Former art student reports progress...[long]
~Artist~
Cute.
Honey, in the arts 80 hours is only a 2 day week you still have 7 more days
to go. So if you cant hack 80 you can t hack the arts because the demand is
tripple and goes no for years non stop and no guarantees and no IPO.
Tell me about all the risk takes in tech.
Mattison
----------
In article <MPG.128fb6f5b...@news.concentric.net>,
wordw...@my-yahoo.com (John Frum) wrote:
>OK here is a little more background. Twice I started art college, got as far
>as completing second year (of 4) the first time, then about 5 years later
>in a different city took about three more years part time but more or less
>starting at the beginning again with first/second year drawing, design and
>so forth.
>
>Presently working as a tech writer for a software company. Previously
>worked for many years as a graphic artist (mostly pasteup and typesetting).
>Going slowly crazy from the Kafka-esque politics of software deveopment,
>and deteriorating physically because of repetitive strain injuries from
>too many 80 hour weeks just to meet production deadlines for products that
>are nowhere near ready to ship yet out they go. I'm getting too old for the
>kind of nonsense that goes on there.
>
>So, about a month ago I went and indulged myself at "Michaels" and got
>a selection of tools:
>
>* A set of watercolor pencils (had these before, loved 'em, gave them away
> when I thought I would never bother with art again).
>
>* A "get started" set of Liquitex Basics acrylic paints (I would dispute
> their choice of "primary" colors though -- I am accustomed to mixing
> yellow, cyan and magenta as primaries, not cadmium red vs ultramarine
> blue to make a brownish purple).
>
>* A set of student grade oil pastels.
>
>* A few sticks of conte: bistre, sanguine, black, white. Doesn't anyone
> have the sepia flavor conte any more??
>
>* A set of allegedly opaque cake watercolors. Opaque turning out to mean
> so long as they remain in cake form in the little trays. Oh, well.
>
>* A variety of paper pads: sketch, drawing, watercolor, pastel, etc. etc.
>
>* A few economy grade bristle and synthetic brushes. I seriously doubt
> any place like Michaels will have decent sable brushes at any price...
>
>I've been messing about with all this kit since then, adding on slightly
>here and there as the need arose. I've not set out to become a gadget
>collector -- I can only gape in wonderment at the instant-studio French
>easels, the Bob Ross oil painting kits (gack!), and other dubious "necess-
>ities".
>
>On the whole Michaels' selection is geared more to the make-your-own
>spangled Tshirt and do-it-yourself stinky potpourri tablecentres crowd
>than the serious artist, but they are literally the only choice in town.
>I am exploring online and mail order art supply dealers and considering
>a "listening tour" to LA (100 or so miles away) to see if there are any
>actual stores with stuff actual artists would actually buy and use. Bleah.
>
>What I've figured out so far:
>
>* I can still draw. Meaning, I can pretty well do all the exercises in
> Kimon Nicolaides' "The natural way to draw", which was the basis for
> the drawing classes I took. Figure drawing, anyway. Terrible with
> landscapes, still life, etc., as these were never emphasised or taught
> at least as first or second year subjects.
>
>* I know zilch about painting, including how to plan, create, and finish
> a credible piece of artwork that doesn't just look like an exercise from
> Nicolaides. Yet this is what I think I would like to do. Acrylics seem
> most practical for now as my studio is also my bedroom, and I don't want
> to be stinking it up with solvents.
>
>* I am beginning, with the help of a couple of reference books that seem
> to make sense to me (DK Art School, and a 70s edition of Artists Handbook
> of Materials and Techniques), how to work with colors, various pigment
> characteristics, etc. In fact I think I learned more from a couple of
> weeks perusing those two books than any of the dozens of studio courses
> I've taken.
>
>* Composition seems, well, obvious. I know when an arrangement of items
> looks right, and when it doesn't, and can usually articulate why.
>
>* Color, on the other hand, is something I obviously have a great deal
> to learn about. I am beginning to see now where artists have made
> conscious choices about which colors to use for a particular painting.
> I am trying to track down a copy of Itten's book on color, and am
> currently digesting Kobayashi's book on color and psychology. Does
> anyone have opinions on either of these authors' views on color?
>
>* I'm rereading my art history texts (having found second hand copies
> of Jansen and Arnasen's weighty tomes not too long ago), and reviewing
> my own feelings, reactions and critiques of the "essential" artworks
> of each era from prehistoric to contemporary.
