Oil-painting techniques of yore
Geoffrey T. Falk
reproduce some of the effects that I have seen in old paintings in museums. My
inquiry is about the techniques used; I realise that I will only be able to
copy the forms and tones after years of practice.
How does one achieve the smooth, lustrous glowing surface that one sees in
masterworks in museums? I am thinking, for instance, of the extremely accurate
still-lifes of the 17th century or thereabouts, with things like copper or
pewter objects, delicately-textured delicious pieces of bread, etc. The paint
surface is completely flat, probably varnished, but it looks like it could be
three-dimensional underneath.. is this just an optical illusion resulting from
extremely accurate painting, or did the old masters use many layers of paint to
achieve these effects? When I try it the paint just looks drab and flat, even
if the colours are roughly the same. It looks so easy ("just paint what you
see!"), but of course when you try to copy it, it is not so easy.
Is there perhaps a book that describes the old techniques? Do people still know
how to do sfumato, for instance?
g.
Itza Joqual
>
>I have taken up oil painting as a hobby, and am trying to learn how to
>reproduce some of the effects that I have seen in old paintings in museums.
Many of the most remarkable trompe l'oeil effects were achieved
using egg tempera techniques. One of the most difficult techniques
to master for many oil painters is that of glazing. It requires too much
patience and most artists today want instant gratification.
--
********************* 1845 - 1995 ****************************
*** From Deep in the Heart of Texas where we're celebrating ***
*** 150 Years of Mexicanization. Itza Joqual. ***
**************************************************************************
Mani Deli
Gt> How does one achieve the smooth, lustrous glowing surface that one
Gt> sees in masterworks in museums? I am thinking, for instance, of the
Gt> extremely accurate
Gt> still-lifes of the 17th century or thereabouts, with things like
Gt> copper or pewter objects, delicately-textured delicious pieces of
Gt> bread, etc. The paint surface is completely flat, probably varnished,
Gt> but it looks like it could be three-dimensional underneath.. is this
Gt> just an optical illusion resulting from
Gt> extremely accurate painting, or did the old masters use many layers of
Gt> paint to
Gt> achieve these effects? When I try it the paint just looks drab and
Gt> flat, even if the colours are roughly the same. It looks so easy
Gt> ("just paint what you see!"), but of course when you try to copy it,
Gt> it is not so easy.
Gt> Is there perhaps a book that describes the old techniques? Do people
Gt> still know
Gt> how to do sfumato, for instance?
I can only answer this in a general way.
Painting technique is a complex craft. The techniques of the masters are for
the most part complex and are related to method and formula and require an
ability at expert draftsmanship. The techniques are not lost but few today have
the knowledge and it is your job to seek them out or figure out how to do it
yourself. Books and a bit of chemistry are a help.
But the fact is that rediscovery is a great waste of time though we sometimes
have no choice. You will find that no matter how hard you try that there are
passages in classical painting which you will not even be able to copy unless
you have some technical background.
I like to use an analogy with music. Everyone can learn to play the piano
because the knowledge has not been lost and there are teachers who can pass on
the technical skills. Imagine if music were in the state of the fine arts. The
teacher would tell you now PLAY and you would try to imitate something you
heard on a recording by Rachmaninoff. The mastery of technical skill requires
knowledgeable teachers, talent and the will to learn. Even then few people who
acquire all this and are able to use it to create fine work.
Art teaching today is for the most part in the hands of incompetent bimbos
whose lack of knowledge is derived from about four generations of
incompetents. They will tell you that they know technique and draftsmanship but
one look at their work will reveal the truth. If you seek a teacher look at his
work, if it lacks what you want to learn go the other way no matter what song-
and-dance he does for you.
Even many of those who claim to know classical technique know it on an
aphoristic bases (use this or that varnish, original materials and small
brushes etc.) rather then a technical one. The problem with this is that it
prevents one from tailoring an individual technique.
There is another problem with trying to learn technique. Modern Academic idiots
will discourage you from learning this as they imagine that these are outdated
methods. They imagine that classical technique is used solely to imitate the
past. This is of course nonsense. Technique is the accumulation of all
knowledge and it is used for all work which is better then what anyone lacking
this knowledge can accomplish no matter how hard he tries.
One can not rediscover for oneself what the best minds took 500 years to
develop. It is best to find a competent teacher.
Mani DeLi
... No skill no art.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
Wray Kephart
X In article <1995Jul5.2...@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, g...@math.rochester.edu says...
X >
X >I have taken up oil painting as a hobby, and am trying to learn how to
X >reproduce some of the effects that I have seen in old paintings in museums.
X Many of the most remarkable trompe l'oeil effects were achieved
X using egg tempera techniques. One of the most difficult techniques
X to master for many oil painters is that of glazing. It requires too much
X patience and most artists today want instant gratification.
Hum....theyd be in a different field altogether if that were true;
represented by <carp>enters union local 1027 or get a BS EE degree/Irvine
instead.
Try using Utrechts 'FLEX-GEL' oil painting and glazing medium on the
handy 2.04 fl.oz 62 ml. squeezable! tube.
Kephart
Charles Eicher
Deli) wrote:
> I can only answer this in a general way.
Mostly because your thoughts about this subject aren't very deep..
> Painting technique is a complex craft. The techniques of the masters are for
> the most part complex and are related to method and formula and require an
> ability at expert draftsmanship. The techniques are not lost but few
today have
> the knowledge and it is your job to seek them out or figure out how to do it
> yourself. Books and a bit of chemistry are a help.
Absolute bullshit. The techniques of the 'old masters' are relatively
simple. Remember that technology of that era was vastly inferior to todays
technology. For example, the typical renaissance artist would spend weeks
at a time, just preparing pigments; today, you can just go to the local
art store and buy pigments of vastly superior quality and variety.
Remember that to the 'old masters', painting was a craft and not an art.
Their studios worked under commission, and paintings were created with the
greatest economy of effort and materials possible. There is a wonderful
book I found, called 'Painting techniques of the Masters' (probably out of
print by now) that will debunk your reverence for the 'loving
craftsmanship' of these 'old masters'.. I was particularly struck by one
Raphael painting. Raphael ran out of room on his panel, so he just nailed
another strip of wood onto the edge. Another painting had a neutron
radiograph showing the underpainting. It showed where the artist
repeatedly wiped excess paint from his brush on one area of the canvas,
knowing he was going to overpaint that area in black later.
> I like to use an analogy with music. Everyone can learn to play the piano
> because the knowledge has not been lost and there are teachers who can pass on
> the technical skills. Imagine if music were in the state of the fine arts. The
> teacher would tell you now PLAY and you would try to imitate something you
> heard on a recording by Rachmaninoff. The mastery of technical skill requires
> knowledgeable teachers, talent and the will to learn. Even then few people who
> acquire all this and are able to use it to create fine work.
And I like to use an analogy to music as well. There is an old saying
about the Guitar, "30 minutes to learn, a lifetime to master".. I can
teach anyone the basic guitar chords in 30 minutes, and they can play a
fairly beautiful song. But if they want to be a master, it will take the
rest of their lifetime to achieve that..
I personally know one amateur artist who spent much effort and many years
trying to recapture the 'lost techniques of Rembrandt'.. He knows all the
techniques, and is an excellent draftsman, but doesn't know the big
picture that makes doing it all worthwhile. He does large 3x4 foot
portraits, painstakingly built up with a tiny 00 brush. They glow like
Rembrandt paintings, with dozens of varnished layers. But they're
astonishingly ugly. He thinks they're beautiful.
