Sunday, November 27, 2011
I'm currently working on part two which is even cooler and geared towards dispelling those pesky color design myths and such..I'm hoping to have it done by spring.
Thanks to all!
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
So it's finally here!
It's not easy putting a book together but thanks to some helping hands and some fine artists we've finally got round to putting all of color class info into print.
So now you can have the manual that we essentially have used for the class. Hopefully it is as helpful as the class. At least you can go over and over it again...and for those getting started it sure is nice to have a reference book even if you are taking the class.
If you wish to purchase it or preview a couple of pages see the links on this blog to the CreateSpace E-store. It will hopefully be available on Amazon too, for those that may not come across this blog or our classes in San Diego or Los Angeles. But, if you come here first, please go through CreateSpace as it benefits us more so we can start on part 2...
But for those who just have to buy it from Amazon..I'll be putting a link up when it's available there!!
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
These quick color studies are both done in a wet-in-wet pointillist technique. These were a yellow block, skintone block and a yellow-ochrish sphere under a green gel.
One of these was done in high-key pure dots (with no "intentional" mixing but a little did happen because it was wet-on-wet). This approach used a high key middle yellow, high key middle red, ultramarine blue and viridian and white. Only white was added to any one color before putting dots on the canvas - none of the colors were premixed or mixed intentionally on the canvas. This is essentially optical mixing at the highest level. The purity of color creates a lot of color movement which makes identifying the overall intended color appearance (i.e. the flat colors of the specific areas) more difficult to achieve due to the color noise. But from a distance (or low res) it is more apparent.
The second sketch uses secondary mixes of the same paints in a pointillist manner. So instead of pure or pure +white dots, there are dots of color mixes. However, these mixes are still derivative component colors. This means that they were never the flat color but just less pure than version 1. This creates less color movement (but mot much less) but more flat color accuracy with less noise.
The more you mix the colors the less color movement you get until you are just painting a flat color. This has many implications for painting, too many of which to discuss here. But compare the 2 versions and see the differences.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Brushwork is a bit of an enigma to a lot of people, it certainly was, and to a certain extent still is, to me. I think that, for many individuals, brushwork only conjures up specific types of brushwork such as Sargent's but there really is so much variety that it isn't quite so simple and to learn brushwork from a teacher is to really only learn a style of brushwork but not the organic decision-making process we really need. It's primarily that decision making process (not a technique, not formulaic) that defines the application and thus the look of the brushwork. Granted, certain techniques in paint such as wet-on-wet or wet-on-dry, contribute to the final effect but they are part of this decision-making process. So we can make different decisions for the same subject depending on a number of factors. I've heard a lot of teachers/artists, say "it's just shape, value and color" as if to say it's that simple. What they don't emphasize is that based on what shapes, values and colors you see (which can change drastically depending on body shifts, how long you look at something and other factors) and then based on your decisions to emphasize or focus on specific aspects, this then translates to shapes, values and colors on your canvas/surface. There is a tremendous equation and gap between the things you see and then what you paint, REGARDLESS of how realistic or abstract your painting is.
This quick and broad sketch of a skull in my studio was done with pretty large brushes (greater than 1/2 inch) for a relatively small sketch (painted height of skull is no more that 5 inches). This limitation of brush size directly affected the color and values used, on top of the color and value design choices I had already made. Just like a pointilist approach affects the available color choices ( by allowing for purer colors to blend optically), a broader approach creates different limitations/design potential. So, in this case, I had intially chosen to push the yellow color caused partially by the light source and the skull itself but, because I had larger brushes I was restricted from pushing the light effect (of color) any further as this would have conflicted with the bigger brush strokes (i.e. there would have been a discontinuity of color across the skull). When I refer to discontinuity I'm referring to the fact the skull is essentially the same local color throughout. The more you push atmospheric color the more difficult it is to represent the concept of the object having a local color. In many Impressionist paintings like Monet's, since the atmospheric effect of color is the main goal, the local colors are subjugated to serve this concept and the brushwork is chosen to push that atmospheric look. Had I wanted more of that in my sketch I would have had to reduce the brush size or scale up the sketch.
