Learning to paint.
CR
right now
(maybe this summer). What is a good beginner book for learning to
paint? What method is easiest? Watercolor? Does she need to learn to
sketch first? Please help, I'm totally clueless!!!
Thanks!
Chuck.
Bob C
> My wife wants to learn to paint. She doesn't have time for classes
> right now. What is a good beginner book for learning to
> paint? What method is easiest? Watercolor? Does she need to learn to
> sketch first? Please help, I'm totally clueless!!!
>
Acrylic paint is probably the easiest to start with. You can get it
cheaply, it dries fast, you can paint over mistakes, and you can paint
on almost anything.
Having basic drawing skills is usually a good pre-requisite for learning
to paint, although it can be skipped for someone who likes working out
their ideas in paint, or is simply looking for a cookbook
paint-by-the-numbers approach to being able to create some pretty pictures.
Instructional books for beginners are hard to recommend, since different
things work for different people. One of the best things you can do is
go to the library and skim through the many instructional books they
have and simply find one that you like the looks of. If it doesn't work,
you return it and get another.
- Bob C.
C. Zun Skretene
says...
Buy her a set of beginner colors in
whatever medium she decides to work in.
I second the recommendation to begin
with acrylics. Beginners sets usually
come with a couple of brushes and a
small instruction book. And I second the
suggestion for her to pick out books
from your local library to begin learning.
There must be literaly thousands of "how
to" books available.
Michael
I think oils are easier than acrylics, but both are easier than watercolor.
First get a good drawing book like Betty Edwards "Drawing on the Right Side
of the Brain". Do some charcoal sketches if you like, if not jump into
painting. I recommend Sovek's "Oil Painting: Develop your Natural Ability"
which you can get used from ebay or new from his website (www.sovek.com).
It's a great book for beginners, I just got it and am starting it now.
michael
Thur
give the quickest results for the lowest investment.
Pleasing results obtained after say two hours
assisted by a tutor cannot be bad.
However, as another poster has mentioned, the
technical demands made by watercolours mean
that it is a challenge to progress from beginner
stage.
One thing that attracted me to start this way was
admiration for the works of watercolourists.
In my narrow experience, the prospect of the company
of many others of like skill, does attract a certain
type at this stage, and this is the medium that attracts
the greatest numbers in my corner of the UK.
Remember that high quality tutoring can be tried out
first on video, and may help decide the way to go.
Thur
"Michael" <please_do...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:brooam$dhq$1...@news-reader1.wanadoo.fr...
NightMist
In some respects this is correct.
However if you have children or pets and no place to keep drying
paintings well away from them, acrylics are a better idea.
I second the recomendation for a good drawing book as an intro to
painting.
Barbara
--
My karma ran over my dogma
Flobby Bischer
Get her acrylics, skip things like flow medium or retarder. OR get her
watercolors because they are fun and easy and very much like drawing. There
are more watercolor method books than there are acrylic or oil (unless you
want to piant crappy still lives like so and so.)
Do not get Betty Edwards' book, it just plain sucks.
Working from life is best, but photos will do if she wants to see if she
likes painting.
The great thing about watercolors is the ease of storing, working, and it
all washes with water.
Good luck and have fun !
CR
> CR wrote:
>
> > My wife wants to learn to paint. She doesn't have time for classes
> > right now. What is a good beginner book for learning to
> > paint? What method is easiest? Watercolor? Does she need to learn to
> > sketch first? Please help, I'm totally clueless!!!
> >
>
>
> Acrylic paint is probably the easiest to start with. You can get it
> cheaply, it dries fast, you can paint over mistakes, and you can paint
> on almost anything.
>
> Having basic drawing skills is usually a good pre-requisite for learning
> to paint, although it can be skipped for someone who likes working out
> their ideas in paint, or is simply looking for a cookbook
> paint-by-the-numbers approach to being able to create some pretty pictures.
This is probably a stupid question, but do they really make "paint by
numbers"? I was in a hobby shop yesterday and I didn't see anything
like that. I would think that would be a good way to start to get some
immediate gratification.
Thanks for the advice! I'm glad I asked. I had no idea about acrylic
painting.
Argon3
on sale at the Michael's arts and crafts stores and Hobby Lobby and the like.
I saw a Daler-Rowney set with a sketchbox/easel, paints, brushes, a couple of
canvas panels and stuff for $48 bucks (oil or acrylic version) yesterday. Look
around.
Yes, they do really make paint-by-numbers sets! Still around. Again,
Daler-Rowney (I'm not on their payroll...really) makes some cool ones...my wife
found one that was a Harry Potter themed set with a picture of the Hogwarts
train leaving the platform for my son...you might not like Harry Potter but the
image was pretty good and the set seems pretty complete. Lots of corny
paint-by-numbers stuff (kitties, puppies, horsies....you get the idea)
available and there are a few sets that have "masterpieces" (Last Supper, the
Blue Boy...again, you get the idea) around. I don't think that your average
art supply store will carry them but, again, check Hobby Lobby or Michael's.