>
>* "Conceptual art" leaves me rather cold -- I don't think artists are
> any better equipped to comment on matters of cultural or philosophical
> import than actors, media personalities or any other celebrities. Then
> again "classical realism," the recent resurgence in popularity of
> academic Victorian painters such as Bouguereau (sp?), is just as
> baffling. I can't dispute that these paintings are masterpieces of
> technique, but the ideas communicated by them are in the same league,
> dare I say, of the "big eyes" paintings of the 60s. I still love the
> impressionists, the constructivists, and the whole bauhaus crowd.
>
>Obviously, once I am good enough, I would like to at least supplement my
>income by selling paintings. I know what sort of art I like to buy, but
>there is precious little of that amidst a horrifying quantity of dreck.
>If I never see another dolphin painting, that will be perfectly fine with
>me. I am as amenable to abstraction as I am to representational art, and
>I usually know as soon as I see something whether or not I *must* have it.
>
>This afternoon I mixed primary colors, and confirmed for myself that there
>are warm and cool versions of each "primary" color that make "nice" versus
>"yukky" oranges, greens and purples. It was all so simple back when one
>merely specified what percentage of yellow, cyan, magenta and black to
>use, with the aid of a multi-layered acetate color wheel and a book of
>Pantone(tm) swatches, and got exactly what one expected. "Process" color
>is worlds different from real pigments.
>
>I'm also beginning to grasp the importance of proper technique, thanks to
>the stern subtext in "Artists Handbook of materials" etc. Not so much to
>replicate an "academic" style of painting, but to ensure the longevity
>of ones' artworks and the gratitude of those who restore and conserve
>paintings.
>
>Many of the things I was taught, and saw around me at art school, I now
>know were just plain wrong -- poorly prepared canvases stretched on plain
>lumber, with mutually antagonistic materials and techniques -- back then
>it did not seem to matter whether or not an art buyer received good value
>for their money -- a painting that would last given proper conditions,
>instead of reacting with itself and falling apart within a few years.
>Are good technique and proper use of materials still considered oppressive?
>I hope not...
>
>The studio courses I have had thus far have been introductory to inter-
>mediate, but nothing really meaty or advanced. Never got past second year
>courses, always ended up going back to work full time. Finally achieved a
>BFA degree but in fiction writing, not art.
>
>Heard horror stories from visual arts students about wars with faculty over
>artistic direction, and personally experienced much of the same myself
>in creative writing faculty. Are those who teach art or writing doing so
>because they aren't quite good enough at it to make a living without
>having to hold down a day job? Are these really the right people to be
>advising students on successful career choices? It pleases me to know I
>am now earning more as a hack writer than any of my award-winning but
>commercially less than successful professors. Hmmm.
>
>Finally, with my work quite evidently cut out for me as I teach myself
>to be a painter, do I even want to think about going high-tech and
>learning how to use Photoshop or Illustrator?
Kay
John Frum wrote:
:OK here is a little more background. Twice I started art college, got as
far
:as completing second year (of 4) the first time, then about 5 years later
:in a different city took about three more years part time but more or less
:starting at the beginning again with first/second year drawing, design and
:so forth.
(snip)
You keep going to the WRONG 2 years! I earned both my BFA & MFA and I can
honestly say I learned NOTHING in my first year. Seems to be taught by a
bunch of TAs who know little. 2nd year I did learn a bit.
:So, about a month ago I went and indulged myself at "Michaels" and got
:a selection of tools:
I go to "Michaels" when I get gift certificates as gifts. Very expensive!
Go to Daniel Smith on the web or call in an order. Don't have the # now.
:* A set of watercolor pencils (had these before, loved 'em, gave them away
: when I thought I would never bother with art again).
I never tried these.
:* A "get started" set of Liquitex Basics acrylic paints (snip)
I never tried these.
:* A set of student grade oil pastels.
I use these sometimes on top of oil paintings. I don't think you can use
them on acrylic, but who knows? Dip in some turp and you get a nice
painterly effect and creamy consistency.
:* A few sticks of conte: bistre, sanguine, black, white. Doesn't anyone
: have the sepia flavor conte any more??
What's it taste like?
:* A set of allegedly opaque cake watercolors. Opaque turning out to mean
: so long as they remain in cake form in the little trays. Oh, well.
I have tubes. I think they work about the same. Try some India ink with
your watercolors. Fun and get some nice effects.
:* A variety of paper pads: sketch, drawing, watercolor, pastel, etc. etc.
Canvas?
:* A few economy grade bristle and synthetic brushes. I seriously doubt
: any place like Michaels will have decent sable brushes at any price...
