Help with Oil Painting - still drawing with my toes...
Zen Monkey
I'm hoping there's someone around here that can help me out a bit.
Ok, so here's the story... I'm having problems getting smooth and
detailed oil paintings in the style of the old masters.. Now, here's
what is NOT the problem (hehe): I can draw in pencil, charcoal and
conte with proficiency and I can even paint in oils as long as it's
monochromatic (my grisaille underpaintings look good). What's worse is
that my knowledge and facility with color is good enough to work in
colored pencil and pastels with success. But I cannot for the life of
me figure out how to get color on the canvas with oils.
I've glazed drapery and simple (one color objects) with success using
Liquin over my Old Holland oils (my personal favorites). And after
adding simple highlights and shadows over the glaze, the drapery and
objects look pretty good. What I can't figure out is how to get subtle,
smooth blends with glazing (and in general, really) with success with
several different colors (with skin on the face, for instance). As I
said with colored pencil and pastels, I know *where* there color needs
to go... I just can't get it there in oils. It still feels like I'm
drawing with my toes -- the colors blend in places and with each other
against my will! ;-)
After screwing up two of my hard-won grisaille underpaintings last
night, I broke down and decided to ask for help :)... After all, I
feel confident that I'm not the only poor soul that's had this
problem...
thanks in advance!
Clint
Mani Deli
<daniel.c...@boeing.com> wrote:
>I've glazed drapery and simple (one color objects) with success using
>Liquin over my Old Holland oils (my personal favorites). And after
>adding simple highlights and shadows over the glaze, the drapery and
>objects look pretty good. What I can't figure out is how to get subtle,
>smooth blends with glazing (and in general, really) with success with
>several different colors (with skin on the face, for instance). As I
>said with colored pencil and pastels,
This is a major problem because these techniques are almost no longer
really taught because they require technical expertise. In the past
theyu were taught like music. Everyone learned the masters basic
methods and each artist then varied and added to it and attained a
personal technique.
I'll roughly outline what you need to know but it won't help much..
The opaque method- You have to mix separate strings of colors, lay
then in bands and then blend them with a soft brush. For this you have
to formulate the paint so that it covers, that it blends easily and
stays wet for as long as you need..
The glazing method- Here the paint on top depends on what's underneath
and the blending also necessitates an understanding of how to
formulate the paint.
Its very hard to figure out all this on your own but from a teacher
who knows the basic methods and the theory behind them it can be
learned in reasonable time.
I have always told students that if they draw a large rectangle and
they can do a clean blend from black to white, without going outside
the lines they have a start. You'lld be surprised how few are able to
do this.
An added approach for starters is to go to the museum and look at say
Holbein or an original Dali and you will see expertise in solving the
problem. Then go home and try to duplicate a detail. Take it back and
compare. I'll bet you won't be able to do it because it entails far
more than just the blend because besides that one has know how to
duplicate the finished surface.
Zen Monkey
to be true. Most teachers I've found do some kind of "loose" or
"painterly" work... and as best as I can tell, most of them do this out
fo necessity rather than from choice... I don't think they could do it
if they tried.
I've tried both of the methods that you suggest in some form
recently... The opaque method works wonderfully if you get it right the
first time (I'd post an example, but I don't know how to do pictures
here). But if you don't, I don't know if there's a way of correcting it
without using glazes or just painting over it (starting over,
essentially). I tried modifying a dry section with a similar method,
but the paint was not cooperative at all without using medium
(essentially making it a glaze).. As best I can tell, the only way to
preserve smooth blends over an opaque, dry layer is to glaze.
On that note, I'm almost certain I'm using the wrong kind of brush to
glaze. I have a Galeria (synthetic) flat that I'm using to glaze
initially and to blend after a few minutes for it to dry. I've heard
people say that a "soft" brush helps.. what kind would you recommend?
Red Sable or something like that? I've been afraid to use too soft a
brush with oils since I've heard that the softer hairs aren't very
resilient with oil based paints and thinners.
