How to go from drawing to painting?
Michael Akins
really enjoyed the book and for the first time realized that I can
draw. Putting various opposing viewpoints on this book aside (you
either love it or hate it), I'd like to end up doing oil paintings.
I'm curious what is the best way to get there? I'm interested in the
Bob Ross "wet-on-wet" technique (I know a lot of people criticize this
style but I really like it and landscapes are my favorite). The
problem for this is I live in France so far I haven't been able to
find any teachers that teach this method. But in the meantime, how
should I go from drawing with pencil to something with color? I've
tried oil pastels but I really don't like them. I watched Bob Ross's
"Joy of Painting" on PBS so many times that this style of drawing the
background and then adding things coming forward (first sky, then
mountain, then lake, then trees, etc.) and that's not possible with
oil pastels. My neighbor paints with acrylic on canvas, and she
paints in this layering style but unlike wet-on-wet she has to wait
for each "layer" to dry before going to the next layer.
Anyway, I guess the choices are:
dry pastels
water color
acrylic
Any other choices? Any recommendations?
Thanks,
Michael
Mani Deli
<sup...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>The "right side of the brain" technique gives you a good basis in form,
>values, proportion, etc., but doesn't teach much about color.
Totally useless! It won't teach you anything much about drawing but
like most art schools if successful will get you to think you can draw
and make you feel good by getting you to believe that you aren't that
bad when you compare your work to the worst.
Its a clever title of the usual drawing books by authors who can't
draw. There's lots to choose from. Some are even slightly better.
Tired of Modern Art? See-
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Jeff Wilson
technique bu adding drying time extenders to my paint.
I suggest that you sketch what you want to paint onto your support
(canvas). Make it as detailed as necessary to get the feel of what you
want. Then paint the damn thing! Just like learning to draw, painting
is a learning process. Remember that wet-on-wet is merely painting over
still wet paint. So what if it isn't, a Giotto, Rembrant or Van Gogh the
first time. Books are a help, live instruction is great, but, painting
is the thing. All good painters started out as lousy painters and
worked on it until they got good. Really good painters never stop learning.
I'm surprised that you can't find instruction in France. I'm going to
Paris in a week and found several places via the internet that offer
instruction. Find local painters to ask if they know of local classes.
Good luck.
Jeff
--
Jeff Wilson
"And now these three remain; faith, hope and love.
But the greatest of these is love."
...... Seek harmony and balance in the mountains.
Find harmony and balance within.....
Nikolaus Maack
> Totally useless! It won't teach you anything much about drawing but
> like most art schools if successful will get you to think you can draw
> and make you feel good by getting you to believe that you aren't that
> bad when you compare your work to the worst.
>
> Its a clever title of the usual drawing books by authors who can't
> draw. There's lots to choose from. Some are even slightly better.
Mani, your constipation is a problem, not a solution.
Gud E.Tushus
please_do...@hotmail.com says...
>The
>problem for this is I live in France so far I haven't been able to
>find any teachers that teach this method.
The 'nice' thing about Bob Ross and his ilk
is that they get people who haven't a clue
about painting to at least think about trying it
by implying it's as easy as they make it look.
The 'bad' thing about Bob Ross is that people
who watch him don't stop to think how long he
has been doing what he does in order to master
the technique. It's definitely NOT as easy as
he makes it look - at least not until you have
gained the same level of facility with a brush.
My advice to anyone who has an interest in
beginning to paint is to buy a 'beginners' set
of basic colors - usually in kits that contain
about 8 to 10 elementary colors. And then get
hold of how-to books that seem to you to make
sense. Books that start with the most basic
hints, like how to lay out your colors, mix
them together, and what basic brushes to use.
My own personal preference for teaching first-time
painting students is acrylics - for many reasons -
not the least of which is the ease of use. Make
an error with acrylics and you can simply paint
over the error with opaque white or gesso and
try again.
Michael Akins
> Paris in a week and found several places via the internet that offer
> instruction. Find local painters to ask if they know of local classes.
Sorry I wasn't clear, painting is popular here but I haven't found
anything on the internet for the "wet-on-wet" technique of Bob Ross.