Sable is good for scriptliner brushes and I guess for watercolor, but I like
the cheapies for acrylic and oil. I'm a brush abuser.
:I've been messing about with all this kit since then, adding on slightly
:here and there as the need arose. I've not set out to become a gadget
:collector -- I can only gape in wonderment at the instant-studio French
:easels, the Bob Ross oil painting kits (gack!), and other dubious "necess-
:ities".
Easels are easy to make. I never use them. If you work small, prop it up.
Large - staple it to the wall. Etc.
:What I've figured out so far:
:
:* I can still draw. (snip)
:* I know zilch about painting, including how to plan, create, and finish
: a credible piece of artwork that doesn't just look like an exercise from
: Nicolaides. Yet this is what I think I would like to do. Acrylics seem
: most practical for now as my studio is also my bedroom, and I don't want
: to be stinking it up with solvents.
Sounds like a good idea. Paint 30 paintings and things will come together
for you. Your first few should look like crap and progressively get better.
:* I am beginning, with the help of a couple of reference books.(snip) In
fact I think I learned more from a couple of
: weeks perusing those two books than any of the dozens of studio courses
: I've taken.
Reading various books may be MORE important than any classes. Classes are
good for feedback, albeit subjective, but reading lots and lots and lots of
books and doing lots, etc. are of primary importance.
:
:* Composition seems, well, obvious. I know when an arrangement of items
: looks right, and when it doesn't, and can usually articulate why.
:* Color, on the other hand, is something I obviously have a great deal
: to learn about. I am beginning to see now where artists have made
: conscious choices about which colors to use for a particular painting.
: I am trying to track down a copy of Itten's book on color, and am
: currently digesting Kobayashi's book on color and psychology. Does
: anyone have opinions on either of these authors' views on color?
I haven't read Kobayashi's book. Read some of the symbolist's writings about
color. I don't like the psychobabble some put out today, but, then again, I
wouldn't like to go into a hospital with red walls, so they may be right.
One GREAT professor I had made me work, in oil, only in black, white and
grey monocromatic color. I was a JUNIOR in college then! So insulting! He
was absolutely right! He said that a lot of artists think a painting isn't
working because of the choice of colors and actually, it is because of the
lack of values. In learning to paint, I strongly advise that you do a few
monocromatic paintings while you learn how to apply the paint, control (or
not control) the flow, application, etc.
:* I'm rereading my art history texts (having found second hand copies
: of Jansen and Arnasen's weighty tomes not too long ago), and reviewing
: my own feelings, reactions and critiques of the "essential" artworks
: of each era from prehistoric to contemporary.
You're on the right track!
:* "Conceptual art" leaves me rather cold -- I don't think artists are
: any better equipped to comment on matters of cultural or philosophical
: import than actors, media personalities or any other celebrities. Then
: again "classical realism," the recent resurgence in popularity of
: academic Victorian painters such as Bouguereau (sp?), is just as
: baffling. I can't dispute that these paintings are masterpieces of
: technique, but the ideas communicated by them are in the same league,
: dare I say, of the "big eyes" paintings of the 60s. I still love the
: impressionists, the constructivists, and the whole bauhaus crowd.
Everyone has preferences. All are valid. Think of it this way: some people
prefer blondes, some brunettes, some redheads. Also, preferences change as
your are changes and you continue reading.
(snip)
:I'm also beginning to grasp the importance of proper technique, thanks to
:the stern subtext in "Artists Handbook of materials" etc. Not so much to
:replicate an "academic" style of painting, but to ensure the longevity
:of ones' artworks and the gratitude of those who restore and conserve
:paintings.
Julian Schnabel
:
:Many of the things I was taught, and saw around me at art school, I now
:know were just plain wrong -- poorly prepared canvases stretched on plain
:lumber, with mutually antagonistic materials and techniques -- back then
:it did not seem to matter whether or not an art buyer received good value
:for their money -- a painting that would last given proper conditions,
:instead of reacting with itself and falling apart within a few years.
:Are good technique and proper use of materials still considered oppressive?
:I hope not...
Mine all fell apart as well. Then again, the early work isn't what you will
want to conserve (hopefully).
:
:Heard horror stories from visual arts students about wars with faculty over
:artistic direction, and personally experienced much of the same myself
:in creative writing faculty. Are those who teach art or writing doing so
:because they aren't quite good enough at it to make a living without
:having to hold down a day job?
First year students are usually taught by grad students. Faculty must not
only have an MFA but also a national or international exhibition record.
They have to be *good* but their vision may be different than yours. Also,
lots of faculty "don't like teaching undergrads" - I hear this a lot, but I
don't know myself since I haven't taught grad students.