Knowing the 'techniques of the masters' won't help you one damn bit, if
you don't know how to use them. Become a good painter FIRST, develop your
visual sensibility, then worry about the funky technical details LAST.
> One can not rediscover for oneself what the best minds took 500 years to
> develop.
Jeez, it took thousands of years to develop techniques for painting on
cave walls, why aren't we still doing that? It took '500 years' to develop
some techniques, using the primitive technology available in that era, who
is to say that something equally as useful can't be developed, easily and
simply, today?
> It is best to find a competent teacher.
And Mani Deli certainly ISN'T one of em..
------------------
Charles Eicher
cei...@netins.net
------------------
C. O.
cei...@netins.net (Charles Eicher) wrote:
>Knowing the 'techniques of the masters' won't help you one damn bit, if
>you don't know how to use them. Become a good painter FIRST, develop your
>visual sensibility, then worry about the funky technical details LAST.
Learn how to DRAW first then learn painting.
Mani wrote,
>The techniques of the masters are for
> the most part complex and are related to method and formula and require an
> ability at expert draftsmanship.
Ah, Draftmanship! Right on Mani.
sl...@cc.usu.edu
> In article <ceicher-0907...@s125.netins.net>,
> cei...@netins.net (Charles Eicher) wrote:
>
>>Knowing the 'techniques of the masters' won't help you one damn bit, if
>>you don't know how to use them. Become a good painter FIRST, develop your
>>visual sensibility, then worry about the funky technical details LAST.
>
>
> Learn how to DRAW first then learn painting.
You're right to point out that drawing can help the painter for certain
forms of painting. But why not draw and paint at the same time? Why
not paint first, then learn drawing, letting paint inform the drawing?
Why not woodcut first? Why not photography first, to learn all about
the conventions of images first?
re: drawing and painting, they can be so closely related as to be
virtually the same thing anyway, so why separate them?
>> [clip]...y at expert draftsmanship.
>
> Ah, Draftmanship! Right on Mani.
well I'm as guilty as a lot of artists of once thinking that
drafting alone meant something. Too bad that it doesn't mean a damn
thing without the artist's creative vision or the necessary
historical contexts.
It means absolutely nothing unless the artist is striving for
the set of anachronisms that require drafting. And if they aren't,
then it's foolish and stupid to apply standards of drafting to
their artwork, because the rules don't apply universally.
But people who admire drafting and classical techniques
too much often think those skills and techniques are
everything, the whole of painting. How sad for them to
be so exclusionary, so blind to so many other forms of quality.
Greg Scheckler
Sl...@cc.usu.edu
>
C. O.
sl...@cc.usu.edu wrote:
>You're right to point out that drawing can help the painter for certain
>forms of painting. But why not draw and paint at the same time? Why
>not paint first, then learn drawing, letting paint inform the drawing?
Welcome back Greg! The coffee talk, intellectual food fight continues on.
We may have to send you to the store for more croissants and crumpets.
Ross, make some more coffee please.
For representational drawing it is best to learn drawing first. It is a
good foundation to build (paint upon). I remember my struggles and
frustrations in high school I had with painting because I did not know how
to draw. I would think "why does this look so bad?"
Some forms of painting it doesn't matter where you put the horse or cart.
>re: drawing and painting, they can be so closely related as to be
>virtually the same thing anyway, so why separate them?
Remember the arguments between Ingres (Classicals) and Delacroix
(Romantics) ? Drawing! No! Color! Tastes great! Less filling! Too bad
they did not have net accounts back then. Too bad that Delacroix could not
draw as well as Ingres. I like both artists though.
With the draftsmanship/fine drawing thing, that is one reason that I
have always enjoyed see a master artist's preliminary drawings. Figure
studies etc.
CAT
sl...@cc.usu.edu
> In article <1995Jul10.1...@cc.usu.edu>,
> sl...@cc.usu.edu wrote:
> Welcome back Greg! The coffee talk, intellectual food fight continues on.
> We may have to send you to the store for more croissants and crumpets.
> Ross, make some more coffee please.
Hey thanks, glad to see things haven't changed much.
Actually I'm leaving again soon and won't be back for a coupla months.
>
> For representational drawing it is best to learn drawing first. It is a
^^^ ^^^
Ah-hah! draw first in order to learn drawing! I'm getting
a tautology ache
I know what you meant
and you're right... representational drawing can really help
representational painting a great deal. b/c most representational
painting methods are "indirect painting" methods, usually
starting with a drawing/underpainting first.
> good foundation to build (paint upon). I remember my struggles and
> frustrations in high school I had with painting because I did not know how..
[clip]
weren't we all frustrated in high school? I sure as hell was
but for me it wasn't cuz I didn't know how to do certain things,
it was because I thought I had to do certain things (it was
catholic school...) back then I had no identity and kept trying
to copy other's artwork.
>
> Remember the arguments between Ingres (Classicals) and Delacroix
> (Romantics) ? Drawing! No! Color! Tastes great! Less filling! Too bad
> they did not have net accounts back then. [clip]
funny that such similar debates are still around.
I guess we'll all always have our preferences?
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Ross Green
>
>For representational drawing it is best to learn drawing first. It is a
>to draw. I would think "why does this look so bad?"
>Some forms of painting it doesn't matter where you put the horse or cart.
I don't disagree with that.
>Remember the arguments between Ingres (Classicals) and Delacroix
>(Romantics) ? Drawing! No! Color! Tastes great! Less filling! Too bad
>they did not have net accounts back then.
The Journal of Eugene Delacroix is the best book ever written
by an artist.
>Too bad that Delacroix could not draw as well as Ingres.
Delacroix was one of the greatest draughtsman of all time! Ingres
lacked spirit. Don't just repeat the hackneyed junk you learned in
art school. (Mani is right about some things, you know.)
>With the draftsmanship/fine drawing thing, that is one reason
>that I have always enjoyed seeing a master artist's preliminary
>drawings. Figure studies etc.
Same here. Roughness, spontaneity, "mistakes," and the underlying
genius that holds it all together: It's a *very* small step from
there to Modern Art.
-Ross
Wray Kephart
X -=> Quoting G...@math.rochester.edu to All <=-
X Gt> How does one achieve the smooth, lustrous glowing surface that one
X Gt> sees in masterworks in museums?
Damar varnish, stand oil, turpentine and dryer medium mixed with a small
amount of pigment will produce a pure color transparency. This is layered
over an underpainting confined to light and dark areas of grey or sienna
tonality. These underpaintings of that time were fairly complete in
themselves, the pigment transparencies created volume characterized by
natural light sources <within the painting> and detail definition.
A very heavy varnish sealer was applied as the top coat giving the painting
tremendous visual depth.
snip
X Even many of those who claim to know classical technique know it on an
X aphoristic bases (use this or that varnish, original materials and small
X brushes etc.) rather then a technical one. The problem with this is that it
X prevents one from tailoring an individual technique.
Hey, OUCH! There is nothing wrong with my 'paint by numbers' or Remmington
and Rockwell for perfecting that technique.
Kephart
CAT
Ross Green <lib...@uvsc.edu> wrote:
>The Journal of Eugene Delacroix is the best book ever written
>by an artist.
Yea, that is a good book.
>>Too bad that Delacroix could not draw as well as Ingres.
>
>Delacroix was one of the greatest draughtsman of all time! Ingres
>lacked spirit. Don't just repeat the hackneyed junk you learned in
>art school. (Mani is right about some things, you know.)
I like Ingres' drawings better that his paintings. Dover Books have some
nice books featuring his drawings. I believe that there are two. One
features portrait drawings and the other features preliminary work for his
paintings.
I do like Delacroix also. He definitely knew how to draw.