Also, as far as glazing goes, I've had a decent amount of success with
transparant or translucent colors (still not clear on how those differ)
and Winsor & Newton's Liquin Original. Am I correct in saying that
opaque colors (like titanium white and the cadmiums) do not glaze well?
Or is it just me? :) heh... Also, do you have a suggestion for a better
medium? I've heard that Maroger's medium is quite good, but I don't
have the alchemical skill to pull it off. Something decently thick and
smooth like Liquin wtih a mild siccative seems preferable (and from
what I can tell, these are decent criteria for a medium).
Sorry for the barrage of questions! I'm sufficiently isolated
geographically that I don't have access to a knowledgable teacher.
Thanks again!!
Zen Monkey
students' work? Are they generally affiliated with museums or shops?
I'm trying to avoid the university approach since it's so expensive and
tends to be less than personal - emphasis on the grade rather than the
art. I had a studio drawing class when I was an undergraduate and
didn't find the instruction to be particularly helpful. He'd come
around every 10 minutes or so and point out a deficiency... which most
of the time I could already see myself.
Is there a book or video series that might be useful? I've heard Daniel
Greene is good, but I don't want to spend $50 per tape on a hope. The
best book I have now is Sheppard's volume on the old masters'
paintings... but it lacks detail in important places on the techniques
that I'm struggling with.
chris
scumbling is done light over dark. (Glazing is ideally creates a thin
transluscent coat, scumbling leaves a very fine dusty sort of
covering). FWIW, 'transparent' coats let details show through;
'transluscent' coats let light through, but refract it enough to
obscure details. It's like the difference between a clear glass light
bulb and a frosted one, or a normal window pane and af rosted shower
door.
For a good intro book on basic color theory, scumbling, and glazing,
try Thomas Buechner's book (How I Paint: Secrets of a Sunday Painter) -
here's a link to the Amazon listing:
http://tinyurl.com/bp959
Also, get in touch with the Cowdisley mailing group on yahoo:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cowdisley/
there are many technically competent artists there who may be able to
help you.
Cheers;
CB
Mani Deli
<daniel.c...@boeing.com> wrote:
>I appreciate the info... Sadly, I've found what you said about teachers
>to be true. Most teachers I've found do some kind of "loose" or
>"painterly" work... and as best as I can tell, most of them do this out
>fo necessity rather than from choice... I don't think they could do it
>if they tried.
Most all art teachers today are the end result of at least four
generations of failure. They can't draw. They don't know technique.
They aren't interested in technique and they have been taught that
analyzing anything is not reqired and distracts from art. All they
really know is how to say is, its all emotional and you can't really
teach art. They will say this in every concievable permutation in
convoluted florid double talk in order to cover up their astounding
ignorance.
>
>I've tried both of the methods that you suggest in some form
>recently... The opaque method works wonderfully if you get it right the
>first time (I'd post an example, but I don't know how to do pictures
>here). But if you don't, I don't know if there's a way of correcting it
>without using glazes or just painting over it (starting over,
>essentially).
That's why you have to learn methods and get it right the first time.
Corrections in oil are possible but also require technical knowledge.
> I tried modifying a dry section with a similar method,
>but the paint was not cooperative at all without using medium
>(essentially making it a glaze).. As best I can tell, the only way to
>preserve smooth blends over an opaque, dry layer is to glaze.
OK I'll tell you the theory but I don't think it will help much.
Painting over a painted section in oil requires that the surface be
prepaired in such a way that the over-paint wets the surface evenly.
You can test this by painting a line of color on the surface. It has
to go on evenly. If it doesn't your surface needs to be altered.
>On that note, I'm almost certain I'm using the wrong kind of brush to
>glaze. I have a Galeria (synthetic) flat that I'm using to glaze
>initially and to blend after a few minutes for it to dry. I've heard
>people say that a "soft" brush helps.. what kind would you recommend?
One that works. If you were to blend a sky on a large canvas or a
small detail obviously different brushes are required.
