What do you call this style?
peter nelson
started oil painting after only using acrylics, and was looking for a
good introductory book. Since I want a book on technique I thought
I'd try to find one where the author paints in a style similar to mine.
But afterlooing through over a dozen books at Borders yesterday
I couldn't find one.
Basically I prefer to paint realistically, with close attention to skin
tones
and texture, and fine detail. The closest analogue I can think of (in
technique,
not subject matter!) would be the style of painting that Impressionism
replaced or competed with, especially the English Victorian artists
like Leighton or Alma Tadema.
But absolutely **ALL** of the books I could find yesterday were in the
currently popular style that's sort of Impressionistic - very distinct brush
strokes, colors daubs allowed to remain distinct, details of clothing or
foliage
just suggested - overall a very sketchy quality compared to what I do.
1. What do you call the current "impressionistic" style that
these books are written in?
2. How should I refer to my own style as described above? I
hestitate to call it "photorealistic" because I'm not trying to fool
the eye into thinking it's a photograph, and also I'm an expert
photographer and am well aware of the enormous differences
between a painting and a photograph.
---peter
PS - back when I only did acrylics I was frustrated by the difficulty in
doing seemless, smooth blends, and none of the books I could find
had any examples of smooth blends so I chalked it up to a limitation
of the medium. But now that I'm doing oils I see the same thing in the
oil painting books: "blends" which still consist of discreet blotches of
color, with only a slight softening at their border. But I *KNOW* that
you can easily create an airbrush-quality blend in oils using only a brush
because I do it all the time! What I realize now is that most people's
idea for a "blend" is blotchier than mine and that anyway, in the
impressionistic
style people use these days blends aren't important to them.
I've since gone back and looked at the works of artists who
said they had no problem doing blends in acrylics and noticed
that this is because they didn't get very good blends.
Vi...@ordinaire.com
I'll try to be a little help to you.
"peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> This started off as a quest for a book recommendation. I recently
> started oil painting after only using acrylics, and was looking for a
> good introductory book. Since I want a book on technique I thought
> I'd try to find one where the author paints in a style similar to mine.
> But afterlooing through over a dozen books at Borders yesterday
> I couldn't find one.
Few technique books are written for serious artists. They are written for
Sunday painters - for purely economic reasons: there are not enough serious
painters to buy the books; besides, most serious painters learn their craft
by attending classes rather than reading books. There are, however,
thousands of hobby painters who learn their *Impressionism* from these
books and have a lot of fun.
Interesting tidbit: The published demographics of American Artist magazine
indicate that their typical reader is a 52-year-old woman who
is employed as a homemaker. Now, there's nothing
wrong with being 52! (I'm 54) and nothing wrong with being a woman or a
homemaker. My point is that these are hobby painters. The books and mags
are for them.
> Basically I prefer to paint realistically, with close attention to skin
> tones
> and texture, and fine detail. The closest analogue I can think of (in
> technique,
> not subject matter!) would be the style of painting that Impressionism
> replaced or competed with, especially the English Victorian artists
> like Leighton or Alma Tadema.
>
> But absolutely **ALL** of the books I could find yesterday were in the
> currently popular style that's sort of Impressionistic - very distinct
> brush strokes, colors daubs allowed to remain distinct, details of
> clothing or foliage
> just suggested - overall a very sketchy quality compared to what I do.
>
> 1. What do you call the current "impressionistic" style that
> these books are written in?
These books are all written for Sunday painters and offer
little of interest to the serious artist. They call the technique
Impressionism, which it is. The actual Impressionist movement only lasted a
few years, with the exception of Monet, evolving into post-Impressionism or
Expressionism with Van Gogh and Gaugin and company. The technique is a
favorite with Sunday painters, most of whom are blissfully unaware of art
history. It is a fun style that is easy to do badly and very salable.