CAT
CAT
sl...@cc.usu.edu wrote:
>>
>> For representational drawing it is best to learn drawing first. It is a
> ^^^ ^^^
>
>Ah-hah! draw first in order to learn drawing! I'm getting
>a tautology ache
>I know what you meant
DOH! Uh..uh....umm......that was just an experimental sentence.
> Remember the arguments between Ingres (Classicals) and Delacroix
> (Romantics) ? ......
>>funny that such similar debates are still around.
>>I guess we'll all always have our preferences?
Makes things more fun.
CAT
Vela Press
1: Rembrandt did not add some yellow to his final varnish. It would
flatten his blacks! The yellow tone is from the varnish that turns
yellowish as it decays (gets old). You get green when you mix blue and
yellow..right? same thing happens with old varnish..its yellowish tone
makes blues look green. Another thing. the masters bleached their oils as
pale as possible...to get rid of the yellow. Not true about the night
watch.. that it was revarnished without yellow being added to the varnish!
2. As you paint in oils. IF you apply a subsequent coat over a previously
dry coat, the new application will not adhere and may "Trickle" (bead up).
Easy to solve. Prior to painting, "etch" the surface with an application
of mineral spirits and allow it to evaporate..then oil your surface..prior
to next application.
GOOD LUCK
Itza Joqual
Thank you for the advice on painting in oils. A couple of questions.
1. Why not mix damar with your painting medium? Isn't that
preferrable to using a drying agent (cobalt nap. for example)?
Also, I think Copal varnish is still made commercially. The
hard wax used in some commercial furniture waxes is carnuba.
I don't know if carnuba was ever used in artist's mediums, but
I'll bet it has been tried at one time or another.
2. I haven't had reason to actually try it, but it is my understanding
that damar crystals (solid form) will NOT dissolve in mineral spirits,
which is a petroleum derivative. Only turpentine, which is a pine
rosin derivative will dissolve it. Have you actually dissolved damar
in something less toxic than turpentine?
3. What makes mineral spirits less toxic? The reason turpentine
is such a problem, to my knowledge, is because some people have
an allergic reaction to it. I don't think that mineral spirits has the same
allergenic hazards, but it certainly isn't a non-toxic substance, as
far as I know.
Wray Kephart
X In article <3ud6g4$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, vela...@aol.com says...
X Thank you for the advice on painting in oils. A couple of questions.
X Only turpentine, which is a pine rosin derivative will dissolve it
X [damar]. Have you actually dissolved damar
X in something less toxic than turpentine?
X 3. What makes mineral spirits less toxic?
Its whats left after purer solvent forms or reducers have been
drawn off <not as effective either, a real crap shoot if using as part of
a resin medium>.
X The reason turpentine is such a problem, to my knowledge, is because
X some people have an allergic reaction to it. I don't think that mineral
X spirits has the same
X allergenic hazards, but it certainly isn't a non-toxic substance, as
X far as I know.
Turpentine is by far the safest and smelliest of all thinner forms for
oil mediums-odorless turp used to be available; but Id watch my cuticle
absorbtion ratios all the same.
Keep in mind oils, enamels, polyurethanes, epoxy, and lacquer paint
bases have *scientifically* formulated reducers for use with *each*
product--not the time for chemlab experiments in the garage.
Kephart
Mani Deli
archbishop and technical historical expert didn't answer.
-=> Quoting Eicher
Ce> (Mani Deli) wrote:
> I can only answer this in a general way.
Ce> Mostly because your thoughts about this subject aren't very deep..
... and your's will get a student into deep shit.
> Painting technique is a complex craft. The techniques of the masters are for
> the most part complex and are related to method and formula and require an
> ability at expert draftsmanship. The techniques are not lost but few today
> have the knowledge and it is your job to seek them out or figure out how to
>do it yourself. Books and a bit of chemistry are a help.
Ce> Absolute bullshit. The techniques of the 'old masters' are relatively
Ce> simple. Remember that technology of that era was vastly inferior to
Ce> todays technology. For example, the typical renaissance artist would
Ce> spend weeks at a time, just preparing pigments; today, you can just go
Ce> to the local art store and buy pigments of vastly superior quality and
Ce> variety.
Preparing paint is a very minor part of learning technique. The typical
renaissance artist had his underlings prepare his paint. Shows what you know.
Ce> Remember that to the 'old masters', painting was a craft and not an
Ce> art.
Most great painters were considered artists by themselves and their patrons.
Skill and craftsmanship are only a foundation. Without these one will probably
get what you and your students produce.
Their studios worked under commission, and paintings were created
Ce> with the greatest economy of effort and materials possible.
Then how come that these artists painted so few works compared to vast output
of most of our modern schmierers? How many Vermeer's Van Eyke's Leonardo's
Ingres Dali's are there compared to the mountains of Picasso's, Chagall's and
Matisse's?
There is a
Ce> wonderful book I found, called 'Painting techniques of the Masters'
Ce> (probably out of print by now) that will debunk your reverence for the
Ce> 'loving craftsmanship' of these 'old masters'..
"Painting techniques of the Masters," there are probably 50 such books. See how
much it helps you to copy a passage in Van Eyke, Vermeer, Ingres, or a flower
in a Dutch still life. Of course I know you don't want to do that and I'm sure
from what you say you couldn't teach it to anyone.
However there are more and more students who would like to learn what is
necessary in order to produce a beautiful surface with luminosity etc. If its
so simple why don't they just do it instead of asking a lot of technical
questions? Or perhaps just read that wonderful book "Painting Techniques of the
Masters."
I was particularly
Ce> struck by one Raphael painting. Raphael ran out of room on his panel,
Ce> so he just nailed another strip of wood onto the edge. Another painting
Ce> had a neutron radiograph showing the underpainting. It showed where the
Ce> artist repeatedly wiped excess paint from his brush on one area of the
Ce> canvas, knowing he was going to overpaint that area in black later.
And what exactly is that supposed to tell us about technique? Can you even copy
a hand in a Raphael that looks like it has the finish of the original. I might
add that in the 19th century most students copied old master paintings and in
spite of this few became really fine artists.
> I like to use an analogy with music. Everyone can learn to play the piano
> because the knowledge has not been lost and there are teachers who can pass
on
> the technical skills. Imagine if music were in the state of the fine arts.
The
> teacher would tell you now PLAY and you would try to imitate something you
> heard on a recording by Rachmaninoff. The mastery of technical skill
requires
> knowledgeable teachers, talent and the will to learn. Even then few people
who
> acquire all this and are able to use it to create fine work.
Ce> And I like to use an analogy to music as well. There is an old saying
Ce> about the Guitar, "30 minutes to learn, a lifetime to master".. I can
Ce> teach anyone the basic guitar chords in 30 minutes, and they can play
Ce> a fairly beautiful song. But if they want to be a master, it will take
Ce> the rest of their lifetime to achieve that..
Because they have to master technique and skill! I'm sure you also teach about
30 minutes worth of drawing and then think your students can do a fairly
beautiful drawing; by your standards of course.
Ce> I personally know one amateur artist who spent much effort and many
Ce> years trying to recapture the 'lost techniques of Rembrandt'.. He knows
Ce> all the techniques, and is an excellent draftsman, but doesn't know the
Ce> big picture that makes doing it all worthwhile. He does large 3x4 foot
Ce> portraits, painstakingly built up with a tiny 00 brush. They glow like
Ce> Rembrandt paintings, with dozens of varnished layers. But they're
Ce> astonishingly ugly. He thinks they're beautiful.