> Red Sable or something like that? I've been afraid to use too soft a
>brush with oils since I've heard that the softer hairs aren't very
>resilient with oil based paints and thinners.
>Also, as far as glazing goes, I've had a decent amount of success with
>transparant or translucent colors (still not clear on how those differ)
Translucent behave differently from transparent as does opaque.
Understanding this is very important.
>and Winsor & Newton's Liquin Original. Am I correct in saying that
>opaque colors (like titanium white and the cadmiums) do not glaze well?
They are opaque pigments and behave like that. There is a lot to learn
about pigments like opacity, how fast they dry and how they mix with
on another.
>Or is it just me? :) heh... Also, do you have a suggestion for a better
>medium? I've heard that Maroger's medium is quite good, but I don't
>have the alchemical skill to pull it off. Something decently thick and
>smooth like Liquin wtih a mild siccative seems preferable (and from
>what I can tell, these are decent criteria for a medium).
Which mediums to use requires an analytical approach to get what you
want. Unfortunately I find no literature on these subjects. In the
past artists would go to Europe to learn classical methods.
>Sorry for the barrage of questions! I'm sufficiently isolated
>geographically that I don't have access to a knowledgable teacher.
>Thanks again!!
I don't know where to find good teachers. They must be around because
fine artwork is still being steadily produced.
Mani Deli
>> I'll roughly outline what you need to know but it won't help much..
>
>LOL!
>
>Mani Deli on painting is like John Wayne Gacy on child care.
Well, anyone here can look at my work at
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
and decide that for themselves
Iv 'e yet to hear anything from Bimbo White that addresses my points.
>Look around for a teacher to help you. Lots of people know how to do this,
>and how to teach it. Look at their work and their students' work.
I have said this for years. If the teacher can't draw and the students
turn out garbage, don't waste your money. And that goes for 99% of
universities. Just look at the crap they turn out. Its all over the
net.
> Mani has
>no idea what's being taught today. Good luck!
Hey Bimbo how's your painting of the train you showed five years ago
coming along?
Zen Monkey
Well Mani, although you appear to have drawn some ire from others in
the community here at times, I agree wtih a lot of what you had to say
on your site... and also enjoyed your work. Of course, I'm biased in
that regard since Dali is one of my favorite painters.
You seem to imply, though, that one needs developed technical skill to
produce good art. As is the case with modern music, worthwhile music
doesn't always come rom those that are gifted technically (in fact, I
would say that it rarely does.. good pianists, certainly... but they
don't write what they play most of the time). I think the same can be
said for painting. I personally think that it helps an awful lot for
someone to be skilled technically... and it's a glaring fault for many
aspiring artists and musicians... but it is not the sine qua non of
good art.
Zen Monkey
far.
What you said about glazing makes sense... I'm slowly discovering this.
Glazing seems to, by and large, add color and make things slightly
darker. It has an odd effect with the lighter pigments that I can't
quite figure out yet. I'll have to play with the
translucent/transparent colors and see what happens. It sounds like
transparent adds color only while translucent is actually a bit more
opaque than transparent, causing an obscuring of sorts. .. I don't
know.. I'm just fumbling around in the dark right right now and bumping
into a lto of things.. but learning a lot in the process :)
Zen Monkey
>>I've tried both of the methods that you suggest in some form
>>recently... The opaque method works wonderfully if you get it right the
>>first time (I'd post an example, but I don't know how to do pictures
>>here). But if you don't, I don't know if there's a way of correcting it
>>without using glazes or just painting over it (starting over,
>>essentially).
>
>That's why you have to learn methods and get it right the first time.
>Corrections in oil are possible but also require technical knowledge.
Can you give me any more detail on this.. or a website or book
somewhere, maybe? I'm used to being able to correct and refine my
drawings/pastels/etc. with increasing detail and accuracy... I'm just
missing some of the general concepts for this in oil.... which makes it
awfully difficult to discover things by experience.. it almost has to
be an accident. It happens and it's wonderful when it does.. but I feel
as though I would learn things much faster if I had just a little push
in the right direction
>Painting over a painted section in oil requires that the surface be
>prepaired in such a way that the over-paint wets the surface evenly.