It was pointed out to me that it's very similar to "alla prima", so
I'm going to start there. I suspect that the Bob Ross company is
really commercializing the "Bob Ross Technique". For example, on
their website they say things like "Remember, you need the official
Bob Ross paints and brushes, ordinary ones won't work". I'm not sure
if it's true but in any case it's a bit of a turn off considering
these paints are only available through them.
So I'm going to start investigating "alla prima". But I guess a
question I still have is should I go from drawing to watercolors or
acrylic? I'm not a big fan of water colors, but if it's an
intermediate step I don't mind.
Why are you coming to Paris? For vacation or instruction?
Michael
Jeff Wilson
at once") You don't need Bob Ross stuff to paint Bob Ross style. His
materials were developed to make it easy for a beginner. No worry about
which brush and which paint to use. Just use the brush, and color Bob
told you to.
IMHO, watercolor is harder to do well than oil or acrylic. I am trying
to learn enough water color technique to do plein air sketches. Its not
easy for me.
Painting is painting no matter what media you use. IMHO, there is not a
progression from drawing to watercolor to acrylic to oils. Each medium
has its own benefits and drawbacks. For example, its hard to blend and
do wet-on-wet with acrylics. Its hard to fix a mistake in watercolors.
Oils take forever to dry when you want to layer and you have to deal
with petroleum products. If you really feel that one medium is yours,
start in it. I started in acrylic based on the urging of a friend. I
could have just as easily started in another medium.
The one thing I'm learning the hard way is no matter what, sooner or
later, a painter has to be able to draw. I've found "Drawing on the
Right Side of the Brain" invaluable because it helped me to get rid of
my lifelong feeling that I could not draw. It also helped me see
details. My painting has improved because I now understand what my
instructors meant when they kept harping on "negative" spaces, as "soft
and hard edges." Surprisingly, I see colors better too.
I'm going to Paris for pleasure. I intend to sketch and paint while
there. Giverny and Auvers-sur-oest are on my agenda. I also hope to
take personal painting lessons if possible. Mainly I'm going because I
love Paris. Of course, the Musee d'Orsay's Impressionists have
absolutely nothing to do with it!
Paul Rochester
painting is to use soft pastels.
drawing on a gouache background is from technical point of view a
usefull step towards painting.
kr
paul
Gud E.Tushus
>IMHO, watercolor is harder to do well than oil or acrylic. I am trying
>to learn enough water color technique to do plein air sketches. Its not
>easy for me.
Learning to paint in watercolor with facility
is THE hardest of the painting techniques, for
most artists. In fact where I attended University
you could not take the watercolor class until
your senior year! After fulfilling the first
three years of prerequisites in other mediums.
Watercolor is something that has long been the
medium of choice for letting kids putz around,
so older people think of it as "easy" for
that reason. It's not!
Here is one suggestion for facilitating the
learning curve with watercolor. Do a pen and
ink sketch first, using waterproof ink (India
ink) and then fill in between the lines with
watercolor. It sounds 'childish,' I know, but
don't knock it without trying it first.
keith o'connor
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:kp54lvk0al98u7pkq...@4ax.com...
Marc Sabatella
> I'm interested in the
> Bob Ross "wet-on-wet" technique (I know a lot of people criticize this
> style but I really like it and landscapes are my favorite).
Ross did indeed use wet-on-wet techniques, but so do tons of other
painters - virtually all plein air plandscape painters, in fact. The
real difference between Bob Ross technique and traditional painting
technique isn't that it is wet-on-wet, but that it is almost completely
dependent on clever brushwork rather than actual observation. To paint
a tree, a regular landscape painter looks at a tree, or a picture of a
tree, tries to understand how to represent it in spots of color, and
then paints those spots of color. Ross' technique consists of moving
your brush in a specified "tree" pattern, and something that vaguely
resembles a tree comes out. Some of those trees do indeed look quite a
bit like fir trees when seen in poor TV-quality reproductions, although
the actual paintings themselves usually do not look nearly as
convincing.
If you are simply interested in painting landscape alla prima and don't
specifically need to do so using the specific Bob Ross brush strokes,
there are certainly zillions of instructors to be found in France. But
if you really wish to copy Ross's technique for some reason - perahsp
you've never seen anyone painting in more traditional ways - painting
along with him on TV seems the best option.