So what? How come it took him years if its so simple? The fact that one's
painting is still ugly doesn't prove anything. Technique is only a foundation,
a tool and a method. I'm sure you are one of those who imagines that if one
uses small brushes and the right paint one can paint what you call "old
master."
The fact is that those with technical ability today don't paint like old
masters at all. Would you mistake Grant Wood or Dali for an old master? Skill
and Technique gives you the ability to paint the way you wish.
Ce> Knowing the 'techniques of the masters' won't help you one damn bit,
Ce> if you don't know how to use them. Become a good painter FIRST, develop
Ce> your visual sensibility, then worry about the funky technical details
Ce> LAST.
"Visual sensibility?" That reminds me of the student who said he spent most of
his time working on his "sensitivity."
No, you have it backwards. Like with music you study technique and practice to
improve your skill. Then what counts is what you do with it. I. As I said
before technique is a universal. The 'techniques of the masters' vary. Each
artist like a musician develops his own personal technique based on what he has
learned.
> One can not rediscover for oneself what the best minds took 500 years to
> develop.
Ce> Jeez, it took thousands of years to develop techniques for painting on
Ce> cave walls, why aren't we still doing that?
Because some of us are somewhat more advanced then cave men.
It took '500 years' to
Ce> develop some techniques, using the primitive technology available in
Ce> that era, who is to say that something equally as useful can't be
Ce> developed, easily and simply, today?
You think past techniques were just primitive technology because you don't know
much about them and you imagine that someone can just tube it with modern
technology. This is because your knowledge limits you to think that technique
is mainly a matter of paint mixtures and small brushes.
I will only mention that the look of the surface of 99% of our greatest Modern
Academic Masters varies between dry colored cement and a moist coat of rather
impure shit.
> It is best to find a competent teacher.
Ce> And Mani Deli certainly ISN'T one of em.
True, I don't teach, but I do suggest that anyone who wants to study with you
had better peruse your painting first. I suspect its the usual dime-a-dozen
Modern Academic schmier.
Without some knowledge of technique even skill won't help. Technique can be
taught. That is why I suggest that talented students not go to the average
university which specializes in the teaching of practically-nothing and whose
nest of failure teachers will do little more then advise you in the most
convoluted postmodern time consuming permutations to express yourself and claim
that they will enhance your "visual sensibility."
Mani Deli
-=> Quoting Kep...@crash.cts.com to All <=-
X Gt> How does one achieve the smooth, lustrous glowing surface that one
X Gt> sees in masterworks in museums?
Ke> Damar varnish, stand oil, turpentine and dryer medium mixed with a
Ke> small amount of pigment will produce a pure color transparency.
You are more likely to get sticky wet and dry uneven sludge.
This is
Ke> layered over an underpainting confined to light and dark areas of grey
Ke> or sienna tonality.
In other words a drawing. Hey who needs that.
These underpaintings of that time were fairly
Ke> complete in themselves, the pigment transparencies created volume
Ke> characterized by natural light sources <within the painting...
I like this. Its "pigment transparencies that create volume." Just buy the
right pigment and you'll get volume and a "natural light source" right inside
the painting to boot.
Ke>... and detail
Ke> definition.
Come on K., detail and definition are out; that takes skill.
A very heavy varnish sealer was applied as the top coat
Ke> giving the painting tremendous visual depth.
Yea sure, depth. Wow now you can just go home and "achieve the smooth, lustrous
glowing surface that one sees in masterworks in museums" according to Kephart
(who suffers from a bad case of Picasso Eye).
Ke> snip
Md> Even many of those who claim to know classical technique know it on
Md> an aphoristic bases (use this or that varnish, original materials and
Md> small brushes etc.) rather then a technical one. The problem with
Md> this is that it prevents one from tailoring an individual technique.
Ke> Hey, OUCH!
I guess you just looked at one of your paintings.
Ke> There is nothing wrong with my 'paint by numbers' or
Ke> Remmington and Rockwell for perfecting that technique.
With what you indicate you know from the above I doubt that you could even
paint by numbers.
Mani DeLi
... Catch the Blue Wave!
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
Kryptik
> -=> Quoting G...@math.rochester.edu to All <=-
> Gt> How does one achieve the smooth, lustrous glowing surface that one
> Gt> sees in masterworks in museums? I am thinking, for instance, of the
> Gt> extremely accurate
> Gt> still-lifes of the 17th century or thereabouts, with things like
> Gt> copper or pewter objects, delicately-textured delicious pieces of
> Gt> bread, etc. The paint surface is completely flat, probably varnished,
> Gt> but it looks like it could be three-dimensional underneath.. is this
> Gt> just an optical illusion resulting from
> Gt> extremely accurate painting, or did the old masters use many layers of
> Gt> paint to
> Gt> achieve these effects? When I try it the paint just looks drab and
> Gt> flat, even if the colours are roughly the same. It looks so easy
> Gt> ("just paint what you see!"), but of course when you try to copy it,
> Gt> it is not so easy.
> Gt> Is there perhaps a book that describes the old techniques? Do people
> Gt> still know
> Gt> how to do sfumato, for instance?
Buy the book, The Artist Handbook by Ralph Mayer. It is probably one
of the best books on old master techniques. Also, 50 Secrets to Magic
Craftsmanship by Salvador Dali also has some good techniques and
advice.
Let it never die until the morrow.....
-Information for a Free Society 1995-
Vela Press
Vela Press
secrets).
I hope they help all of you to become better crafstsmen/women, so that IF
you do
have something important Aesthetically to say, it will be preserved for
posterity by
sound principles. GOOD LUCK.
Concepts, Materials, Procedures
by Louis Richard Velasquez
copyright 1995 all rights reserved
Over the years, I have created groups of letters that help me keep my
thoughts and
understanding focused on each area that is important to me in the creation
of my
paintings: Concepts, Materials, Procedures .
I. CONCEPTS:
As I paint and design and conceive a painting, I keep the letters: "SDCA"
present
and foremost in my mind. Each letter stands for an important area of
concentration.
My goal as an artist is to create paintings that will cause the viewer to
experience an
"aesthetic emotion". I believe my creative use of the following four areas
can
accomplish my goal.
S= SUBJECT: Any subject you can imagine or see, can be portrayed. Choose
any
subject. More important than the subject itself is... HOW you represent
it. How you
represent a subject is a reflection of your thoughts. It is your
originality and individuality
that counts. Without your individual creative imagination, there would be
no art.
*How do you want to represent it? Artists in history show us many
different ways of
portraying a particular subject. Ten artists will portray the same subject
ten different ways.
*Do you want to portray it realistically? ..or abstractly? or in any one
of a million ways?
*Remember that you are free to portray a subject any way you want to.
*There is only one rule in the field of "art creativity", and that
is.."there are no rules".
D= DESIGN: I feel strongly that "design" is the most important "element"
in a painting.
This art element is known by other names, such as ... composition,
structure, layout. I
believe that every masterpiece in painting has a "perfect" design. What
makes a perfect
design? There are books written about the various components of "design",
so the answer
is not a simple one.
*I believe a perfect design results from an extremely high level of
sensitivity of the spatial
relationships of all the component elements within the painting. It is
something felt, more
than can be explained.
*Artists traditionally have made preparatory drawings to decide the design
before
beginning the actual painting. Many (modern)post 19th century artists have
painted and
designed at the same time without any preparatory drawings, creating the
design as they
worked. Even the pre 19th century (old master)artists were open to
creative changes and
did a lot of spontaneous creative work.
* I believe the painting is finished when the design is the best one can
do, as every time the
painting is worked on, the design is changed.