>You can test this by painting a line of color on the surface. It has
>to go on evenly. If it doesn't your surface needs to be altered.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by having the surface properly
prepared. Are you speaking of applying medium before applying paint? I
definitely know what you're talking about when it goes wrong, though!
The paint goes on roughly and jerky... REALLY screwing things up...
then I blend it a bit and it goes everywhere... then I get frustrated
and wipe it off :)
Bob C
> But if you don't, I don't know if there's a way of correcting it
> without using glazes or just painting over it (starting over,
> essentially). I tried modifying a dry section with a similar method,
> but the paint was not cooperative at all without using medium
> (essentially making it a glaze)..
I usually create my opaque blends in 2 or more applications, with at
least 3 if I'm trying to cover a large area. It's much easier than
trying to do it all at once and gives you more control over the final
result. I use a little bit of medium with each layer, but not so much
that I'd call it glazing. Even so, putting down a thin layer of opaque
paint is still going to let a lot of what's underneath show through. If
the colors are close enough they blend together and you don't notice,
but you can create some more complex and interesting blends by
intentionally layering different colors or layering light over dark.
>
> On that note, I'm almost certain I'm using the wrong kind of brush to
> glaze. I have a Galeria (synthetic) flat that I'm using to glaze
> initially and to blend after a few minutes for it to dry. I've heard
> people say that a "soft" brush helps.. what kind would you recommend?
> Red Sable or something like that? I've been afraid to use too soft a
> brush with oils since I've heard that the softer hairs aren't very
> resilient with oil based paints and thinners.
For oil glazing and detailed painting, I like the W&N Monarch Brushes as
having the right blend of body and softness, and also for balancing
price and quality. It's supposed to be a synthetic Mongoose. For fine
details, I'll use a red sable brush or a synthetic imitation. For
finishing up a really fine blend, I've use a Monarch fan brush.
>
> Also, as far as glazing goes, I've had a decent amount of success with
> transparant or translucent colors (still not clear on how those differ)
> and Winsor & Newton's Liquin Original. Am I correct in saying that
> opaque colors (like titanium white and the cadmiums) do not glaze well?
Depends on what you're trying to accomplish with the glaze. It you want
to create deep, glowing color with multiple layers of glaze than you
can't use the opaque pigments. But there are times when the opaques give
you the quality you're after. I find that it usually helps to include at
least some opaque pigment when trying to create a natural looking green.
> Or is it just me? :) heh... Also, do you have a suggestion for a better
> medium? I've heard that Maroger's medium is quite good, but I don't
> have the alchemical skill to pull it off.
Gamblin's Neomegilp is a synthetic medium which is supposed to replicate
the qualities of Maroger's medium but without turning yellow or brittle
with age. It's a bit more of a gel than Liquin is. I'm currently using
it for all of my glazing except when trying to cover large areas, in
which case I prefer to use any of several synthetic liquid glazes (I
used to use the traditional oil/turp/varnish mix but eventually decided
to banish all turp from my studio). There's a huge variety available,
some which speed drying and some which slow it down, some specifically
designated as lean and others as fat. They all work very well, assuming
you don't try to save money by getting one of the cheapest ones available.
- Bob C.
NightMist
<daniel.c...@boeing.com> wrote:
Just picking a post and diving in here....
The technique you describe sounds very much like what I do,
glazeing over a grisaille or other monotone.
Only I am working in acrylic at present.
>
>On that note, I'm almost certain I'm using the wrong kind of brush to
>glaze. I have a Galeria (synthetic) flat that I'm using to glaze
>initially and to blend after a few minutes for it to dry. I've heard
>people say that a "soft" brush helps.. what kind would you recommend?
>Red Sable or something like that? I've been afraid to use too soft a
>brush with oils since I've heard that the softer hairs aren't very
>resilient with oil based paints and thinners.
