Why watercolour ?
Bernard Victor
drawn to watercolor as a medium, when it is generally regarded as one
of the hardest mediums to work in.
There seems to be hundreds of books on how to paint in watercolors,
the majority of classes seem to be for watercolors. In most craft
hobbies you are usually advised to start with the easiest methods and
progress from there. But not with painting. Go watercolors seems to be
the norm, with pastels, another difficult medium, a second a longs way
behind.
I know there are some drawbacks with oils, but with modern advances
such as alkyds and water soluble oils most of these are overcome. Even
better for a beginner I would consider is gouache, all the advantages
of watercolors, and none of the disadvantages. You can paint over to
correct mistakes, you don't have to reserve white, it dries quickly. I
just cannot understand this obsession with watercolors for beginners.
Is it a conspiracy by the major manufacturers.
Now stand back and wait for the bombardment !
Jiri Borsky
> In my travels, local artists of reasonable skill can command no more
> than 60 English pounds.
While I agree with most of your article, 60 quid seems seem woefully
low.
I am not primarily a watercolourist, but I do use the medium on occasions.
The last two watercolours sold, framed, for 680 and 550 pounds respectively,
in the Midlands area.
Jiri Borsky
www.borsky.com
Carmine Rhedd
says...
>
>As a fairly new painter,it has puzzled me why so many beginners are
>drawn to watercolor as a medium, when it is generally regarded as one
>of the hardest mediums to work in.
You are so right about that. It's interesting how
many people think of watercolor as the 'easy' medium.
Where I went to school, you could not take the
watercolor class until you had the prerequisites
out of the way - including a couple of semesters
of "painting" in other mediums.
I think people generally have this misconception
because kids are allowed to use watercolors and
finger paints whereas oils and acrylics are
considered too toxic or "permanent" for kids
to use - you can wash off watercolor and finger
paint whereas you can't the other mediums. Ask
any mom about it!
Marc Sabatella
> As a fairly new painter,it has puzzled me why so many beginners are
> drawn to watercolor as a medium, when it is generally regarded as one
> of the hardest mediums to work in.
Hard in some ways, obviously, but simpler in the area of equipment and
supplies required, logistics of use, and clean up. Also, being able to
work on paper eliminates a concern over storing of finished works,
especially while waiting for them to cure. Familiarity is another
factor - almost everyone had a watercolor set as a kid. Even
water-soluble oils can't touch watercolor on any of these counts.
Acrylics come closer, perhaps.
> Go watercolors seems to be
> the norm, with pastels, another difficult medium, a second a longs way
> behind.
Hmmm. I hadn't really thought of pastel as a medium with a reputation
for difficulty.
> Even
> better for a beginner I would consider is gouache, all the advantages
> of watercolors, and none of the disadvantages.
Absolutely. Unfortunately, guache isn't as familiar, or as easy to come
by. The Pelican guache pan sets are not a bad starting point, if you
can find them, but the range of what is available to the beginning
painter pales in comparison to transparent watercolor.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Check out my latest CD, "Falling Grace"
Also "A Jazz Improvisation Primer", Sounds, Scores, & More:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Paul Mesken
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>"Bernard Victor" <bvi...@HotPOP.com> wrote:
>> Go watercolors seems to be
>> the norm, with pastels, another difficult medium, a second a longs way
>> behind.
>
>Hmmm. I hadn't really thought of pastel as a medium with a reputation
>for difficulty.
>
LOL! ;-)
Carmine Rhedd
says...
>>Hmmm. I hadn't really thought of pastel as a medium with a reputation
>>for difficulty.
>>
>
>LOL! ;-)
Me too! LOL! It's all in the fingers of
the applicator, is it not? One person's
pastel-ease in another person's Waterloo.
urrrr - Watercolor...
John Ng
and deceptions (told people so). Watercolor is not only hard to do
well, the result is usually less than brilliant and it doesn't keep
well. I have also never seen a large good watercolour. Nor is it
every used as a downright medium until not too long ago.