>
> 2. How should I refer to my own style as described above? I
> hestitate to call it "photorealistic" because I'm not trying to fool
> the eye into thinking it's a photograph, and also I'm an expert
> photographer and am well aware of the enormous differences
> between a painting and a photograph.
I would call it realism. Good luck!
Vinny
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> This started off as a quest for a book recommendation. I recently
> started oil painting after only using acrylics, and was looking for a
> good introductory book. Since I want a book on technique I thought
> I'd try to find one where the author paints in a style similar to mine.
> But afterlooing through over a dozen books at Borders yesterday
> I couldn't find one.
>
> tones
> and texture, and fine detail. The closest analogue I can think of (in
> technique,
> not subject matter!) would be the style of painting that Impressionism
> replaced or competed with, especially the English Victorian artists
> like Leighton or Alma Tadema.
>
> But absolutely **ALL** of the books I could find yesterday were in the
> currently popular style that's sort of Impressionistic - very distinct brush
> strokes, colors daubs allowed to remain distinct, details of clothing or
> foliage
> just suggested - overall a very sketchy quality compared to what I do.
>
> 1. What do you call the current "impressionistic" style that
> these books are written in?
>
> hestitate to call it "photorealistic" because I'm not trying to fool
> the eye into thinking it's a photograph, and also I'm an expert
> photographer and am well aware of the enormous differences
> between a painting and a photograph.
>
>
> PS - back when I only did acrylics I was frustrated by the difficulty in
> doing seemless, smooth blends, and none of the books I could find
> had any examples of smooth blends so I chalked it up to a limitation
> of the medium. But now that I'm doing oils I see the same thing in the
> oil painting books: "blends" which still consist of discreet blotches of
> color, with only a slight softening at their border. But I *KNOW* that
> you can easily create an airbrush-quality blend in oils using only a brush
> because I do it all the time! What I realize now is that most people's
> idea for a "blend" is blotchier than mine and that anyway, in the
> impressionistic
> style people use these days blends aren't important to them.
>
> I've since gone back and looked at the works of artists who
> said they had no problem doing blends in acrylics and noticed
> that this is because they didn't get very good blends.
>
>
It seems to me, Pete, that terms for various 'styles' are the providence of
art critics and historians. These are the ones who usually coin the terms.
So when you get right down to this on the level of detail, there's a lot of
problems because artists usually do other things besides working in a
particular style -- so style terms become a litany of generalities. But what
I see you describing as "impressionistic' I seen others refer to as
'painterly.' My understanding of the term 'painterly' is that it's a very
broad terms which refers to the visible evidence of the paint, like
brushstrokes, discrete areas of paint, and so on. I think it's a better term
that 'impressionistic' since it doesn't refer to historical periodization.
I don't know what to call the other -- I would use the term 'continuous tone'
rather than 'blend'-- but in the end you're talking about a rendering
technique. "Borders' should, maybe, be referred to as 'edges' since there is
an existing distinction between 'hard edged' and 'soft edged' painting. The
concept which either of these approaches fall under is 'modeling,' which
refers to how an object in space is described in drawing or painting. My
tendency would be to describe what you are talking about as 'descriptive
rendering' which is kind of klunky and techno, but if you use a term like
"Baroque" there's a whole bunch of other things that apply which may be of no
interest to you.
It's interesting -- once you know the vocabulary, it's easier to find a book
which discusses the idea, but you need to find the book in order to learn the
term. Maybe a good jumping-off place is a dictionary of art terms. Also
some of the books about materials and techniques are bound to discuss
terminology and the ideas behind the terms.
Erik Mattila
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Blue Moon
>Basically I prefer to paint realistically, with close attention to skin
>tones
>and texture, and fine detail. The closest analogue I can think of (in
>technique,
>not subject matter!) would be the style of painting that Impressionism
>replaced or competed with, especially the English Victorian artists
>like Leighton or Alma Tadema.
You are talking about the pre-Raphaelites, I believe.