You do want a soft brush for glazing, and you want a decent quality
brush as well. I have actually done glazing in acrylic with galleria
brushes, it is doable, but they are not my first choice.
Sable is a good choice, but there are others. If you are miserly in
your use of spirit based cleaners, sable will last a fair bit of time
with oils. Oils are nothing like as hard on natural brushes as
acrylics. If you are really nervous about sable, try fitch or
mongoose. Fitch has gotten kind of tough to find anymore, but it
works well for glazing and is noticably longer lived than sable.
Mongoose is also tougher than sable and is very nice indeed for
glazing.
For final layers I have been fond of badger for years now. If you
want that perfectly smooth surface with no brushstrokes, it is hard to
beat a good badger brush.
Personally, I do not care for W&N natural brushes. It has been my
experience that the hair brushes are skimpy and poorly bundled, and
the bristle brushes are trimmed instead of crafted and shed like a
bitch. I have become quite fond of some of their synthetics on the
other hand.
Paying more for natural brushes is often the most economical course in
the long run. They last longer and work better.
>
>Also, as far as glazing goes, I've had a decent amount of success with
>transparant or translucent colors (still not clear on how those differ)
>and Winsor & Newton's Liquin Original. Am I correct in saying that
>opaque colors (like titanium white and the cadmiums) do not glaze well?
>Or is it just me? :) heh... Also, do you have a suggestion for a better
>medium? I've heard that Maroger's medium is quite good, but I don't
>have the alchemical skill to pull it off. Something decently thick and
>smooth like Liquin wtih a mild siccative seems preferable (and from
>what I can tell, these are decent criteria for a medium).
Technically, translucent is in between transparent and opaque.
it allows light to pass through, but images are obscured. Transparent
means you can see right through to the other side clearly. In actual
use the terms translucent and transparant are often used
interchangably with no regard to the niceties of language.
So far as the opaque colors go, you can glaze with them.
It takes practice to get the right balance of medium to pigment, but
it is doable. Indeed, since I use opaque yellows in my flesh tones I
have had a lot of practice in getting opaque colors to glaze right.
Finding the right glazing medium is important. You sound fairly happy
with liquin which is fine. Back in the day when I could use oils
(kids, cats, and a husband who is seriously sensitive to white spirits
of all sorts, made me switch) I would meander around between wax
mediums and straight up poppy oil. This of course meant that my
paintings took forever and a day to dry. All mediums, for glazing and
anything else, have their advantages and disadvantages. Had it been
readily available to me at the time I probably would have embraced
alkyd mediums enthusiasticly.
Dark to light is the generally accepted progression.
However light to dark (as for a watercolor) can also give the desired
result.
Just be patient while each layer is drying. The liquin will help
there, alkyds dry so much faster than straight oils. Having several
paintings in progress at once might be a notion. Woking on one while
another is drying will keep you from looking at the drying one too
much. Avoiding temptation and suchlike stuff.
Barbara
--
The wolf that understands fire has much to eat.
Zen Monkey
... and the W&N blender
So do you let your opaque layers dry before applying the next opaque
layer? I've had problems doing this smoothly. I guess a little medium
would smooth things out..
Zen Monkey
unfortunately, I have neither at the moment. I'll have to see about
finding a natural hair blender. The natural hairs that I have (except
for bristle) are definitely softer than the synthetics.
I'm doing a bit better with glazing now... darker colors and "lakes"
seem to be the best. My Naples Yellow and Titanium White are yet the
most resistant to my best efforts :)
I got ever so slight hints of success at lunch when I glazed the flesh
tones again in my copy of Maretta's Penitent Magdalene. It's amazing to
see the almost paint-by-number first glazes spring to life when they
have the right tones added! Of course, the rest of the time was spent
trying unsuccessfully to recapture that glory elsewhere in the painting
:) haha.. oh well, I'll keep trying.
Sage advice on having more than one going at once. That's what I'm
doing now and it's working out nicely. thanks for your help!