So brushwork is not an entity unto itself, it is connected to many other factors and choices, one major one is color (in color painting, of course). To pursue brushwork without the knowledge of such factors and without a personal decision making process is to become mechanical and technique driven vs. idea driven. You need that process in order to create a look that YOU want and that fits your temperament and the project itself.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Without ranting and raving too much, I have the feeling that artists of past years philosophized more about art than we do, well, at least in the broader conceptual manner that I'm referring to. Anyway, this idea brings me to a short rant about artwork which inspires you vs art that you appreciate. I'm specifically referring to art (i.e. something someone else created, not nature or experiences). Nowadays it seems that many people drool over the artwork of the big names of past or present artists and aspire to be like them. It's a natural response, but we have to go deeper and discover for ourselves whether their work inspires us or we really appreciate it. The difference is that art you appreciate is because it is technically good, due to composition, color, handling etc.. BUT it doesn't mean it inspires you (unless by inspiration you mean being successful, well-known, and getting that luxury yacht etc..). Here's a perfect example: I like JC Leyendecker's work, I really like it. It's well executed, well designed and pretty darn amazing and I'll look at it maybe make a study of it and try to figure out what he was thinking. BUT as much as I do that, it doesn't inspire me. It doesn't move me the way a Brangwyn painting does. When I look at a Brangwyn painting I actually have a hard time analyzing it 'cause I start getting giddy. So the number of artists that actually inspire me are relatively few compared to the many that I really appreciate and try to learn from.
This then brings us to the conclusion that in order to become YOU the artist, you have to know which art inspires YOU and which you really appreciate or look to for technical expertise etc... Hopefully,when we get this sorted out, we'll know why or when to copy an artist's work, and we'll stop obsessing about painting or drawing our art like someone else (unless we're making a study for technical purposes, for example). And then, we won't all have to believe that Rembrandt, Rockwell, Leyendecker, Gerome etc. should inspire everyone just because they are masters. If they don't happen to inspire us, we needn't feel guilty, we'll just have clearer reasons for looking at or studying their work (technique, composition, handling...) without feeling bad for not making art like them. That's why it's called art appreciation..
Sunday, January 23, 2011
|From Making Sense of Color|
In addition, color can changes hinge on the specific medium chosen, producing different optical effects. I had these sorts of issues with this portrait in pastel pencil. Pigment in solid form, in this case pastel pencils, have a higher saturation cost than in oil paint.
In order to yield more saturation, I had to find a way to avoid blending the pigments and then use scale (the distance in which a viewer was to see the portrait) to create the final color effect. In other words, I had to create a more pointillist application of the portrait. The points then viewed as a whole create another color. You can see this on experiments that Quentin has discussed in previous block exercises that employ small color dots.
However, since I didn't want a typical broken impressionistic appearance I had to balance this color effect with value while maintaining the focus more on the drawing. This entailed some serious decision making and knowledge of chroma-value.
It is important to understand that even if I consciously made the decision to set color below value in terms of importance, I then will have to shift my color choices from a more pure observational mentality to more design-oriented one. I am mentally thinking of altering my gamut (which includes both the color range and the choices of my palette colors). So gamut shifts for the sake of my design choices as well as the physical idiosyncrasies of this pigment medium.
This was the case in the eyes, nose, neck shadow, and background. In the nose it would have been difficult to keep the shadow of the nose from being too cold or too grey had I not altered the value in order to get a color range that would harmonize with the colors surrounding it.
As for the neck area, I was thinking the same thing, but I was also thinking of making the shadow feel more airy. One way to do this is to “warm” up the shadows. I, therefore, had to employ both pigment mixing and pointillism in order to achieve this. This decision was made after I felt that pigment mixing by its own virtue would not yield the result I wanted. Luckily Quentin and I had been collaborating on such optical effects earlier with humble blocks and cylinders that became relevant for this portrait. Also, the background was given a color dot treatment. I added dots of certain red-purples to differentiate the temperature difference from the background and the hair.
I hope this shows a little of how our insights with block, spheres, and cylinder studies are relevant to pictures that one wishes to create. If you have not checked out Quentin’s new work, “Remnants”, take a look and see if you can see the subtle temperature shifts in the darks. They are not all black and they shift from cooler darks to warmer ones.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
All the best in all your endeavors!