I know that there have been some very detailed books published
on the techniques used by Maxfield Parrish but I don't think
his methods are going to be much use for you in your quest for
smooth blends. I've responded several times to people who want
to do this using acrylics and it seems no one grasps the notion
that it CAN be done but NOT without modifying your paint. And
that is something people seem unable to understand. It's not
easy in any event and the only way you learn it is by doing.
No amount of explanation or demonstration is going to suddenly
turn your own brush into a magic wand that creates seemless
blends.
peter nelson
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote in message <7d8rrg$dmo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>It seems to me, Pete, that terms for various 'styles' are the providence of
>art critics and historians. These are the ones who usually coin the terms.
>So when you get right down to this on the level of detail, there's a lot of
>problems because artists usually do other things besides working in a
>particular style -- so style terms become a litany of generalities.
I agree. But if I'm looking for a technique book with examples of
technique similar to what I'm trying to learn I need to be able to
describe it if I want to post a question to a forum like this.
---peter
peter nelson
Blue Moon wrote in message <36f82...@oracle.zianet.com>...
>In article <7d89ph$b7d$1...@ligarius.ultra.net>, pne...@ultranet.com says...
> . I've responded several times to people who
want
>to do this using acrylics and it seems no one grasps the notion
>that it CAN be done but NOT without modifying your paint. And
>that is something people seem unable to understand. It's not
>easy in any event and the only way you learn it is by doing.
>No amount of explanation or demonstration is going to suddenly
>turn your own brush into a magic wand that creates seemless
>blends.
That's why I'm working in oils now. I tried everything in acrylics -
painting with a heavily-loaded brush, painting with a nearly dry
brush, using drying-retarders, using a perfume-atomizer to keep
the surface wet, blending with my fingers instead of the brush, using
a fan brush, etc and after LOTS of practice I got "pretty" good at it,
meaning that I can make a better blend than 99% of all the acrylic
blends I've ever seen in galleries or on the web, and I've amazed at
least two acrylic painting instructors who said they'd never seen
such good blends in acrylics as mine **BUT** recently when I tried
oils for the VERY FIRST TIME, I executed far better blends than I ever
have in acrylics. What this suggests to me is that the best blends
which can be had in acrylics are still only so-so.
One of the problems with acrylics is that the color shifts as it
dries, and it does so unevenly (lighter colors darken more
than darker ones) so even when you think you have a perfect
blend while the paint is still workable, it's not any more when
it dries. The only way to make a really good blend in acrylics
is to make one which is not-so-good while wet, but with enough
ability to anticipate how it will look when dry. To do this requires
knowing the darkening characteristics of each color individually
and mixed with other colors, as well as calculating the amount
of medium you've mixed in, since it's really the medium that
accounts tfor the darkening (acrylic medium is light-colored
while wet but it dries clear).
---peter
mdeli
<pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> **BUT** recently when I tried
>oils for the VERY FIRST TIME, I executed far better blends than I ever
>have in acrylics. What this suggests to me is that the best blends
>which can be had in acrylics are still only so-so.
Its certainly easier in oils if your acrylics aren't tempered. The big
problem is to extend the drying time. Conventional retarders don't
work well. There are also other problems. Acrylics are a trade off for
convenience when compared to oil.
>
>One of the problems with acrylics is that the color shifts as it
>dries, and it does so unevenly (lighter colors darken more
>than darker ones) so even when you think you have a perfect
>blend while the paint is still workable, it's not any more when
>it dries.
Your paint hasn't enough pigment and is drying transparent.
> The only way to make a really good blend in acrylics
>is to make one which is not-so-good while wet, but with enough
>ability to anticipate how it will look when dry. To do this requires
>knowing the darkening characteristics of each color individually
>and mixed with other colors, as well as calculating the amount
>of medium you've mixed in, since it's really the medium that
>accounts tfor the darkening (acrylic medium is light-colored
>while wet but it dries clear).