Bob C
That's how I've been doing it, mostly for painting backgrounds. Put
something in quickly which is pretty close to what I want but don't
spend a lot of time on it. Let it dry, then do it again (twice even)
with enough medium that it appears to blend evenly with the first layer
so that you don't even notice there is more than one layer (unless you
specifically want that effect). Then, when you've had a chance to look
at it with all of the other colors in the painting finished, you can
come back one more time to get the color just right - or however many
times is necessary, usually adding more and more medium each time.
I do keep several paintings going at once. The biggest downside to this
is that I sometimes go long periods where I keep starting new ones
instead of finishing the ones which are half done. Right now I've got
about 10 of them in various stages of completion, 3 which should have
been done a long time ago, although I think I'm just one more
application away from finishing one of them :)
- Bob C.
Mani Deli
<daniel.c...@boeing.com> wrote:
>You seem to imply, though, that one needs developed technical skill to
>produce good art.
> As is the case with modern music, worthwhile music
>doesn't always come rom those that are gifted technically (in fact, I
>would say that it rarely does.
Not always, but most all the time.
Indeed when painting is admired for its chimpanzee level and the elite
equate music with noise while most don't give a damn about either, one
can assert that technique accounts for almost nothing..
chris
Out of curiosity, could you point out what you would consider
worthwhile music created by someone not skilled? FWIW, lumping
performers & composers together is a bit of a blind alley, as would be
insisting playwrights be actors, or aircraft engineers be pilots.
There's often overlap ( like Shakespeare for the former, and Howard
Hughes for the latter), but by and large they are independent
activities.
Cheers;
CB
Zen Monkey
themselves... great songwriters, though. It shows that the two skills
are separate. So, similarly, an artist could be a wonderful composer of
paintings without having great technical facilities... and still
produce worthwhile art.
One could even argue that the Beatles might not have written the same
quality music if they had spent their lives building technical
proficiency.
I agree that technique is a good thing in the majority of cases... but
not always.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> Indeed when painting is admired for its chimpanzee level and the elite
> equate music with noise while most don't give a damn about either, one
> can assert that technique accounts for almost nothing..
>
'almost' - yes, that's it 'almost' - nothing to be said for technique.
Well, well, the modern world must be getting to you.
sir_haxalot
http://www.geocities.com/~jlhagan/advanced/chapter6.htm
that defines exactly how to do advanced painting techniques, similar to
what was used on the painting shown here:
http://www.geocities.com/~jlhagan/advanced/images/Joris2.jpg
As others point out, the fastest way to learn it is to get instruction
in person from someone that can do it. However, when you see someone
really doing it, all of the magic and mystery will be gone for you from
that style of painting. It can be a let-down that there's not some
magical skill involved other than patience -- it is extremely
mechanical; it's not a spontaneous style of painting at all. In my
figurative painting classes, I was shocked at how imprecise your
painting work can be and still yield a high degree of "finish" on hair,
clothing materials, glass, metal,etc because of subsequent layering and
blending. It is much harder to get those effects with quick,
improvised brushwork (i.e. the fabrics in Goya's portrait paintings).
chris
I guess I'd say that anyone that consider the Beatles great art is
someone that does not differentiate between entertainment and
enlightenment. Out of curiosity, what do you find great about their
work? Personally - and I realize this is not a widely shared concept
any more - but art for me is something that increases my awareness of
the world and my relationship to it (for a good essay on this, read
Harold Bloom's essay "The Art of Reading Poetry", and then generalize
the ideas).
Having grown up in the Beatles era, buying & listening to their recors
(though Frank Zappa got played more chez nous), and seeing them on the
original Ed Sullivan show & live at least once at the old DC Forum, I
really can't say that they represented much more than a real
group-think phenomenon, though luckily moderately benign.
Cheers;
CB
Zen Monkey
first rate... some passages are far better than others... but his work
is outstanding.
Zen Monkey
him now after Chris recommended the cowdisley forum for artists on
Yahoo... thanks!