C=COLOR: Color can profoundly move your emotions, but a masterpiece can be
painted
with Black and white only. So, you can do good work with limited colors.
Picasso, during
his youth and times of poverty, painted with a limited palette. He
created powerful works
with blue, white and black only, during his "blue period".
* Remember that "color" has three aspects to it. HUE: the color itself.
VALUE: the
degree of light or dark. CHROMA: the degree of brightness or dullness.
*Remember that artists have 5 basic color groups to work with : Reds/
Yellows/ Blues/
Blacks / and Whites.
*Remember that colors are either warm/cool/or neutral ..an example is a
cool red or a
warm blue, or a hot red and a cold blue. Blacks can be warm or cool as can
whites.
A=APPLICATION: Ten artists will apply the paint in ten different ways.
Paint
application shows whether the artist is masterful or not.
*A weak application, no matter in what manner it is applied, does not
instill admiration,
and lowers the quality of the painting.
* A masterful and exciting application gives the painting quality.
* Knowledge of various paint methods will increase your creative power.
Ignoring the
methods of the masters is limiting to your artistic growth.
* Artists must intimately know their materials, if they are concerned with
permanence.
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
II. MATERIALS:
Since many books cover this subject in great detail, I only mention the
key thoughts
that I need at hand as I work. I use the letters "SDMPT". Each letter
refers to an
important area of concentration.
S=SURFACE: The surface you paint on will affect the final result, so it is
the most
important thought as you begin. You have to decide..do you want a rough or
smooth
surface? Or something in-between? There are many different "supports" to
paint on, but
the surface is the most important consideration that must be settled. It
must be sealed
(rendered non-absorbent) and have at the least a slight tooth.
D=DRAWING: One does not have to draw the image on the surface before
painting, but
by doing so, the design is decided on and the work goes easier. It can be
more difficult to
draw and paint both at the same time. You can use any number of materials
or
combination of materials to draw with.: Charcoal/ Ink/ Watercolor/
Acrylic/ oil/ pastel/
Pencil/ etc. Fixative can be used on those that smudge. You can do
detailed drawing or
vague drawing. When drawing, remember the saying: "Vague design- Outline
define".
This means that you remain as vague and grey as possible throughout the
creative portion
and firm it up with darker more definite lines as you determine the
design.
M=MEDIUM: The medium one uses is so very important. If we choose Linseed
oil to
work with, you have to know there are several different conditions of the
Linseed oil and
more important to know something about how they act. There are several
ancient, old ,
and contemporary manuscripts and books on the subject of painting
materials and
techniques. Many have a variety of secret and not so secret recipes for
mixing the painting
medium. The four basic components of a medium are 1. Drying oils (like
Linseed and
others) 2. Essential oils (solvents like turpentine and oils) 3. Resins
(like damar, mastic,
copal, and others) 4. Driers (like lead, copper and others).
DRYING OILS:
* RAW linseed oil is slow to dry. Oil paint in tubes is ground/mixed with
raw oil so it
keeps longer in the tube. You do not need raw oil in your medium , you can
do without it.
*STAND OIL is linseed oil that has been heated. It causes your oil paints
to fuse better, to
flow and lie down like enamel and to dry faster. This makes a very good
medium. : one
part stand oil to 4 parts Solvent, or mix to your liking ( use Turpentine,
or if you don't like
turpentine, use turpenoid, or gasoline, or mineral spirits).
*SUN THICKENED LINSEED OIL: Cennini the Renaissance master claimed this to
be
the best oil. It is thick like honey. It makes your oil colors glow and
fuse and look like
enamel and dry faster and dry harder. You can use it to make your medium
:1 part oil to 4
parts solvent. Since solvent evaporates, one has to add a little more over
time.
DRIERS: You can do without them but they do help and are not detrimental
if used
sparaingly ..See Taubes' book."Oil and Tempera Painting, 500 questions and
answers"Published 1957 by Watson Guptill. (Note: Read up on Taubes at the
library .
From 1943 to the late 60's he was the author of "The Taubes Page" in
American Artist
magazine. Those old copies on Taubes are wonderful) Safe driers are Umber
and
Maganese Blue.
SOLVENTS:
One important purpose of the solvent is to aid the drying of the paint by
evaporation.
Solvents evaporate. They are also needed to clean your brushes.
Another use for solvents is when you paint over a dried surface, sometimes
the paint will
bead up. This is called "trickling". If this happens, first brush a little
solvent over the dry
paint surface and then let it evaporate. This is called "etching" the
surface. Now the new
paint layer will adhere to the dry surface. A comment about turpentine:
Turpentine has
"rosin" in it and as turpentine gets old, it can leave a sticky residue.
RESINS:
*As to resins (I am not discussing the modern synthetics like alkyds,
etc.) there are two
basic types. One is the soft resins and the other is the hard resins.
*The soft resins will ALWAYS be soluble with a solvent no matter how old
and dry it
gets. This is very important to know , because if you mix a soft resin
like damar as part of
your painting medium, it will always be susceptible to destruction by a
simple cleaning /
removal of a protective varnish.
* The hard resin is copal. My favorite teacher, Mr. Frederic Taubes
claimed that the
Flemish masters used Copal mixed into their painting medium. Many old
recipes mention
copal. Since it does not become soluble with solvents, a difficult and
lengthy procedure
has to be undertaken to liquefy it and mix it with the linseed oil. Mr.
Taubes' books
describe the procedure in great detail. True copal is now very hard to
locate. One of the
main USA producers, using Mr. Taubes' formulations, Permanent Pigments Co.
of
Cinninatti, Ohio. has discontinued its production.
* A recent book by the National Gallery of London covering the scientific
examinations of
several Rembrandt paintings, states that NO RESINS, either soft or hard
were found in
the analyzed paint samples. It appears that Rembrandt used Linseed oil and
a solvent only.
FAT ON LEAN: The traditional manner of using oil paints , if you paint in
layers, is to
make sure you paint Fat on Fat or Fat on Lean...Never Lean on Fat. This
means that if you
paint a layer of paint containing less (lean) oil in it , on top of a
dried layer that has more
oil (fat) in it, the new lean layer will crack and split as it dries.
WARNING: Do not paint with only turpentine as your medium. Some of the
impressionists did it and now their paintings lack proper binder for the
dry paint particles
and they are powdery. A healthy oil painting is shiny. Varnish cannot
substitute for the
lack of oil in the paint. It is only for temporary protection of the
paint. If your paint does
not have enough oil in it, when the varnish is removed on cleaning, the
paint will come off
with it.
VARNISH:
After a painting is dry, it is recommended that one spread a very thin
coat of varnish over
it to protect the paint surface. Varnishes last 25 to 50 years, then must
be removed and
reapplied. In the past, people used to revarnish the painting without
taking off the first
one. Rembrandt's famous "Night Watch" became so dark, it was named the
"Night
Watch". It really is an afternoon painting, not a night painting. Varnish
also yellows with
age. Whites look yellow and blues look green. So, varnishes need to be
removed
periodically.
*Varnishes are made with a soft resin and a solvent. 1 part resin to 3
parts solvent. They
can be easily removed by rubbing with a solvent.
*A retouch varnish is sometimes used by many persons in the creation of a
painting. This
is not safe because of the soft resin. Retouch varnish is 1 part resin to
8 parts solvent.
*It is preferable to brush a thin coat of solvent on the dry area, let it
evaporate, then with a
small rag apply a very thin coat of oil medium. There is no danger in
applying multiple
coats of this nature, but try to apply them thinly.