I think your analysis is off. The medium is transparent.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
emat...@tomatoweb.com
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 13:29:16 -0500, "peter nelson"
> <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> > **BUT** recently when I tried
> >oils for the VERY FIRST TIME, I executed far better blends than I ever
> >have in acrylics. What this suggests to me is that the best blends
> >which can be had in acrylics are still only so-so.
>
> Its certainly easier in oils if your acrylics aren't tempered. The big
> problem is to extend the drying time. Conventional retarders don't
> work well. There are also other problems. Acrylics are a trade off for
> convenience when compared to oil.
Why would anyone compare the two? And Peter has traded off acrylics for the
convenience of oils. What possible value is your comment to Peter? It's
totally obtuse.
>
> >
> >One of the problems with acrylics is that the color shifts as it
> >dries, and it does so unevenly (lighter colors darken more
> >than darker ones) so even when you think you have a perfect
> >blend while the paint is still workable, it's not any more when
> >it dries.
>
> Your paint hasn't enough pigment and is drying transparent.
Exactly incorrect. The term is 'blush' and it is inherent in acrylics, as it
is in gouache. The value and to a lesser degree chroma shifts when it dries.
This is also true of high quality jar acrylics which are loaded with pigment
and complete opaque. Any skillful artist knows this.
>
> > The only way to make a really good blend in acrylics
> >is to make one which is not-so-good while wet, but with enough
> >ability to anticipate how it will look when dry. To do this requires
> >knowing the darkening characteristics of each color individually
> >and mixed with other colors, as well as calculating the amount
> >of medium you've mixed in, since it's really the medium that
> >accounts tfor the darkening (acrylic medium is light-colored
> >while wet but it dries clear).
>
> I think your analysis is off. The medium is transparent.
You're exactly wrong on both counts. The color shift is the 'blush' and
Pete's analyses is exactly correct -- obviously gained by experience rather
than listening to psuedoskillspeak.
>
> ...no skill no art
Yes, I've noticed that about you...
Marilyn
Hi Erik,
The title of the thread, I think it should be "method."
There are techniques & methods,
then there are styles & genres (which only we elite can judge).
(grin)
Anyway, the purpose of my post here is to ask you if you
have ever heard of "Flashe acrylics? They dry to a glowing
matte finish much like encaustic.
I use acrylics/oils whatever will achieve the final image.
Even a touch of pastel on top of acrylic if I'm not happy
with the colour.
regards,
Marilyn
Ariane
***** Perhaps this thread should always be a staple to R.A.F *******
> > > On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 13:29:16 -0500, "peter nelson"
> > > <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> > > >One of the problems with acrylics is that the color shifts as it
> > > >dries, and it does so unevenly (lighter colors darken more
> > > >than darker ones) so even when you think you have a perfect
> > > >blend while the paint is still workable, it's not any more when
> > > >it dries.
Erik:
> > Exactly incorrect. The term is 'blush' and it is inherent in
> acrylics, as it > is in gouache. The value and to a lesser degree
> chroma shifts when it dries. > This is also true of high quality jar
> acrylics which are loaded with pigment > and complete opaque. Any
> skillful artist knows this.
On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Marilyn wrote:
> Hi Erik,
>
> The title of the thread, I think it should be "method."
> There are techniques & methods,
> then there are styles & genres (which only we elite can judge).
> (grin)
=== Of course!
> Anyway, the purpose of my post here is to ask you if you
> have ever heard of "Flashe acrylics? They dry to a glowing
> matte finish much like encaustic.
>
> I use acrylics/oils whatever will achieve the final image.
> Even a touch of pastel on top of acrylic if I'm not happy
> with the colour.
>
> regards,
>
> Marilyn
=== That's an excellent point. Resourceful artists (and what artist isn't
resourceful) can achieve a desired colour or tone after the paint dries as
well.....often by mixing media...