:
:Finally, with my work quite evidently cut out for me as I teach myself
:to be a painter, do I even want to think about going high-tech and
:learning how to use Photoshop or Illustrator?
My advice: do the real painting first. Too many people out there buy these
programs with the promise "Anyone can be an artist with_____"
Kay
Chris
It sounds like you are well on your way - I guess one thing to remember
is the old adage that it takes 50-100 paintings to nail down your style
(or at least figure out where you want to go :) So get crackin'!
I wanted to make a comment re. teachers - being a superb teacher in a
field doesn't necessarily require that you also are a superb
practitioner in the field. After all, a good teacher's real "canvas" is
his pupils. Also, w/r to money - the cash value someone puts on your
work - whether as a tech writer or a painter - is as much a matter of
time, place & good or bad luck as actual quality. Many semi-skilled
factory workers at the turn of the century were in much the same
position as software & tech folks these days - highly paid, moving from
job to job as it suited them - in fact cigar rollers actually wore
formal dress to work - but immigration and rapid progress in education
glutted the market.
Re. art supplies - try to buy toward the high end, if you can afford the
initial outlay. Low quality supplies can be discouraging. An online
place that's affordable is http://www.cheapjoes.com (though I haven't
bought from there, several people I know have phone ordered from them, &
are happy with the results.) Pearl, at http://www.pearlpaint.com is at
the other end of the price spectrum, but is well stocked. Also - look
into the tax deductions! I don't know what the laws are in the States -
but generally up here (Canada) if you are operating in a good faith
attempt to make money, then costs become tax deductible from your other
income. That's a huge plus here, where marginal tax rates are over 50%
once your income hits about 35K USD.
Good luck;
Chris
Keith O'Connor
life drawing , but drawing from the mind, and I
will also add that it is a drawing that acts like
a dream - you have only limited control over the
forms - the ideas flow like the sequences in a
dream, you don't know ahead of time what will
happen next.
I sketch from feeling a minimum of twice daily,
once in the morning and once in the evening. I am
headed for my evening sketch as soon as I finish
this.
The electronic medium is just another medium. I
plan on getting a pressure sensitive electronic
sketch pad at some point early in the new year.
have fun
_______tinman end_______
John Frum wrote:
>
> OK here is a little more background. Twice I started art college, got as far
> as completing second year (of 4) the first time, then about 5 years later
> in a different city took about three more years part time but more or less
> starting at the beginning again with first/second year drawing, design and
> so forth.
>
> Presently working as a tech writer for a software company. Previously
> worked for many years as a graphic artist (mostly pasteup and typesetting).
> Going slowly crazy from the Kafka-esque politics of software deveopment,
> and deteriorating physically because of repetitive strain injuries from
> too many 80 hour weeks just to meet production deadlines for products that
> are nowhere near ready to ship yet out they go. I'm getting too old for the
> kind of nonsense that goes on there.
>
> So, about a month ago I went and indulged myself at "Michaels" and got
> a selection of tools:
>
> * A set of watercolor pencils (had these before, loved 'em, gave them away
> when I thought I would never bother with art again).
>
> * A "get started" set of Liquitex Basics acrylic paints (I would dispute
> their choice of "primary" colors though -- I am accustomed to mixing
> yellow, cyan and magenta as primaries, not cadmium red vs ultramarine
> blue to make a brownish purple).
>
> * A set of student grade oil pastels.
>
> * A few sticks of conte: bistre, sanguine, black, white. Doesn't anyone
> have the sepia flavor conte any more??
>
> * A set of allegedly opaque cake watercolors. Opaque turning out to mean
> so long as they remain in cake form in the little trays. Oh, well.
>
> * A variety of paper pads: sketch, drawing, watercolor, pastel, etc. etc.
>
> * A few economy grade bristle and synthetic brushes. I seriously doubt
> any place like Michaels will have decent sable brushes at any price...
>
> I've been messing about with all this kit since then, adding on slightly
> here and there as the need arose. I've not set out to become a gadget
> collector -- I can only gape in wonderment at the instant-studio French
> easels, the Bob Ross oil painting kits (gack!), and other dubious "necess-
> ities".
>
> On the whole Michaels' selection is geared more to the make-your-own
> spangled Tshirt and do-it-yourself stinky potpourri tablecentres crowd
> than the serious artist, but they are literally the only choice in town.
> I am exploring online and mail order art supply dealers and considering
> a "listening tour" to LA (100 or so miles away) to see if there are any
> actual stores with stuff actual artists would actually buy and use. Bleah.