I think the only probable reason is because it stuck as the first
medium we ever use because it is clean (or easy to clean up). Also,
it is relatively cheap.
John Ng
Advocates an art renewal and the return to sensible art
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
<d1bb492a.03022...@posting.google.com>...
> Like many things else in the world of art, there are misconceptions
> and deceptions (told people so). Watercolor is not only hard to do
I agree with this part. I also have issues with things I can't control. Water
- is uncontrollable.
Eeeuw.
G*rd*n
| ... I have also never seen a large good watercolour. ...
The aforesaid Wyeth. I don't know where you could get to
see them, though. They're not going to come over well in a
book, and they haven't been noticed much.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
Chris
true fresco is essentially water color (being a mixture of lime water and
pigment). Plus (unlike oil or acrylic) it has the same unforgiving
properties. So the next time you are in Rome, take a tootle through the
Sistine chapel....
As for whether or not it keeps its color, that is simply a matter of the
quality of pigment, and how the picture is maintained.
With respect to size- I'm not too sure what you mean when you say "large" -
some of my favourite pictures are Winslow Homer's watercolors - which aren't
necessarily small. But much bigger than that, you run into simple physical
limitations on making and handling paper.
Chris
"John Ng" <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.03022...@posting.google.com...
Carmine Rhedd
>The aforesaid Wyeth. I don't know where you could get to
>see them, though. They're not going to come over well in a
>book, and they haven't been noticed much.
Are you saying there are no good books showing
Wyeth's works? You're referring to Andrew Wyeth
and not his father N.C., I assume? There are NUMEROUS
books containing excellent reproductions of
Andrews works, as well as all the magazines
that have featured his works over the years.
As for seeing them 'in real time' - try any
large USA museum of art, or better yet try the
Andrew Wyeth Museum in his home town of Chadd's Ford,PA.
Or simply do go to <www.google.com> and search on
his name!
My favorite watercolorist is Charles Burchfield, 1893-1967
www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/burchfield_charles.html
Carmine Rhedd
says...
>I also have issues with things I can't control. Water
>- is uncontrollable.
>
>Eeeuw.
Only if you have a weak bladder!
Watercolor, on the other hand, is as controllable
as any other medium - ever hear the term 'dry point?'
Wet into wet watercolor methods are what people
usually think of, I suppose, when they think of
a watercolor painting being "uncontrollable."
G*rd*n
| >The aforesaid Wyeth. I don't know where you could get to
| >see them, though. They're not going to come over well in a
| >book, and they haven't been noticed much.
re...@noemailever.com (Carmine Rhedd):
| Are you saying there are no good books showing
| Wyeth's works? You're referring to Andrew Wyeth
| and not his father N.C., I assume? There are NUMEROUS
| books containing excellent reproductions of
| Andrews works, as well as all the magazines
| that have featured his works over the years.
| As for seeing them 'in real time' - try any
| large USA museum of art, or better yet try the
| Andrew Wyeth Museum in his home town of Chadd's Ford,PA.
| Or simply do go to <www.google.com> and search on
| his name!
Yes, Andrew of course.
I have never seen the watercolors reproduced very well or
very often They seem like the kind of thing that would be hard
to get right in print. His other works are indeed all over
the place. I prefer the watercolors, myself, but as a rule
they don't have the sort of meticulous definition that the
more famous works have, so I guess they're not as well liked.
Not everyone can get to Chadds Ford, PA. Poor John Ng is
stuck in Perth, Australia, and apparently 1952, for
instance.
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
<3e56...@news.zianet.com>...
> says...
>
>
> >I also have issues with things I can't control. Water
> >- is uncontrollable.
> >
> >Eeeuw.
>
> Only if you have a weak bladder!
>
> Watercolor, on the other hand, is as controllable
> as any other medium - ever hear the term 'dry point?'
Yes, I've heard of it, but never studied it. I was under the impression that
dry point is painting dry stuff on top of semi-wet (damp) stuff? I dunno.