Both of these stores have some radical sales on tube colors or brushes or
whatever every few weeks...good to pick up the odd item at a discount.
argon
Marc Sabatella
> This is probably a stupid question, but do they really make "paint by
> numbers"? I was in a hobby shop yesterday and I didn't see anything
> like that. I would think that would be a good way to start to get some
> immediate gratification.
It is, in more or less the same way that taking a photograph is as well.
It isn't particularly good traning for art, though, in that you don't
learn much of value from the experience. To make another analogy, it's
like training for a marathon by driving a car 26 miles every day. you
see the same scenery, reach the same finish line, but haven't actually
improved your running skills.
For what it's worth, I haven't seen gouache mentioned as a good
beginner's medium. In theory, at least (I have no significant
experience with it), it combines the convenience of watercolor with the
opacity - and hence relative ease of control - of acrylic. Still has a
tendency to run all over the place like watercolor, though. Seems it
would be especially well suited for kids, though, in that most already
have some experience with watercolor from those little toy sets, and
there is less danger of them making a permanent mess of the house.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
C. Zun Skretene
>For what it's worth, I haven't seen gouache mentioned as a good
>beginner's medium. In theory, at least (I have no significant
>experience with it), it combines the convenience of watercolor with the
>opacity - and hence relative ease of control - of acrylic. Still has a
>tendency to run all over the place like watercolor, though.
You hit the nail on the head when it comes
to learning to watercolor - lack of control!
Contrary to what most people believe, watercolor
is the HARDEST of all mediums to master. UNLESS
of course you use only dry brush technique, which is how
most of quoache is done.
The assumption that watercolor is "easy" comes
from that childhood experience you mention. Just
because children are allowed to "play" with it
because it is relatively safe, compared to other
mediums, doesn't mean it's "child's play" when
it comes to learning to master traditional methods.
Joe
and local galleries often. You can learn a lot by
looking closely at other artists works - in person, not
from photographs in book - that way you can really get
some insight into another artist's technique. That
helped me a lot when starting out, and still does. As
she paints more and more, she'll be able to look at the
same painting, and learn more and more from it every time.
--
Joe
http://www.joekaz.net/
http://www.cafeshops.com/joekaz
NightMist
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>"CR" <cr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is probably a stupid question, but do they really make "paint by
>> numbers"? I was in a hobby shop yesterday and I didn't see anything
>> like that. I would think that would be a good way to start to get some
>> immediate gratification.
>
>It is, in more or less the same way that taking a photograph is as well.
>It isn't particularly good traning for art, though, in that you don't
>learn much of value from the experience. To make another analogy, it's
>like training for a marathon by driving a car 26 miles every day. you
>see the same scenery, reach the same finish line, but haven't actually
>improved your running skills.
Actually thery is one important point that paint by numbers can teach.
But it hasn't much to do with actual technical skill.
They are an illustration of how the eye will mix colors that are side
by side.
If you look at a paint by number up close, they look like crap.
If you stand back several paces from them, the eye blends the segments
and they look better. OK, they still look like crap, but they look
like _blended_ crap. It's a good illustration of the phenomenon for
kids and the inexperienced.
My kid has been doing them for a few years. She is still working on
her drawing skills and they are a nice relaxing foray into art for
her. She does the paint by number as directed, then she gets out her
paint box and "fixes" them.
I will be very glad when she moves out of the preadolescent puppies,
kittens, and ponies phase.
C. Zun Skretene
>I will be very glad when she moves out of the preadolescent puppies,
>kittens, and ponies phase.
Revel in the fact that she hasn't would be my suggestion.
I have granddaughters in their teens who still
enjoy coloring in coloring books. And yes, they
are perfectly "normal" teenagers in every way.
While I wish they'd be more experimental with
their "art" - I think their parents are simply
happy that they can fill their idle time in
any healthy way, knowing the temptations kids
face otherwise these days.
Bob C
>
>>This is probably a stupid question, but do they really make "paint by
>>numbers"? I was in a hobby shop yesterday and I didn't see anything
>>like that. I would think that would be a good way to start to get some
>>immediate gratification.
>>
Actually, when I first mentioned this concerning the need for drawing
skills as a prerequisite to painting, I was referring more generically
to any kind of "cookie-cutter" approach - which could include
paint-by-numbers or also a Bob Ross-like approach where you get taught
specific ways to make a tree, a lake, etc. Drawing skills are not nearly
as important in that kind of painting.
Drawing skills are also not of great importance if somebody's motivation
for painting is experimenting with colors or experiencing the tactile
pleasures of playing with paint. Or a person may simply have decided
that they want to express themselves in a way in which only paint can do it.