P=PAINT: The old masters did not have paint tubes. they mixed the powder
colors with
oil together. You will notice that some tube colors have a lot of excess
oil and others are
almost dry. First, you need to place the colors you will use, on an
absorbent paper so the
raw oil will blot out. Then with your palette knife, you can add a small
amount of Sun
thickened linseed oil to the paint and mix them together (Use the thick
honey like oil, not
the medium you mixed with solvent). This is called "conditioning" your
paint.
T=TOOLS: Bristle and sable brushes of different sizes and shapes. The
old masters used
many round bristle brushes. Bristle brushes "move " the paint around, and
sable brushes
caress the surface. With properly "conditioned" oils, both types of
brushes can be used to
blend. Blend with a dry brush while the paint is wet. You also need a
couple of knives to
mix the paint. Many modern painters paint only with knives. (Pollock didnt
even use
either).Over 300 years ago, Rembrandt painted with a combination of
brushes and knives
too. Wash the brushes with warm water and hand soap when finished. I will
not discuss
easels, rags, and other artist's equipment.
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
III. PROCEDURES:
Oil paintings can be painted "alla prima" all at once with no preparation,
or in stages. The
old masters perfected oil painting by painting in stages. The jewel like
beauty of old
Flemish oil paintings was achieved by having painted thin glazes of color
over light
surfaces. These paintings are over 500 years old and are as fresh as if
painted yesterday.
On the otherhand, recent modern paintings barely over 100 years old, are
faded, dry and
are in poor condition. The opposite of a glaze is a scumble. A scumble is
painting a light
color into a wet dark color or on top of a dark dry color. PERMANENCE is
important
and can be assured by following safe procedures. Our materials are
superior in many ways
to those used by the old masters.
As my guide when I paint, I use the letters PDUOF .
P-PREPARE: Preparation of the surface is like making a proper foundation
for a house.
It has to be solid if the painting is going to last. Many books can
describe in detail this
procedure. Ideally, it will be non-absorbent with a tooth. The tooth holds
onto the paint.
The non-absorbancy keeps the oil binder in the powder particles and
shields the support
from decay by the oil. You can paint direct on the white surface or you
can color the
surface.It must be dry before commencing forward.
*One way to color the surface is with a color wash called an" imprimatura"
that is brushed
or wiped over the entire surface. Use either an acrylic wash or an oil
wash. The acrylic
dries in one half hour the oil wash in 3 or 4 days.
*Another way is an opaque color or even two opaque colors or even a
multicolor
covering of the entire surface.
D=DRAW: One can use many different drawing materials to put down the
design. You
can use any number of materials or combination of materials to draw with.:
Charcoal/ Ink/
Watercolor/ Acrylic/ oil/ pastel/ Pencil/ etc.Ones that will smudge need
to be fixed.
U=UNDERPAINT:(I like to think of this as UNDERWORKING )
Underpainting can be simple or detailed and laborious., using either
THICK impasto or
thin applications. What you do not want is excess oil in the underlayers.
Of course the
thick paint takes longer to dry, retarding your progress. Rembrandt used
many many
techniques and was always experimenting. One of his methods was to lay in
a thick very
lean , mostly white lead underpainting, rough and filled with crevices.
This had to dry
thoroughly before overpainting. Van Eyck was known to have made highly
finished thinly
applied underpaintings as did Da Vinci. It can be done in several ways.
*If the underpainting is made with oil paints, one has to wait 4 to 6 days
or more for it to
dry.One good tip here is to mixed a small amount of umber with the flake
white (it is Lead
and very poisonous and dangerous, so a;lways wash good after using it.)to
where it
becomes an off-white. This mixture will dry quite fast (overnight with
THIN applications)
and hard and safely. For underpainting the off color does not matter.
* If you choose a warm color for the imprimatura, you can do an
underpainting in a cool
monotone called a "grisaille" (and visa-versa).
*The underpainting process lets the artist work and rework the images
until satisfied,
concentrating on the design and without worrying about the colors. Just as
importantly, it
allows one to make maximum preparation for the later applications of the
color
transparencies of the final glazes.
*Let the underpainting dry before beginning the overpainting.
* An underpainting can also be done in acrylic paints, IF, no oil paints
or mediums have
been used up to this point!! Experts say it is safe to paint oils on top
of acrylics but not
acrylics on top of oils. An acrylic underpainting dries in an hour or less
and lets one
proceed immediately with the overpainting. Many early old masters
underpainted in an
Egg Tempera paint and overpainted in oil paint. The advantage was a quick
drying
underpaint.
O=OVERPAINTING: (I like to think of this as OVERWORKING because you are
not
limited to only using a brush. You can scratch, chip, add sand, or,do
anything you want ).
Before beginning: With a rag , wipe either a clear coat of medium or a
color glaze on the
entire surface. Important: use only the least amount of oil medium
necessary. (Etch the
surface first with solvent if necessary). Now using your blotted/
conditioned oil colors,
paint alla prima in full color. You will find that you dont need to dip
your brush into the
medium as the conditioned paint spreads very easily on the wet glazed
surface. Here you
paint colors, details, brushwork, textures, as you paint your best
efforts, but knowing that
you will still need a final finish step. This overpainting portion can be
done over and over
again.
F=FINISH: The final finish step is done with final pure darks and pure
lights. The darks
are thin transparent and the lights are opaque. These final touches can
also include pure
color accents as well.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINAL COMMENTS: I have written this summary for the use of my friends. I
accept no responsibility for the results anyone
might have with their own artwork in following my comments. I encourage
everyone to experiment for themselves. There are solid
rules for permanence, but there are no rules in art creation or
imagination. You have no limits. Anything you can think about, you can
do. I believe there should never be any censorship of art with the
exception of portraying lewd or pornographic acts. My comments on
materials do not include information on alkyd paints and synthetic
mediums, as many good books describing these materials are on
the market. This information as written is copyright protected by myself.
Write: P.O. Box 4479 San Diego,Ca.92164
Vela Press
have read some of the discussion on oil techniques. three different
sections are currently open with discussion on that topic. yesterday I
posted a long info sheet on oil techniques on one of the discussion groups
. hope it helps . Some comments on your post of7/9/95 where you are at
odds with mani deli: In ignoring the putdowns that reflect poorly on
yourself, and concentrating on usable info, I would say; The techniques of
the old masters ARE simple. Like making an apple pie. But,If you dont know
how to make one it will not come out. Same with paint techniques. Once you
are shown how, it is simple and...nope, not so easy. a high degree of
skill a is needed for the crafstmanship to also rise to a high level. I am
not saying a "good" or "Real good" level..I am refering to the"optimum"
skill level of the masters. RE: preparing paint and the weeks
spent(wasted) preparing them by the old masters and the local store today
with availabilty NOW: FACT: the old masters entered the masters workshop
at age 12-13-and stayed 3 to 6 years as an apprentice.What a life! no TV,
no radio, no Disneyland, etc.The apprentice spent(wasted) HIS time doing
the color preparation...like a kitchen..like a pecking order..each year as
skill and knowledge was acquired by the apprentice he was entrusted with
more important tasks to the point where he was actually co-painting with
the master.and..the younger newer apprentices of the workshop did the
dirty low down scrub work of gringing. Like the chef of the kitchen, the
master was king. TUBE PAINTS: they are superior and readily available but
are poorly conditioned for painting in the old master techniques. The
paint is ground in "raw" oil (very slow drier with poor fusion ) for
current long shelf life(economic reasons). This condition can be remidied,
however...with the proper knowledge ..and instruction..and discipline.