> Wet into wet watercolor methods are what people
> usually think of, I suppose, when they think of
> a watercolor painting being "uncontrollable."
Yeah. Reminds me of tye-dye t-shirt stuff. I've seen extremely detailed
watercolors that blew my mind. I just can't figure out how it's done!!
Preparing the paper seems aweful difficult too. I think I'm too lazy to go
through all that!! LOL
However, I am proud to say that I'm starting to experiment with painting with
oil pastel. I'm having a ball with it too. So far, it's like applying make-up!
LOL
Chris
"Carmine Rhedd" <re...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
news:3e56...@news.zianet.com...
> In article <v5b678g...@corp.supernews.com>,
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
> says...
>
>
> >I also have issues with things I can't control. Water
> >- is uncontrollable.
> >
> >Eeeuw.
>
> Only if you have a weak bladder!
>
> Watercolor, on the other hand, is as controllable
> as any other medium - ever hear the term 'dry point?'
>
Hi Jax;
I think you mean "dry brush"; "dry point" is an engraving/intaglio technique
where the plate is etched by a sharp object (like a hard steel or
diamond-tipped tool). That raises a burr on the edge of the engraved line,
which in turn makes for gorgeous etchings.
Cheers;
Chris
Marc Sabatella
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:00:35 -0700, "Marc Sabatella":
>
> >"Bernard Victor" <bvi...@HotPOP.com> wrote:
> >> Go watercolors seems to be
> >> the norm, with pastels, another difficult medium, a second a longs
way
> >> behind.
> >
> >Hmmm. I hadn't really thought of pastel as a medium with a
reputation
> >for difficulty.
>
> LOL! ;-)
I take it you disagree. I'm serious, though. I'm a pastellist with
some experience in watercolor but none in oil aside from watching and
talking to many oil painters, some of whom are also pastellists. Aside
from the general feeling that any medium you don't personally have
experience with is harder than a medium in which you do have experience,
I really hadn't heard any more talk of pastel being difficult than any
other medium. And from watching the progress of students in the classes
I've taken, my impression is that it is rather easier to achieve some
sort of minimal competency in pastel than in most other media.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Check out my visual art:
http://www.outsideshore.com/marc/art/
Marc Sabatella
> As for whether or not it keeps its color, that is simply a matter of
the
> quality of pigment, and how the picture is maintained.
Not quite. Watercolor *does* have an issue that other media don't, and
that is the amount of dilution of pigment. Watercolor applied in thin
washes, especially with certain pigments, can have permanency issues you
aren't as likely to run into with other media.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Check out my latest CD, "Falling Grace"
Marc Sabatella
> > as any other medium - ever hear the term 'dry point?'
>
> Yes, I've heard of it, but never studied it. I was under the
impression that
> dry point is painting dry stuff on top of semi-wet (damp) stuff? I
dunno.
I haven't heard that term, but if what you are painting into is wet, you
are describing what I normally hear referred to as wet-into-wet, even if
the paint on the bursh is relatively dry. In fact, the usual technique
is for the paint on the brush to be less wet than the surface it is
applied to, in order to avoid "blooms" or whatever you like to call the
thing that results. As long as that surface you are painting into is
wet at all, you have some control issues. "Dry brush", on the other
hand, is a relatively dry paint applied to a dry surface. This in
itself has some control issues, I suppose, in that you cannot really
control the texture you create, any more than you can with a scumble in
oil or pastel, but you donb't have to worry about spreading. I don't
know of any common term for the basic idea of applying wet paint to a
dry paper, which gives you about as much control as you are going to get
with watercolor.
> Preparing the paper seems aweful difficult too. I think I'm too lazy
to go
> through all that!! LOL
You don't have to. Some people do, others don't. I also can't be
bothered.
> However, I am proud to say that I'm starting to experiment with
painting with
> oil pastel. I'm having a ball with it too. So far, it's like applying
make-up!