> this style of drawing the
> background and then adding things coming forward (first sky, then
> mountain, then lake, then trees, etc.) and that's not possible with
> oil pastels.
Actually, it is - works just fine, in fact, although you do sometimes
need to be a little careful about laying light colors over dark.
> dry pastels
> water color
> acrylic
Acrylic dries fast enough that the waiting period for a layer to dry may
be less than the time it takes to take a bathroom break. Watercolor
almost completely will not allow a light color to overlay a dark, so you
really have to plan things more in advance. Soft (dry) pastel would
work just fine.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Dik F. Liu
<ma...@outsideshore.com> writes:
>Ross' technique consists of moving
>your brush in a specified "tree" pattern, and something that vaguely
>resembles a tree comes out.
Don't forget the happy clouds!
Dik
Michael Akins
> IMHO, watercolor is harder to do well than oil or acrylic. I am trying
> to learn enough water color technique to do plein air sketches. Its not
> easy for me.
Especially regarding watercolors. I had thought of going from drawing
to watercolor because I thought watercolor was easier than
acrylic/oil, and also because watercolor is cheaper. But if
watercolor is as difficult or even more difficult, I might as well
start with what I really like and that's oil.
> Oils take forever to dry when you want to layer and you have to deal
> with petroleum products. If you really feel that one medium is yours,
This is why the wet-on-wet technique is so interesting to me.
> The one thing I'm learning the hard way is no matter what, sooner or
> later, a painter has to be able to draw. I've found "Drawing on the
> Right Side of the Brain" invaluable because it helped me to get rid of
> my lifelong feeling that I could not draw. It also helped me see
> details. My painting has improved because I now understand what my
> instructors meant when they kept harping on "negative" spaces, as "soft
> and hard edges." Surprisingly, I see colors better too.
I totally agree. I'm just finishing this book and I have one other
drawing book, a cheap bargain book from Barnes & Noble called
"Fundamentals of Drawing" which actually looks suprisingly good
considering it was only $10. I'm going to finish that and then get
into the painting. For the painting, I want to find a teacher to get
me started.
Michael
Gud E.Tushus
please_do...@hotmail.com says...
>This is why the wet-on-wet technique is so interesting to me.
I'm wondering why someone with
actual experience using Bob Ross methods
hasn't already contributed to this thread?
Here's what I know about it (not through experience).
The Bob Ross method of "white magic" painting
differs from "alla prima" in that the entire
canvas is first covered with a layer of slow-drying
"Bob Ross Magic White" paint. The painting is then
completed by brushing other colors into the
white layer, and doing so while the white layer
is still fluid enough to work as it does in this
method. I have no idea how long the Magic White
stays "open" or workable.
Aside from Bob Ross' facility with a brush and
the other "tools of the trade" - he has a mental
image of what the things he's painting actually
look like. He doesn't need to have a reference
in front of him, although on TV there could easily
be a reference photo off-camera
that doesn't show to the viewer.
Marc Sabatella
> Aside from Bob Ross' facility with a brush and
> the other "tools of the trade" - he has a mental
> image of what the things he's painting actually
> look like. He doesn't need to have a reference
> in front of him, although on TV there could easily
> be a reference photo off-camera
> that doesn't show to the viewer.
There doesn't seem to be any evidence of this - even if he is looking at
something, nothing about what he demonstrates would seem to depend on
it. And that, of course, is the huge, gaping, fundamental difference
betwene Ross's methods and that taught in Drawing On The Right Side Of
The Brain, which is all about drawing exactly what you see - nothing
more, nothing less. I'm not saying that drawing or painting what you
see if right, and drawing or painting from the imagination is wrong, but
if you are coming from the former approach to drawing, the latter
approach would not be a very natural way to get into painting.
Michael
> > in front of him, although on TV there could easily
> > be a reference photo off-camera
> > that doesn't show to the viewer.
>
> There doesn't seem to be any evidence of this - even if he is looking at
> something, nothing about what he demonstrates would seem to depend on
I don't think so either, because sometimes he just gets crazy and puts in a
few extra happy stuff.