RE:"painting was a craft and not an art" Sorry but you are right...but
wrong. A craftsman is a craftsman...like a carpenter. An artist is an
artist like an architect...ask a carpenter to build you a house and you
will wind up with a square with a window , door and roof. Habitable? for
sure , but aesthetically pleasing? dont think so...asak an architect to
"DESIGN" you a house and...I dont need to tell you the wonderful variety
of designs you can choose from...that you then ask the craftsman/carpenter
to build . It was the same with the old masters. The supreme art geniuses
of the old(and modern) masters is due to their creative vision PLUS their
extraordinary high craftsmanship. Art(painting) has been described as
"Inspired craftsmanship".
RE: the added strip of wood to the painting by...Raphael..It was in fact
Rubens. Re; the radiograph of smudges under the paint film..it was
velasquez. Listen: I didnot write this to argue, but to let you know my
experiences. I cannot understand why you and a couple of others engage in
putdowns...so unnecessary. By the way. When I posted my discovery of
Rembrandt's cryptic self portrait in "The man with the golden helmet" you
called that particular painting a "FAKE" Could you...qualify that claim?
Seroiusly, please give me your reasons for believing it not an authentic
Rembrandt painting. You were kind enough to mention Dr. Wilson Bryan Key ,
regarding "anamorphic" art. Since that date. I have spoken twice to him on
the phone. I sent him a copy of my book 'Rembrandt the man IN the golden
helmet". He wrote back a two page letterpraising my book as an important
contribution to art and the artists that createit. He also sent me an
autographed and dedicated hardbound copy of his book . We hope to meet
here in San Diego later this year. I also have received a fax from Lillian
Schwartz who wrote the article in the April/95issue of Scientific American
opn computer comparison of the Mona Lisa. She received my book and hopes
to include it in her proposed upcoming book"The cultural detective". Sorry
you turned down my offer to show you my discovery. Best of Luck...Louis
Velasquez
Joe Kazimierczyk
In article <3ukgq9$3...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, it...@mix.com (Itza Joqual) writes:
|>
|>Another point. Today's manufacturers of artist's paints formulate their
|>various pigments and lakes to be of uniform consistency and ready-to...
What is a 'lake'?
----------------
Joe Kazimierczyk
k...@bms.com
Vela Press
sunburned all ove rat the beach.Thank you. I like Reed Kays book, have
gone through the thick mayer but prefer Taubes. He is CCCC (the four C's)
Clear, concise,complete and correct.No extra BS. I sent you my
procedures. If they help, fine, if not, the round file is nearby.RE:
Driers: Nice quote from Mayer. Doesnt help the studio work much. I use
very little, of Cobalt linoleate, added 'Siccative"to the paint medium.I
also use umber and maganeseblue in mixtures. Nolo contendere. RE: Todays
paints: Sorry. The working reaction of your paints explain it all.
Grumbacher/Rembrandt/Etc. all bind their powders(and stabilizers& and
other fillers) with RAW oil. So it will keep. But if you are happy, do it.
I Blot out the raw oil, I recondition the "Body" of color with viscous Sun
thickened linseed oil, and it is a true joy to paint it thinly, or thickly
on a previously (so very slightly) oiled surface. It is magic!. Try it,
you will never go back to using oils right out of the tube. RE: Copal.
Yes Copal varnish (actual ingrediants???) is still produced. Best of luck
deep in the heart of Tejas!-- California Kid, Louis.
Itza Joqual
>What is a 'lake'?
Several famous ones are Huron, Erie, Michigan, and Superior.
Two of my favorites are Lakes Lugano and Louise.
In painting terms, though, to quote Mr. Taubes' The Painter's
Dictionary of Materials and Methods:
LAKE. A term used for a pigment produced by the precipitation
of a dyestuff on a substratum of a colorless base such
aluminum hydrate.
In other words, it is basically a paint made from a vegetable or
inorganic dye rather than ground pigment. Lakes are much less
light-fast than traditional pigments.
Incidentally, aluminum hydrate is one of the fillers used in cheap
artists colors usually refered to as Student Grade. Aluminum
stereate is another widely used filler.
Itza Joqual
Dear Louis,
Forgive the frivolous editing that follows. Having had my share of
sunburn growing up in sunny west Texas, I now use ample clothing
and sunblock whenever out of doors. I only had to have one of
those little carcinomas removed from my face to get the message.
> Got sunburned all ove rat the beach. It is magic!. Try it,
>you will never go back to using oils right out of the tube.
>RE: Copal.
>Yes Copal varnish (actual ingrediants???) is still produced. Best of luck
>deep in the heart of Tejas!-- California Kid, Louis.
I did not mean to imply there was anything wrong with your advice.
Like you, I have been studying methods and employing them for
more years than I willingly admit. I don't use paint as it comes from
the tube either, but I see many novices who do, and I guess that is
who the manufacturers formulate their paints for--the novice.
I've told the story here before, but it makes a point about today's
educational system in studio art. I watched one young student in
her senior year of studio painting struggling day after day to mix
and manipulate oil paint (she was using Winton tube colors)
without the benefit of a palette cup or any medium that I could see.
I finally said something to her, suggesting that she might find it
a lot easier to work if she would use a medium. Her reply to
me was "what is a medium?" Remember, she was in her
FOURTH YEAR of studio painting classes.
Itza Joqual
vela...@aol.com (Vela Press)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
Subject: Re: Oil-painting techniques of yore
Date: 19 Jul 1995 02:05:31 -0400
Dear Louis Richard Velasquez,
While it was very kind of you to go to all of the trouble of posting your :
<Concepts, Materials, Procedures>. It seems to me that anyone
wanting to delve into these details would be much better served by
referring to one of the several "bibles" on art materials and methods.
For painting, I find that Ralph Mayers' Artist's Handbook has more
comprehensive information than anything I ever read by Frederick
Taubes (not to diminish Mr. Taubes very substantial and important
contributions to the field of painting). Another excellent little reference
that I like is Reed Kays' The Painter's Guide to Studio Methods and
Materials.
I would like to elaborate on the reference you make to drying when
speaking of oil-based painting techniques. I realize "drying" is a
generally accepted term applied to what happens when paint sets up
hard to the touch (solidifies). It is however a simplification of the
chemical and physical changes which occur when pigments, oils,
solvents, and air react together. Oxidation and polymerization are two
very relative "drying" reactions that are variably affected by the
constituents that make up and are added to oil paints. When you
speak of adding a "drier" to the pallete it is more likely you are actually
referring to a catalyzer, or an additive that speeds the "drying"
reaction. Some authorities might refer to certain of the additives as
aldulterants, since they add nothing to the properties of the solidified
film, and may actually weaken it (paraphrasing Mayer).
Another point. Today's manufacturers of artist's paints formulate their
various pigments and lakes to be of uniform consistency and ready-to-
use, alleviating today's artists of a need to be concerned with their
formulations. What is important for the novice to realize is that you get
what you pay for in oil paints as in anything else. The cheaper tube
paints (sometimes identified as student grade) are heavily modified
(cheapened) to render them more economical than the "professional"
grades.
And one final point. Copal can come from a variety of sources, and
differing copals have different hardnesses. I suppose there was or is
one preferred source for artist's resins, but I doubt that all
manufacturers used the same source. Doesn't Grumbacher or
someone still make a copal varnish? I still have a bottle that is ages
old--I think it is a Taubes label.
Vela Press
the info. "You can lead a Burro to water but you cant make him drink" (
por eso el burro se llama un burro, y las personas que se portan igual se
les dicen "Burros". Adios Tejano--Luis del Estado dorado
sl...@cc.usu.edu
> In article <3ulic0$1...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, vela...@aol.com says...
