A quickie lesson in layering warm and cool paint

[Karin Wells]

It is OK to paint what you see, but it is much more important to paint what you know. The human eye is not always "sophisticated" or "trained" enough to observe reality and the Old Masters certainly knew this.

Here is a quickie visual lesson in layering warm and cool paint to define realistic looking form. It is excerpted from a longer and more detailed post "Building Art Beyond the Image" http://forum.portraitartist.com/show...s=&threadid=58

As a highlight transitions into a deep shadow, warm and cool tones begin to alternate. This creates each layer that defines form. The overlapping of warm and cool color is essential in building realistic form. (The terms "warm" and "cool" color are relative to the specific color used...i.e., warm and cool skin tones)

1. Highlight is cool. The lightest value, cool color paint on an object.

2. Light is warm. The next lightest value, warm color paint - and it continues to get lighter still as it approaches the area of highlight.

3. Halftone (where light and shadow meet) is cool. A mid-value, cooler color paint where light begins to turn into shadow - but can't be defined as either light or shadow.

4. Shadow is warm. A dark value, warm color paint.

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).

Below is a detail of a face by Rubens. With specific reference to the numbers above, I hope you can see the layering technique I have described. If you can begin to see this, you can begin to paint it.

[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

[Karin Wells]

Steve,

If your paintings consistently look good when they are finished, you obviously have a very sophisticated and trained eye. You are lucky to have found that the method of "painting what you see with a very limited palette" works perfectly for you. And I would certainly enjoy seeing some of your excellent work!

However, not everyone can do what you can so easily do. If someone with a "less perfect eye" is not producing consistently good work, it would behove them to consider trying something else.

The Old Masters had an easy method they used and it is practically "lost knowledge." Unfortunately contemporary art suffers greatly because of a lack of genuine knowledge.

I think that the real "novelty" nowadays is to NOT paint what you (think) you see but to paint from genuine knowledge.

[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

[Karin Wells]

I'll try to explain this again...

If you look, for example, at Vermeer....any Vermeer, he layered warm and cool paint to create "reality" in the manner explained above.

Lots of artists (with the exception of you and a few other lucky ones) are not able to make their paintings look "realistic" like the subject matter they wish to paint no matter how long they stare at a subject.

There IS a way to do it when the eye fails....why would you wish for so many artists to continue to produce unsatisfactory artwork when it is not necessary for them to suffer and fail at all?

As you know, there are many ways to paint a picture...and the one way most used is to try to directly paint what one sees. If that method worked all the time for all the people, the world would be filled with much more wonderful art.

If an artist finds that a way of working (even if it works for you) is not getting a satisfactory result, it would be silly to continue in that manner without considering another way of looking at things.

Painting what "you think you see" just doesn't work for everybody. Get it?

[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

[Karin Wells]

So here's my dilemma Steve....when I post something to try and help someone who wishes to paint better portraits, are you going to attack me again? I don't much like it and I find it hurtful.

I would like to think that I am safe to express an idea, opinion or question without the possability of a sarcastic attack by someone who may disagree. It takes a lot of courage to post anything here, most especially my artwork. It is frightening to think that someone may make fun of me (or anyone) when I need help or try to help.

Sarcastic remarks/attacks have no place here - ever - it undermines the whole idea of this forum.

[Karin Wells]

I know that you're out there reading all of our postings. How about if you start a new thread in the intro. section regarding a POLICY ABOUT THE USE OF SCARCASM AND PUT-DOWNS? Everyone should be alerted to this potential problem and notify you asap if they spot this kind of thing in a post before you do.

I suggest that anytime someone posts something that even borders on the nasty, pull the post, and privately email the person who put it up. Give them the opportunity to reword their thoughts in a way that is beneficial to all.

I think that most scarcasm is the result of a passionately held belief. Sometimes someone pretends that - or maybe even really thinks that - they are "just being funny". But this causes hurt and is counterproductive to the growth of this unique forum.

I am really worried that some timid soul is lurking out there, reading the unpleasant exchanges posted above, and would never feel safe enough to express an idea or an opinion on this forum. We would all lose so much if this kind of thing is allowed to continue.

I would like to think that the person who mistakenly directs a put-down toward another person on this forum will be given an opportunity to express their thoughts and opinions in a way that benefits everyone.

What do you think?

[Cynthia Daniel]

Yes, I've been reading all the posts and cringing as things seem to heat up. The purpose of the forum is to encourage others to reach their highest potential, no matter from what point they are starting.

In order to accomplish this, it is necessary for members to feel safe to express themselves without being attacked. I don't remember who the first member was that posted for a critique, but I commend their courage at being the first!

I agree that we should express outselves in a manner that is considerate of the believes and practices of another and if there is a disagreement to express it in a courteous way. This is especially necessary on this forum because of the wide variety of career levels. If this was a forum where everyone had a well-developed career and confidence in their painting, this might not be such a significant issue.

I also cringe at the thought of the impression we may be giving the extremely polite members from other countries that are on this forum. Are we being the Ugly American?

I agree that passionately-held beliefs are often the cause of saying something that is condescending to another. Sometimes this is intentional and soemtimes not. As we can easily see in the world today, this happens all the time in the area of religion.

There is more than one way to skin a cat and often no right or wrong. When I first started designing web pages, a potential client criticized the fact that I had put the images against a pure black background. He said I should never use pure black. My feelings were extremely hurt at the way he expressed it (he was a former minister!) and I turned him down for Stroke of Genius (he wasn't that good anyway). Also, when I looked at his web pages, I knew they weren't good pages, so he was no authority on design. But, for years, I never used pure black again. Then, in the last year, I had 3 artists complain because I wasn't using a pure black background. Who is right or wrong?

What I see is that both you and Steve are incredibly talented and recognized in the field and would love to see both of you continue as contributing members as I know you both have a lot of value to offer to other artists.

By the way, when a post is offensive, there is a line below the icons in a post that says "report his post to a moderator". In this case, I'm the moderator. I will add something in the registration agreement regarding coutesy. If a reminder is necessary, I can certainly do that.

[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