> it. And that, of course, is the huge, gaping, fundamental difference
> betwene Ross's methods and that taught in Drawing On The Right Side Of
> The Brain, which is all about drawing exactly what you see - nothing
> more, nothing less. I'm not saying that drawing or painting what you
> see if right, and drawing or painting from the imagination is wrong, but
> if you are coming from the former approach to drawing, the latter
> approach would not be a very natural way to get into painting.
I see the transformations like this:
1) Can't draw anything -> Can draw what I see -> Can paint what I see
2) Can't draw anything -> Can draw what I see -> Can draw what I imagine ->
Can paint what I imagine
I'm grateful for the DOTRSOTB book because it got me from the starting point
of "can't draw anything" to "Can draw what I see" which I see as a stepping
point on any route to learning painting. And I learned a lot in the
process.
Michael
Lauri Levanto
Marc Sabatella wrote:
> the huge, gaping, fundamental difference
> betwene Ross's methods and that taught in Drawing On The Right Side Of
> The Brain, which is all about drawing exactly what you see - nothing
> more, nothing less. I'm not saying that drawing or painting what you
> see if right, and drawing or painting from the imagination is wrong, but
> if you are coming from the former approach to drawing, the latter
> approach would not be a very natural way to get into painting.
>
Drawing from imagination is one thing, completely different from
drawing from *memory*. After years of drawing one collects a database
of memory images that can be re-used, combined and modified.
To collect this data-base the Betty Edwards methods are not bad.
-lauri
Gud E.Tushus
says...
> I'm not saying that drawing or painting what you
>see if right, and drawing or painting from the imagination is wrong, but
>if you are coming from the former approach to drawing, the latter
>approach would not be a very natural way to get into painting.
The point I was trying to make is that Bob Ross
has YEARS of experience painting, and probably
painting from a well-retained memory of subjects
he is intimately familiar with. He was a nature
lover, after all. And for someone who has never
drawn or painted anything in their life before
to think they are going to paint like Bob Ross
by following along is not going to happen.
Most people have no idea how the branches attach
to the trunk of a tree on an individual species.
They've never needed to pay attention to such
details. But artists of experience have observed
and learned and sometimes retained this kind of info.
Mani Deli
<please_do...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I see the transformations like this:
>
>1) Can't draw anything -> Can draw what I see -> Can paint what I see
>
>2) Can't draw anything -> Can draw what I see -> Can draw what I imagine ->
>Can paint what I imagine
>
3) can't draw, can't paint, tell everyone how good I am.
Marc Sabatella
> I see the transformations like this:
>
> 1) Can't draw anything -> Can draw what I see -> Can paint what I see
>
> 2) Can't draw anything -> Can draw what I see -> Can draw what I
imagine ->
> Can paint what I imagine
These do indeed make sense - I was not trying to imply that drawing what
you see is not important - indeed, I think it is essential to most forms
of art, even abstract ones - and the Right Side Of The Brain book is a
reasonable way to get there.
What I am observing is that Bob Ross's methods bypass your logical
progression above, and are designed to take you directly directly from
"can't draw anything" to "can paint what I imagine, as long as I only
imagine things that the special Bob Ross brushtrokes allow me to paint".
Ability to draw what you see has no bearing whatsoever on the Bob Ross
method.
Fred Mason
teacher, William Alexander www.alexanderart.com . My wife had not
painted with oils despite having a BFA & work toward a MFA so she decided to
take a rec. dept. course in oil painting from a Certified Alexander Method
Instructor.
She did learn a lot about handling oil using this "wet on wet" method. The
instruction, however, was unlike any previous art instruction she had taken.
Fred
"Dik F. Liu" <dik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030902010358...@mb-m15.aol.com...
Mani Deli
Your artwork is your problem. I suggest you take care of your cerebral
hemorrhoids and try using both sides of your brain for a change and
also learn some skills.
cybersurfer
you are afraid of Orignal Art {like Niks}
Which i do think your incapable of doing thats why you have created a
site that tries to diminish great artists {Orignal Art}
http://members.rogers.com/thevisualmind
William
Mani Deli
technique.
check it out
http://www.bruvel.com/
I'm sure it will irritate Papandreou into proclaiming an Artspeak
tome.
Bernard Victor
wrote:
The usual iconoclastic reply from M.Deli. It would be interesting to
see what book he recommends.