>
> What I've figured out so far:
>
> * I can still draw. Meaning, I can pretty well do all the exercises in
> Kimon Nicolaides' "The natural way to draw", which was the basis for
> the drawing classes I took. Figure drawing, anyway. Terrible with
> landscapes, still life, etc., as these were never emphasised or taught
> at least as first or second year subjects.
>
> * I know zilch about painting, including how to plan, create, and finish
> a credible piece of artwork that doesn't just look like an exercise from
> Nicolaides. Yet this is what I think I would like to do. Acrylics seem
> most practical for now as my studio is also my bedroom, and I don't want
> to be stinking it up with solvents.
>
> * I am beginning, with the help of a couple of reference books that seem
> to make sense to me (DK Art School, and a 70s edition of Artists Handbook
> of Materials and Techniques), how to work with colors, various pigment
> characteristics, etc. In fact I think I learned more from a couple of
> weeks perusing those two books than any of the dozens of studio courses
> I've taken.
>
> * Composition seems, well, obvious. I know when an arrangement of items
> looks right, and when it doesn't, and can usually articulate why.
>
> * Color, on the other hand, is something I obviously have a great deal
> to learn about. I am beginning to see now where artists have made
> conscious choices about which colors to use for a particular painting.
> I am trying to track down a copy of Itten's book on color, and am
> currently digesting Kobayashi's book on color and psychology. Does
> anyone have opinions on either of these authors' views on color?
>
> * I'm rereading my art history texts (having found second hand copies
> of Jansen and Arnasen's weighty tomes not too long ago), and reviewing
> my own feelings, reactions and critiques of the "essential" artworks
> of each era from prehistoric to contemporary.
>
> * "Conceptual art" leaves me rather cold -- I don't think artists are
> any better equipped to comment on matters of cultural or philosophical
> import than actors, media personalities or any other celebrities. Then
> again "classical realism," the recent resurgence in popularity of
> academic Victorian painters such as Bouguereau (sp?), is just as
> baffling. I can't dispute that these paintings are masterpieces of
> technique, but the ideas communicated by them are in the same league,
> dare I say, of the "big eyes" paintings of the 60s. I still love the
> impressionists, the constructivists, and the whole bauhaus crowd.
>
> Obviously, once I am good enough, I would like to at least supplement my
> income by selling paintings. I know what sort of art I like to buy, but
> there is precious little of that amidst a horrifying quantity of dreck.
> If I never see another dolphin painting, that will be perfectly fine with
> me. I am as amenable to abstraction as I am to representational art, and
> I usually know as soon as I see something whether or not I *must* have it.
>
> This afternoon I mixed primary colors, and confirmed for myself that there
> are warm and cool versions of each "primary" color that make "nice" versus
> "yukky" oranges, greens and purples. It was all so simple back when one
> merely specified what percentage of yellow, cyan, magenta and black to
> use, with the aid of a multi-layered acetate color wheel and a book of
> Pantone(tm) swatches, and got exactly what one expected. "Process" color
> is worlds different from real pigments.
>
> I'm also beginning to grasp the importance of proper technique, thanks to
> the stern subtext in "Artists Handbook of materials" etc. Not so much to
> replicate an "academic" style of painting, but to ensure the longevity
> of ones' artworks and the gratitude of those who restore and conserve
> paintings.
>
> Many of the things I was taught, and saw around me at art school, I now
> know were just plain wrong -- poorly prepared canvases stretched on plain
> lumber, with mutually antagonistic materials and techniques -- back then
> it did not seem to matter whether or not an art buyer received good value
> for their money -- a painting that would last given proper conditions,
> instead of reacting with itself and falling apart within a few years.
> Are good technique and proper use of materials still considered oppressive?
> I hope not...
>
> The studio courses I have had thus far have been introductory to inter-
> mediate, but nothing really meaty or advanced. Never got past second year
> courses, always ended up going back to work full time. Finally achieved a
> BFA degree but in fiction writing, not art.
>
> Heard horror stories from visual arts students about wars with faculty over
> artistic direction, and personally experienced much of the same myself
> in creative writing faculty. Are those who teach art or writing doing so
> because they aren't quite good enough at it to make a living without
> having to hold down a day job? Are these really the right people to be
> advising students on successful career choices? It pleases me to know I
> am now earning more as a hack writer than any of my award-winning but
> commercially less than successful professors. Hmmm.