To be continued (...hopefully)
adieu, A.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
> emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote in message <7d8rrg$dmo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >In article <7d89ph$b7d$1...@ligarius.ultra.net>,
> > "peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
> >It seems to me, Pete, that terms for various 'styles' are the providence of
> >art critics and historians. These are the ones who usually coin the terms.
> >So when you get right down to this on the level of detail, there's a lot of
> >problems because artists usually do other things besides working in a
> >particular style -- so style terms become a litany of generalities.
>
> I agree. But if I'm looking for a technique book with examples of
> technique similar to what I'm trying to learn I need to be able to
> describe it if I want to post a question to a forum like this.
>
> ---peter
>
Sure. But the idea of smooth blends in modeling techniques is pretty vast --
I mean it's part of several styles and genres. There used to be some art
books -- a series -- offered in an art book club sort ot arrangements.
Watson Guptill publishers??? Anyway, there were several 'how to' books on
technique, and most of them were very good. I remember looking at how to
paint lace, glass, flesh, and so on. They were formatted in step by step,
and I think they were excellent. (a lot of artists shunned these books
because they were conneted as being 'amature' or some such nonsense, but
they're really very good.) I'm sure either these or similar books are
available. But you know, you can also consider transferable skill -- what I
mean by this is rendering ideas that you learn in one context that you can
apply to another. I read somewhere that you did cardiac imaging -- now
there's a whole huge tradition of medical and scientific illustration that
has it's own art history. Certainly within this there is a lot about
handling paints in order to achieve the results that you are seeking. (I
have an old book called 'scientific illustration' (1925) and it's largely pen
and ink technique from the age of engravings (pre-photo-offset). It's very
thorough in its treatment of technique.
In advertising design we used to use the "Pelikan Designer Colors" which were
tube opaque water colors. They were unrivialed for producing smooth blends,
even by oils. Took a bit of getting used to, of course, because whenever you
overpainted the substrate would completely integrate with the new layer (they
were super soluable). But man, you could get really startling, crisp,
realism with these paints. And the patina of the surface was always perfect,
which is much more difficult with oils. I recently checked out some art
supply soruces on the web, and apparently these paints are no longer
available on the market. Digital design has taken over.
peter nelson
>> >oils for the VERY FIRST TIME, I executed far better blends than I ever
>> >have in acrylics. What this suggests to me is that the best blends
>> >which can be had in acrylics are still only so-so.
>>
>> Its certainly easier in oils if your acrylics aren't tempered. The big
>> problem is to extend the drying time. Conventional retarders don't
>> work well. There are also other problems. Acrylics are a trade off for
>> convenience when compared to oil.
>
>Why would anyone compare the two? And Peter has traded off acrylics for
the
>convenience of oils. What possible value is your comment to Peter? It's
>totally obtuse.
I thought it had relevance.
I've been trying very hard for some time to execute perfect blends
in acrylics and as far as I can tell I've gotten very good at it by
acrylic standards. I'm not saying I'm as good as I can
possibly get but I've spent a lot of time practicing the techniques;
I use all the tricks to keep my surface wet, and after studying
the results of other painters and I would say I'm better than the
vast majority of other acrylic painters by this point. Which isn't
saying much because I'm sure I can get still better and most
acrylic painters aren't very good (and to be fair, they're not trying to
be because blending isn't that important in the sort of impressionistic
style that's popular today).
So it was a shock to me recently to discover that with very little
practice I could execute a better blend in oils than the best
blend I've ever done in acrylics.
Since I'm in this for the long haul, and since I'm very fussy
about developing my skills and technique, and since I paint
in a realist style where I can't fudge something easily and get
away with it, convenience means less to me than other factors.
I'm willing to make SOME concessions to convenience - for
instance I use the water-miscible oils like Grumbacher Max
for easier cleanup and greater safety.
So if it is the case that this is a limitation of the medium then
that's important to know.
>> >One of the problems with acrylics is that the color shifts as it
>> >dries, and it does so unevenly (lighter colors darken more
>> >than darker ones) so even when you think you have a perfect
>> >blend while the paint is still workable, it's not any more when
>> >it dries.