I like oil pastel a lot too, for a variety of reasons. Only things I
*don't* like are how gunky the sticks get, requiring cleaning after each
painting, and how relatively thin the coverage is on the early layers
compared to soft pastel, meaning it takes longer before the image starts
coming together, and also meaning I'm less likely to want to work
bigger.
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
Marc Sabatella <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in article
> I like oil pastel a lot too, for a variety of reasons. Only things I
> *don't* like are how gunky the sticks get, requiring cleaning after each
> painting, and how relatively thin the coverage is on the early layers
> compared to soft pastel, meaning it takes longer before the image starts
> coming together, and also meaning I'm less likely to want to work
> bigger.
I spray fixative between layers and that seems to help the coverage issue.
Would you mind answering a question I have about jazz music (and art)? I'll
start it in a new thread.
Paul Mesken
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>"Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:00:35 -0700, "Marc Sabatella":
>>
>> >"Bernard Victor" <bvi...@HotPOP.com> wrote:
>> >> Go watercolors seems to be
>> >> the norm, with pastels, another difficult medium, a second a longs
>way
>> >> behind.
>> >
>> >Hmmm. I hadn't really thought of pastel as a medium with a
>reputation
>> >for difficulty.
>>
>> LOL! ;-)
>
>I take it you disagree.
No, I (and Carmine as well) just thought your response to be funny (as
in a political correct and over-polite answer). If I would give it a
very thorough and long thought I might come up with something that
could be considered as not easy about pastels, I mean : even crayons
are harder :-)
Carmine Rhedd
says...
>I think you mean "dry brush"
Of course you are correct. Forgive
my 'senior moment' won't you?
Carmine Rhedd
>Not everyone can get to Chadds Ford, PA. Poor John Ng is
>stuck in Perth, Australia, and apparently 1952, for
>instance.
Ohmigosh! I thought he was on some tiny
isle in the Marianas somewhere. I was
wondering if he had a "man Friday" to
confer with even...
Carol
in. It is hard to do well, but a beginner, with a few simple
techniques, can get instant results. An oil painting can takes days
to paint and then days to dry. You can do a simple watercolour in
minutes.
As for controllability - some of the best results I've ever had, have
been as a result of 'accidents'. I'm quite a 'tight' painter and
these happy accidents always bring life to my paintings.
Check out my work at www.artbycarol.co.uk
Marc Sabatella
> >> >Hmmm. I hadn't really thought of pastel as a medium with a
> >reputation
> >> >for difficulty.
> >>
> >> LOL! ;-)
> >
> >I take it you disagree.
>
> No, I (and Carmine as well) just thought your response to be funny (as
> in a political correct and over-polite answer). If I would give it a
> very thorough and long thought I might come up with something that
> could be considered as not easy about pastels, I mean : even crayons
> are harder :-)
OK, I completely missed that interpretation - and please forgive what
will probably continue to seem an equally amusing followup :-) But I'm
not sure what it really means to say any medium is "easy", either. The
hard part about painting, I think most would agree, is in seeing and
interpretation, not handling of materials. Pastel does indeed allow a
reasonably direct translation from what you *want* to put down on paper
to what actually appears. I would say a lot of pastellists struggle
with color matching, since you can't mix color on a palette to get
exactly what you want. I generally see one of three "solutions" to this
problem:
1) buying huge quantities of pastel in hopes that every color you could
possibly want to put down will be there for you
2) pulling your hair out and constantly complaining about not having the
"right" color
3) accepting the gift pastel gives you: freeing you from worrying about
exact color matches, and instead allowing you to focus on making the
colors you have work
Paul Mesken
Yes, you're right. In general, it's not the medium itself causing
problems. The hard part of any art is learning to see (or hear). If
the handling of pastels is considered difficult then it's probably not
the right medium for the task. Pastels might be great for some quick,
rough color studies for an oil painting. Oil painting can be such a
drag, you have to clean all those brushes afterwards :-)