>
Ponderable
> artistic direction, and personally experienced much of the same myself
> in creative writing faculty. Are those who teach art or writing doing so
> because they aren't quite good enough at it to make a living without
> having to hold down a day job? Are these really the right people to be
> advising students on successful career choices? It pleases me to know I
> am now earning more as a hack writer than any of my award-winning but
> commercially less than successful professors. Hmmm.
Though I am sure there are dedicated teachers out there who are sincerely
responding to their primary calling in life, my own experience with instructors
at the college level was very much like your own: frustrated artists who went
into teaching because they couldn't make it "out there" and thus had an
extremely negative outlook which they tried to impress upon the student.
Personally, I was very ambitious and optimistic and so they seemed to go out of
their way to try to discourage me. Very weird scene.
I've heard similar stories from many artists.
Tim Folzenlogen
Rob Davies
cycle which I presume to be 1 day; then on my calendar it has only 7
days?
Confused Artist!!
Rob Davies
rjd...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au
ICQ 10432219
"To converse is one strategy that separates us, from the apes."
On Sun, 07 Nov 1999 22:41:53 -0800, "~Artist~" <matt...@att.net>
wrote:
Lil Ruse
>I wanted to make a comment re. teachers - being a superb teacher in a
>field doesn't necessarily require that you also are a superb
>practitioner in the field.
Having done my term and speaking from my own experiences,
I would agree -- I'd rather have a good teacher than
a good artist who can't teach!
>Re. art supplies - try to buy toward the high end, if you can afford the
>initial outlay.
Again, wholehearted agreement. I would add though that
for the best illustrated catalog, not the cheapest of
prices, and the widest range of supplies, I don't think
Daniel Smith in Seattle has an equal. You can order a
catalog, or find helpful guidance on buying supplies from
some of the friendliest people in telemarketing at:
And to show I'm not prejudiced toward D.S., I buy
MOST of my paints, gessoes, mediums from UTRECHT.
Both of these companies and some of the others have
online presences. Just do a Web search on their names.
Lil Ruse
wordw...@my-yahoo.com says...
>* I know zilch about painting, including how to plan, create, and finish
> a credible piece of artwork that doesn't just look like an exercise from
> Nicolaides.
There is a wealth of 'how to' stuff available over
the web, and one of the best sites I've seen by
someone who paints in a very traditional manner
is at this web site. Click on 'art lessons'
http://www.geocities.com/~jlhagan/
~Artist~
----------
In article <C2omOAmP2GGIC7...@4ax.com>, Rob Davies
<rjd...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>I am not sure, but last time I checked my watch, it had 24 hours in a
>cycle which I presume to be 1 day; then on my calendar it has only 7
>days?
>
>Confused Artist!!
>
>Rob Davies
>rjd...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au
>ICQ 10432219
>
Most of the so called art students, and I can see whey you are confused,
can';t keep up in my studio so it is obvious we work faster and more
efficently. We drop them because they can't stand the intensity and lets
not even discusss when I work for a tech company...depth charge...funny same
thing happend to my friend from http://www.anyco.com...she blew the geekers
out ot the water and is now onto her own thing.
Conf.us.artist says in artworld many more hour than in a 24 hour day.
>"To converse is one strategy that separates us, from the apes."
What about from the artist posers?
M
mesken
wrote:
>* A "get started" set of Liquitex Basics acrylic paints (I would dispute
> their choice of "primary" colors though -- I am accustomed to mixing
> yellow, cyan and magenta as primaries, not cadmium red vs ultramarine
> blue to make a brownish purple).
>
Actually, 3 "primary" colors are normally not sufficient. A red
reflects more red than any other color but nevertheless it does
reflect other colors, just like any other color. It depends mostly on
the pigment used what colors exactly are reflected but cadmium red is
not a good red to make purples with (because it's on the "orange" side
of red instead of on the violet side). Magenta is much better here
because it's more on the violet side. The ultramarine should be the
proper blue (also on the voilet side) to make a good purple.
>* A set of allegedly opaque cake watercolors. Opaque turning out to mean
> so long as they remain in cake form in the little trays. Oh, well.
>
Opaque water colors??? ;-)
>* A few economy grade bristle and synthetic brushes. I seriously doubt
> any place like Michaels will have decent sable brushes at any price...
>
Don't fool around with brushes. Nothing tops good red sables or
kolinsky's no matter what the synthetic brush people tell ya. You can
almost do anything with a single #10 kolinsky, it will cost you around
100 U$ but it will last a very long time and there's nothing better
for water color.
>I've been messing about with all this kit since then, adding on slightly
>here and there as the need arose. I've not set out to become a gadget
>collector -- I can only gape in wonderment at the instant-studio French
>easels, the Bob Ross oil painting kits (gack!), and other dubious "necess-
>ities".