>>
>> Your paint hasn't enough pigment and is drying transparent.
>
>Exactly incorrect. The term is 'blush' and it is inherent in acrylics, as
it
>is in gouache. The value and to a lesser degree chroma shifts when it
dries.
> This is also true of high quality jar acrylics which are loaded with
pigment
>and complete opaque. Any skillful artist knows this.
>>
>> > The only way to make a really good blend in acrylics
>> >is to make one which is not-so-good while wet, but with enough
>> >ability to anticipate how it will look when dry. To do this requires
>> >knowing the darkening characteristics of each color individually
>> >and mixed with other colors, as well as calculating the amount
>> >of medium you've mixed in, since it's really the medium that
>> >accounts tfor the darkening (acrylic medium is light-colored
>> >while wet but it dries clear).
>>
>> I think your analysis is off. The medium is transparent.
Not when it's wet. And that's the point. Wet acrylic medium
is a milky white. It DRIES transparent. And that's actually
the basis of the the color shift problem we're describing.
( To be fair, oils color-shift too. Their medium goes a bit yellow
over time. At least with acrylics they color shift quickly and
then stop when they're done becoming transparent.)
This color shift is not just a problem for blends. I do a lot
of figure and portrait work and often I will apply a highlight
to skin surface that looks just right while its wet, but after
it dries it looks dull. What I've since learned is that I have
to make the highlight EXAGGERATED while wet so when it
dries it's just right. I don't like this - it makes me feel too
detached from the painting process - I feel like I'm just
setting some process in motion rather than painting the
color that I see (a bit like an "automatist painter") I don't have
this problem with oils.
---peter
peter nelson
>emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:>
>The title of the thread, I think it should be "method."
>There are techniques & methods,
>then there are styles & genres (which only we elite can judge).
>(grin)
>have ever heard of "Flashe acrylics? They dry to a glowing
>matte finish much like encaustic.
>
>I use acrylics/oils whatever will achieve the final image.
>Even a touch of pastel on top of acrylic if I'm not happy
>with the colour.
I do too, up to a point. I've heard mixed opinions about
painting oil over acrylic. The technical adviser at
Gumbacher, George Stegmeir recommended to me against it,
but Helen Van Wyk, in her books recommends doing the
underpainting in acrylic. I paint oils over an acrylic
gesso and have lately taken to mixing some colored acrylic
paint with my gesso to achieve a undertone.
I've done the pastel thing, too. After driving through
Boston on the upper ramp of the Expressway on several
successive foggy,rainy nights I became fascinated with
how to render the way the light from buildings and streetlights
disperses in the fog and rain. I discovered that I could
render this with pastels over my acrylic painting very well.
(Now I just need to learn to draw architecture better!!)
---peter
peter nelson
>> I agree. But if I'm looking for a technique book with examples of
>> technique similar to what I'm trying to learn I need to be able to
>> describe it if I want to post a question to a forum like this.
>>
>> ---peter
>>
>
>Sure. But the idea of smooth blends in modeling techniques is pretty
vast --
True, but you're confusing two different issues. The "smooth blends"
issue was an aside I attached as a "PS" to my original message
to explain why I was now intereted in oils after having done
acrylics all this time. It had nothing to do with looking for books on
oil painting since I only have that problem in acrylics. I probably
shouldn't have even mentioned it but I thought it might confuse
people who think of me as working only in acrylics,
The book issue was that my style - which people tell me I
should call "realist" - is very different from the more
"impressionistic" style that most of the oil painting books seem
to use as their examples these days My goal was to find a
good oil painting technique book where the examples
used the techniques I'm trying to learn. My plan is to look in
a used bookstore where some old books might use different
styles.