> the tube either, but I see many novices who do, and I guess that is
> who the manufacturers formulate their paints for--the novice.
if your buying student grade paint anyway...
many manufacturers make some really great blends though too
(much more expensive usually though)
> I've told the story here before, but it makes a point about today's
> educational system in studio art. I watched one young student in
> her senior year of studio painting struggling day after day to mix
> and manipulate oil paint (she was using Winton tube colors)
> without the benefit of a palette cup or any medium that I could see.
> I finally said something to her, suggesting that she might find it
> a lot easier to work if she would use a medium. Her reply to
> me was "what is a medium?" Remember, she was in her
> FOURTH YEAR of studio painting classes.
^^^^^
if she was a senior at the end of four years of art school
she might not have been painting for four years... some programs
allow advanced students (by year, not classes taken) take advanced
studio courses...don't ask me why... just imagining it could have
been her first or second year of painting after two years of other courses...
though I'd admit, even that would be sorta strange...
what kind of paintings was the student attempting to make?
were they supposed to be jewel-like still-lives or thick
impasto abstractions or poignant thick self-portraits?
i don't know the whole story, so I suppose it's possible that the
school didn't inform the student adequetly about painting methods.
it could be that she knew the term "vehicle" but not "medium." A
language problem? or maybe she was smart and knew what mediums were
and just wanted to ask the teacher a stupid question to get some
feedback, any feedback (since the teacher had been watching her
"struggle day after day" instead of intervening very quickly...) Or
but it could just be that the student was an idiot, not the school.
she might have missed too many classes, she might have just barely
gotten through, she might have not paid attention on all those days
about painting techniques. she might not really be interested in
painting, or certain kinds of painting. Maybe both the school and
the student's fault? Who knows? What's your conclusion?
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
sl...@cc.usu.edu
>[clip]
> I Blot out the raw oil, I recondition the "Body" of color with viscous Sun
> thickened linseed oil, and it is a true joy to paint it thinly, or thickly
> on a previously (so very slightly) oiled surface. It is magic!. Try it,
> you will never go back to using oils right out of the tube.
Blotting can be tricky though, if you're trying not to waste
any pigments. Usually when painting this way I squish out a little
paint and then set the palette at an angle so that excess oils drip off
and then blot the oil off with a towel.
I think the bigger help is the thin layer of fine drying
oil on the painting surface. that's just about the best way to begin
layers and layers and layers of glazes. i like to do this after
making an intricate silverpoint drawing on gessoed panel (real
gesso, not the latex kind). only when I'm feeling incredibly patient tho ;)
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Wray Kephart
X -=> Quoting Kep...@crash.cts.com to All <=-
X X Gt> How does one achieve the smooth, lustrous glowing surface that one
X X Gt> sees in masterworks in museums?
X Ke> Damar varnish, stand oil, turpentine and dryer medium mixed with a
X Ke> small amount of pigment will produce a pure color transparency.
X You are more likely to get sticky wet and dry uneven sludge.
And you who have publicly distained psychic transmissions/transformations
and or possessions produce this statement.
X This is
X Ke> layered over an underpainting confined to light and dark areas of grey
X Ke> or sienna tonality.
X In other words a drawing. Hey who needs that.
YES! "The Painted Drawing Technique"; a *totally false* brand new
invented modern art term by Very Truly Yours inspired by Dont Bother
Thanking Me In Advance.
X These underpaintings of that time were fairly
X Ke> complete in themselves, the pigment transparencies created volume
X Ke> characterized by natural light sources <within the painting...
X I like this. Its "pigment transparencies that create volume." Just buy the
X right pigment and you'll get volume and a "natural light source" right inside
X the painting to boot.
Translation:
"You mean when a light sourse is focused on an object; volume is defined
optically <?!> has modern science been apprised of this observation yet?"
X Ke>... and detail
X Ke> definition.
X Come on K., detail and definition are out; that takes skill.
What if the skill is natural and needs no learning or practice said the
lower primate to the laboratory art scientologist.
X A very heavy varnish sealer was applied as the top coat
X Ke> giving the painting tremendous visual depth.
X Yea sure, depth. Wow now you can just go home and "achieve the smooth, lustrous
X glowing surface that one sees in masterworks in museums" according to Kephart
X (who suffers from a bad case of Picasso Eye).
In some cases it actually *magnifies* the image; revealing the microscopic
viral body. During cleaning processes, this virus <if airborne>
can infect the Museum employee who restores the finish; and will then spread
throughout human populations. There is no cure for virally caused Picasso
Eye.
X Ke> snip
X Md> Even many of those who claim to know classical technique know it on
X Md> an aphoristic bases (use this or that varnish, original materials and
X Md> small brushes etc.) rather then a technical one. The problem with
X Md> this is that it prevents one from tailoring an individual technique.
X Ke> Hey, OUCH!
X I guess you just looked at one of your paintings.
Eh? Guesses are for theoretical questions, flip a coin for
heads/guess again; tails/derive correct mathematical formula to
correspond with 'percieved' physical phenominon.
X Ke> There is nothing wrong with my 'paint by numbers' or
X Ke> Remmington and Rockwell for perfecting that technique.
X With what you indicate you know from the above I doubt that you could even
X paint by numbers.
Oh but I can, and if *clearly marked paint 'pot' A is the equivelent
to 'area' A I will produce a successful paint by alphabet <for the
advanced student> everytime.
X ... Catch the Blue Wave!
Its the one marked UNDERTOW.
Kephart
CAT
it...@mix.com (Itza Joqual) wrote:
>I've told the story here before, but it makes a point about today's
>educational system in studio art........<snip>....
>......I finally said something to her, suggesting that she might find it
>a lot easier to work if she would use a medium. Her reply to
>me was "what is a medium?" Remember, she was in her
>FOURTH YEAR of studio painting classes.
Same with graphic arts and other fields. I was telling this girl at work
to that a halftone would look better at a different place on the ad. She
looked puzzled and said, "What's a halftone? She has a 4 year degree in
graphic arts.
Wray Kephart
X These underpaintings of that time were fairly
X Ke> complete in themselves, the pigment transparencies created volume
X Ke> characterized by natural light sources <within the painting...
X I like this. Its "pigment transparencies that create volume." Just buy the
X right pigment and you'll get volume and a "natural light source" right inside
X the painting to boot.
You havent looked at enough fine art. While illustration rarely defines a
light source within its scene, any painting depicting representational
realism does; usually through a window <in the picture plane> or beyond
it. Generally, its directional; left/right/behind/frontal illuminating
the objects or subjects within the scene. No black paintings here.
Kephart
Peter MacLeod
: In article <3ulvog$m...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
: it...@mix.com (Itza Joqual) wrote:
[...]
: Same with graphic arts and other fields. I was telling this girl at work
: to that a halftone would look better at a different place on the ad. She
: looked puzzled and said, "What's a halftone? She has a 4 year degree in
: graphic arts.
Every year, lots of people graduate in every field without having learned a
thing, except maybe how to pass a course without learning anything.
Art is not unique in this respect. Such people go on to promising careers
in looking like they're working very hard without accomplishing anything.
Some schools are better than others, i.e. have the courage to flunk out
people who are not actually interested in learning something.
--P
JohnXFire
live sound engineer, ie doing sound for bands , concerts etc. at a show
with roberta flack last year we had a guy working with us who had a 4 year
degree in audio technology, from one of the best schools in the country.
he was asked for a "58" for a vocal mike( a shure sm 58 microphone, an
industry standard, EXTREMELY COMMON, and something that any musician who
had used a pa more than 3 time would know what it is, let alone someone
who had been to the best school in the country for recording arts) his
reply was " what's a 58????"........................................
chris rehm