>
Bob Ross has moved over to the realm over the eternally happy trees
:-)
>On the whole Michaels' selection is geared more to the make-your-own
>spangled Tshirt and do-it-yourself stinky potpourri tablecentres crowd
>than the serious artist, but they are literally the only choice in town.
>I am exploring online and mail order art supply dealers and considering
>a "listening tour" to LA (100 or so miles away) to see if there are any
>actual stores with stuff actual artists would actually buy and use. Bleah.
>
www.pearlpaint.com has a lot of stuff
>* I know zilch about painting, including how to plan, create, and finish
> a credible piece of artwork that doesn't just look like an exercise from
> Nicolaides. Yet this is what I think I would like to do. Acrylics seem
> most practical for now as my studio is also my bedroom, and I don't want
> to be stinking it up with solvents.
>
A lot of people don't like to work with oil because of the additional
chemicals but I can tell you there's nothing like the smell of acetone
in the morning ;-)
Anyway, especially a studio for oil painting should be well
ventilated. Not as much as because of the smell of the solvents but
the painting needs the flow of air in order to dry, else it will take
eons while it's already slow drying (and heavy use of siccatives or
heat is out of the question because of the cracking danger)
>* Color, on the other hand, is something I obviously have a great deal
> to learn about. I am beginning to see now where artists have made
> conscious choices about which colors to use for a particular painting.
> I am trying to track down a copy of Itten's book on color, and am
> currently digesting Kobayashi's book on color and psychology. Does
> anyone have opinions on either of these authors' views on color?
>
You can get the books of Itten at www.amazon.com , you can probably
get any book at amazon and if not then you can check out www.ebay.com
to see if someone is selling it.
>This afternoon I mixed primary colors, and confirmed for myself that there
>are warm and cool versions of each "primary" color that make "nice" versus
>"yukky" oranges, greens and purples. It was all so simple back when one
>merely specified what percentage of yellow, cyan, magenta and black to
>use, with the aid of a multi-layered acetate color wheel and a book of
>Pantone(tm) swatches, and got exactly what one expected. "Process" color
>is worlds different from real pigments.
>
There are paint manufacturer's that actually make magenta, cyan and
the "yellow" yellow. The same colors as used by printing offices. Old
Holland is one of them.
Wilcox ("Blue and yellow don't make green") argues that there are 6
primaries because each color has also a secondary tone to it, they
are:
-cerulean blue (greenish blue)
-ultramarine blue (violetish blue)
-lemon yellow (greenish yellow)
-cadmium yellow (orangeish yellow)
-quinacridone violet (violetish red)
-cadmium red (orangeish red)
So, to make a good purple one shouldn't take cerulean blue and cadmium
red but ultramarine blue and quinacridone violet. Cadmium red and
yellow make good oranges and lemon yellow and cerulean blue good
greens.
There are more primary colors imagineable ofcourse and there's also
the very important issue of transparancy which isn't covered by these
six.
>I'm also beginning to grasp the importance of proper technique, thanks to
>the stern subtext in "Artists Handbook of materials" etc. Not so much to
>replicate an "academic" style of painting, but to ensure the longevity
>of ones' artworks and the gratitude of those who restore and conserve
>paintings.
>
>Many of the things I was taught, and saw around me at art school, I now
>know were just plain wrong -- poorly prepared canvases stretched on plain
>lumber, with mutually antagonistic materials and techniques -- back then
>it did not seem to matter whether or not an art buyer received good value
>for their money -- a painting that would last given proper conditions,
>instead of reacting with itself and falling apart within a few years.
>Are good technique and proper use of materials still considered oppressive?
>I hope not...
>
Perhaps you should also read Cennini's (craftman's handbook), Vasari's
(Vasari on technique) and especially Doerner's (Materials of the
artist) work, it delves deeply into these technical issues. They're
excellent references.
mesken
wrote:
>In article <7ZwoOClIXjQGzJRKU1zzg=y1n3W=@4ax.com>, usu...@euronet.nl says...
>
><all sorts of useful information, for which I am very grateful>
>
>> On 07 Nov 1999 16:21:00 PST, wordw...@my-yahoo.com (John Frum)
>> wrote:
>
>> Actually, 3 "primary" colors are normally not sufficient. A red
>> reflects more red than any other color but nevertheless it does
>> reflect other colors, just like any other color. It depends mostly on
>> the pigment used what colors exactly are reflected but cadmium red is
>> not a good red to make purples with (because it's on the "orange" side
>> of red instead of on the violet side). Magenta is much better here
>> because it's more on the violet side. The ultramarine should be the
>> proper blue (also on the voilet side) to make a good purple.