The other thing I'm desperate to avoid are books that rely on
tricks and gimmicks ("here's a good way to paint trees", "here's
a good trick for making realistic-looking clouds", "here's
a way to paint reflections in water", etc. ) That's a sure
route to couch art. I think if I develop basic skills to render
precisely the values, colors, textures, shapes, etc that I see,
in oils, the trees and clouds and mountains will take care of
themselves.
Maybe there aren't enough big differences to bother with.
So far I'm doing all right in oils except for one thing: I'm not
used to doing detail work "wet on wet" because acrylics dry
so fast.
---peter
mdeli
"peter nelson" wrote:
>> > **BUT** recently when I tried
>> >oils for the VERY FIRST TIME, I executed far better blends than I ever
>> >have in acrylics. What this suggests to me is that the best blends
>> >which can be had in acrylics are still only so-so.
I wrote
>> Its certainly easier in oils if your acrylics aren't tempered. The big
>> problem is to extend the drying time. Conventional retarders don't
>> work well. There are also other problems. Acrylics are a trade off for
>> convenience when compared to oil.
>
>Why would anyone compare the two?
What a stupid question.
> And Peter has traded off acrylics for the
>convenience of oils. What possible value is your comment to Peter? It's
>totally obtuse.
Its obtuse to someone more concerned with blab rather then technique.
>> >One of the problems with acrylics is that the color shifts as it
>> >dries, and it does so unevenly (lighter colors darken more
>> >than darker ones) so even when you think you have a perfect
>> >blend while the paint is still workable, it's not any more when
>> >it dries.
>>
>> Your paint hasn't enough pigment and is drying transparent.
There is an added reason, namely that the surface dries an uneven
matt. This can also be control by mediums or the classical method of
scrapping.
>
>Exactly incorrect. The term is 'blush' and it is inherent in acrylics, as it
>is in gouache.
So what ?
>The value and to a lesser degree chroma shifts when it dries.
> This is also true of high quality jar acrylics which are loaded with pigment
>and complete opaque. Any skillful artist knows this.
Sure and why does this happen?
So lets see your acrylic blends.
>.> > The only way to make a really good blend in acrylics
>> >is to make one which is not-so-good while wet, but with enough
>> >ability to anticipate how it will look when dry. To do this requires
>> >knowing the darkening characteristics of each color individually
>> >and mixed with other colors, as well as calculating the amount
>> >of medium you've mixed in, since it's really the medium that
>> >accounts tfor the darkening (acrylic medium is light-colored
>> >while wet but it dries clear).
>>
>> I think your analysis is off. The medium is transparent.
>
>You're exactly wrong on both counts. The color shift is the 'blush' and
>Pete's analyses is exactly correct -- obviously gained by experience rather
>than listening to psuedoskillspeak.
>
Sure its BLUSH. However even if the term was POOP it wouldn't help any
if you can't control the paint. If you can't get a clean blend easily
you are into a big waste of time and perhaps a long lecture about
Blush..
Marilyn
Here's what I did. I stopped looking at "how to books" long ago
because the painting examples were almost always very ugly. Instead I
studied the master painters and read their biographies which
often mention technique. Reach for the sky!
Marilyn
peter nelson
Marilyn wrote in message <36FC5E...@bc.ca>...
>peter nelson wrote:
>> Maybe there aren't enough big differences to bother with.
>> So far I'm doing all right in oils except for one thing: I'm not
>> used to doing detail work "wet on wet" because acrylics dry
>> so fast.
>
>Here's what I did. I stopped looking at "how to books" long ago
>because the painting examples were almost always very ugly. Instead I
>studied the master painters and read their biographies which
>often mention technique. Reach for the sky!
I agree. So far that's worked out better than any book
except for purely mechanical issues like clarifying the
"fat over lean" rule (yuck!). I make an effort now
whenever possible to study paintings. Next week I expect
to be in NYC and my wife and I are trying to decide
what museum to visit. I'd like one which has a range
of styles from classical to more modern works, and
large enough collection to stay all day without boring
my wife. (I could probably stare at one painting
for hours).
---peter