at the meeting of the eye socket and the eye ball.
Would this color change be related mostly to the local color of the skin in this area or do you think it was a reflection from any area? And if it is a reflection, where would it have come from?
Thank you,
Bobbi

[Thomas Nash]

Michele, I think your'e right, They do all seem to be made with damar. One reason I resist spraying is that unless you do the entire surface you are creating an arbitrary pattern of spray on your painting that has more to do with the nozzle of the spray can than your composition. Sometimes I try to shape or mask where the spray goes by holding a card nearby.

Bobbi,
I know I talked about how some halftones. seem to "want" to be part of the shadow group. I can explain that further, but I'm not exactly sure about the specific part of the painting you refer to and where it would be classified; at least not at this time of night!.

As you know there are all kinds of half tones from the lightest to the darkest ones. Many artists will group the "dark half tones", with the "shadow group" (shadow, reflected light in shadow and dark accents) because even though they clearly are "part of the light" by virtue of the fact that the light does in fact strike them, if only a glancing blow, they are so dark and so close to appearing to be a part of the shadow, that they prefer to think of them that way for "modeling form".

Reflected light , just like the main light, comes in two main types, spectral --the more focused and specific, and ambient- the more scattered, defused. An example of the first would be the light that bounces off of something close by like the light from a shirt bouncing up under the chin or the nose. I would also include something like a wall that is very close to the model which bounces light back into the side of the face. The light bouncing off of a cheek, up into the eye socket also falls into this spectral category. The reflected light off of more distant walls or the blue of the entire sky on a sunny day are examples of more ambient, less focused reflected light, or "a secondary light source" is how some artists prefer to think about them.

We recognize reflected light more clearly when it illuminates shadows and it is even more obvious when it's color is very different from the color of the main light. That does not mean that it is not also hitting the form that is in the light,. The geometry of the situation often means that the spectral reflected light, the closer more focused type, is not going to be as likely to spill over into the light areas. It generally is coming back towards the form in a direction directly opposite the angle of the main light and therefore shines into shadows mostly or at least is more APPARENT there. On the other hand, a big diffuse, ambient reflected light, like the studio walls or the blue of the sky is free to go all over the place and is more likely to hit anywhere the main light also hits. It usually is not apparent because the stronger main light overwhelms it. It is in the dark half tones that this "secondary light source" has the best opportunity to have a visual impact on part of the form that is already "in the light".

So if you are trying to "figure out" what the light is doing, (something I think is useful), you can look around and see what the colors of the general area are and any other information that can help you understand what colors can be "coming at" your model. I should emphasize right here that this in no way stops you from simply looking and trying to paint the colors you see. As you know from the Academy, I recommend doing both so that the one can reinforce the other.

In the end the proof is in the pudding and regardless of what you figure out or what you think you see on the subject, it has to work as a painting or else you change it!!! ....and that's one more reason they call it "an art"!!!

[Claudemir Bonfim]

I think this thread is being very instructive!
I can read about things like this for hours...
Thanks Bobbi for starting it.

[Thomas Nash]

I'm glad you're enjoying this thread. I was afraid I was a bit long winded with that last answer. I will try to be more succinct!!

You had asked in an email about more images from the Academy, I can do that, just give me a bit more time.

You mentioned Loomis, I'm glad to hear you are a fan of his. You are really onto something there. I thought the world of him and have all his books. I hope you have his early ones on drawing. I especially liked the fact that he emphasized UNDERSTANDING what it is we are trying to draw or paint. Today there is so much emphasis on copying, whether it is coping from the live model or not, understanding WHY things appear as they do is very helpful to reinforce what we see and help us to see it more clearly and to draw and paint with more authority. I also believe that it makes drawing and painting much more fun and natural.

[Bobbi Baldwin]

Claudemer,
Thank you; it is truly my pleasure to ask such questions of Thomas. Although, sometimes, I think I make his head hurt. :*) I love to hear Thomas's answers. He is so knowledgeable. I knew I should share this depth of knowledge with those who want to hear it besides me ... So ... thank you Thomas!!!

Thomas,
Please don't make it more succinct, you always make it understandable in a great way. There is so much to capture in theory and I enjoy the way you do it. I learn so much from you.
with smiles,
your always respectful devotee,
Bobbi :*)

[Claudemir Bonfim]

Originally Posted by Thomas Nash

You mentioned Loomis, I'm glad to hear you are a fan of his. You are really onto something there. I thought the world of him and have all his books.

Yeah, I have all of his books too, I thought the world of him too and I completely agree with you about his idea of "understanding" what it is we are trying to draw.
And I agree with Bobbi too, please, don't make it more succinct!