>
>Aha! I did go and pick up tubes of Magenta, Phthalo Blue (which does a very
>good impersonation of a very deep cyan), and yellow oxide just because it
>was so nice and earthy looking. Magenta plus Ultramine makes a much
>better purple.
>
Yes, the phtalocyanines come in a wide variety of hues, very powerfull
stuff. The old masters would sell their soul to the devil for the
pigments we nowadays have :-) Now I think of it: there's also
ultramarine that tends to green instead of purple but I haven't seen
it around. Grinding it yourself is quite easy (although ultramarine is
somewhat more difficult than the other pigments, it must be grinded
twice) and makes it even more beautifull, it's very sensitive to even
weak acids however. It's no longer the real stuff ofcourse (Lapis
Lazuli which is very hard to make and get)
>> www.pearlpaint.com has a lot of stuff
>
>Yes, I've seen these folks recommended elsewhere as well. First impression:
>interesting site, must dig deeper. Had good results thus far with
>misterart.com, but I wish they'd add more detailed product descriptions
>and a photo or two for some of the items. I mean, you don't need a picture
>of a tube of paint, but photos of easels, drafting instruments etc. would
>be nice. It's not like I can run down to the store to see them in real life
>before I order them online...
>
Ofcourse you can check it out at the site of the manufacturer.
Normally they're on www.manufacturer.com where "manufacturer" is the
name of the manufacturer. But often one needs to do a search for some
manufacturers have weird site names (www.blockx.be for example,
instead of .com) or don't have a site at all (like Old Holland)
>> A lot of people don't like to work with oil because of the additional
>> chemicals but I can tell you there's nothing like the smell of acetone
>> in the morning ;-)
>
>My first summer job during art college was in a silkscreen printing shop.
>Lacquer thinner and screen wash are acceptable substitutes for acetone
>if need be :)
>
Ah, silk screen printing in combination with selling on the internet.
Now that's something an artist can make money with easily. Artists
like Coop make nice prints in limited and numbered editions (500-750)
and sell them for about 30 U$. So, this way, one can make up to 22500
U$ with a single design (the costs are quite low ofcourse).
>One more question, if you don't mind, regarding lighting. My "art corner"
>is in my bedroom, directly below a nice tall north-facing window (built
>the house that way on purpose for this and other reasons not the least
>of which is the lovely view). I notice that colors take on a different
>appearance in daylight from the window versus incandescent light from
>the room.
>
>The question is, which light source should I be paying most attention to
>while mixing colors? The natural indirect light from the window, or the
>warmer, somewhat yellower light from indoor lighting, where the pictures
>are most likely to be hanging? Or do artists even think about that? I
>know it matters to me because I can see the difference.
Artists (on the more northern side of the northern hemisphere) prefer
light through north facing windows because the light is more indirect
(reflections) and thus don't blind one or cause annoying reflections.
Typically one doesn't use yellow indoor light because it changes the
appearance of color and the standard reference is day light (the
lights of houses differ for every house but day light is the same in a
region). There are day light TL tubes however.
Chris
John Frum wrote:
>
>
> The question is, which light source should I be paying most attention to
> while mixing colors? The natural indirect light from the window, or the
> warmer, somewhat yellower light from indoor lighting, where the pictures
> are most likely to be hanging? Or do artists even think about that? I
> know it matters to me because I can see the difference.
I think its important to do both - as well as work outside under a
variety of conditions. That helps one to intuitively understand the
effects of light sources on colour (and colour perception).
Using inexpensive oil pastels is a cheap way to play around with this
(they seem to vary less in quality w/r to price range than many other
media) - try sketching something inside & then the same subject outside,
etc.
Cheers;
Chris
--
Artwork: http://www.gammarat.com/Artists/ChrisB
Keith O'Connor
surprises me that no reference is made to the old
double primaries palette, which is what the wilcox
is based upon. I note that Wilcox does not
recognize it's debt to the old double primaries
palette. Take the old double primaries palette
conjunct it with the the first 10 units from the
base 10 numbering system, use them to create a 10
slot table, with 10 slots per colour and you have
wilcox. My argument is that using the base 10 for
a tabular colour system does not work for the
artist because it implies impossible to achieve
relational pattern constructions (not every colour
on its journey from light to dark can equally fit
the 10 slots) but that's my opinion.
________tinman end______