I did neglect to mention that watercolor can be relatively easy and
gratifying when done basically as colored drawings, something which
others have touched on in this thread. In that technique, you might
sketch something in pencil first and then fill in the colors with a
relatively dry brush - not wet enough to allow bleeding to occur. An
advantage to this is that you get to paint and learn drawing at the same
time, and the beginner might be able to create some reasonably pretty
pictures.
- Bob C.
CR
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:49:21 -0700, "Marc Sabatella"
> <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>
> >"CR" <cr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This is probably a stupid question, but do they really make "paint by
> >> numbers"? I was in a hobby shop yesterday and I didn't see anything
> >> like that. I would think that would be a good way to start to get some
> >> immediate gratification.
> >
> >It is, in more or less the same way that taking a photograph is as well.
> >It isn't particularly good traning for art, though, in that you don't
> >learn much of value from the experience. To make another analogy, it's
> >like training for a marathon by driving a car 26 miles every day. you
> >see the same scenery, reach the same finish line, but haven't actually
> >improved your running skills.
>
> Actually thery is one important point that paint by numbers can teach.
> But it hasn't much to do with actual technical skill.
I think I'm still going to get the paint by numbers kit - just an easy
one to get started. Would it be a good idea to buy some quality
brushes instead of using the ones that come in the kit? I'm assuming
the kit brushes are crappy.
Thanks!
Marc Sabatella
> one to get started. Would it be a good idea to buy some quality
> brushes instead of using the ones that come in the kit? I'm assuming
> the kit brushes are crappy.
Probably so. Likely to be softer than they should, and smaller. Get
some slightly larger bristle brushes. Size will depend on the size of
the shapes to be colored in in your kit. The ones provide will work
well enough for the intended purpose, I suppose. But then, if you do
ever decide to take up painting for real, you'll already have some
decent brushes.
One more comment on the idea of paint by numbers as an introduction to
painting. Like I said, it produces something that looks like a
painting, but the process is so different, it doesn't really help you
learn to paint. I'm a musician by trade, and posted some in a music
newsgroup yesterday that seems just as appropriate here. Very similar
circumstances, actually - someone was proposing using some pre-arranged
sheet music as an introduction to learning to play jazz (which normally
involves you figuring out for yourself what notes to play much of the
time), which is quite similar to using paint-by-numbers as an
introduction to learning to paint (which normally involves you figuring
out for yourself what paints to mix and where to put them).
So, after the student asked about sheet music to learn jazz from, and I
suggested they jump right in and start learning to improvise using a
"fakebook", I wrote the following:
Usually, if I suggest this, the student will protest "if I play the
arrangement, I will sound OK right away, because I already know how to
play from written notes. Whereas if I try to play from the fakebook
without knowing what I am doing, I will suck".
This leads me to formally propose Marc Sabatella's Law of Sucking
(suitable for framing):
When learning a new skill, there is no avoiding this truth: you're going
to suck at the new skill for a while, until you work on it enough to
improve. You thus have two options. You can start working on the new
skill now, sucking right away and getting it over with, leaving you in a
position to improve sooner rather than later. Or you can continue to
work within your comfort zone, doing what you already know how to do,
putting off your sucking - and with it, your opportunity for
improvement - until whenever you *do* decide to try the new skill. But
no amount of stalling by continuing to do what you already know how to
do is going to reduce how badly or how long you suck when you finally do
get around to trying the new skill. Suck now or suck later - it's your
choice.
Dilettante
> I think I'm still going to get the paint by numbers kit -
No, don't do this. Waste of time.
D.
Michael
watercolor.
> >First get a good drawing book like Betty Edwards "Drawing on the Right
Side
> >of the Brain". Do some charcoal sketches if you like, if not jump into
> >painting. I recommend Sovek's "Oil Painting: Develop your Natural
Ability"
> >which you can get used from ebay or new from his website (www.sovek.com).
> >It's a great book for beginners, I just got it and am starting it now.
> >
> In some respects this is correct.
> However if you have children or pets and no place to keep drying
> paintings well away from them, acrylics are a better idea.
This is definitely true! I didn't think of it. Plus oil paints are messy
(one reason I love knife painting, very little cleanup).
Michael
One more piece of advice: Michael's is VERY expensive if it's not on sale.
If you can get a 50% off coupon which they have in the papers now and then,
it's a bargain. But otherwise it's expensive. Order online, I use
dickblick.com and they have great service. Prices are very good.
Another idea, you can get her started like I did: Tape a couple of Bob
Ross's "Joy of Painting" shows and try to follow along. You don't need to
buy his paints, they're expensive, but you will need to buy his liquid white
unless you make it yourself.
Michael
Holly Daze
please_do...@hotmail.com says...
>One more piece of advice: Michael's is VERY expensive if it's not on sale.
Walmart's "hobby section" carries very good
beginner paint sets. And a variety of paints
of different types, both for easel artists
and crafters. In fact I just bought two of
the "juvenile" paint-by-numbers kits for
Xmas presents for kids I know. Also, I like the
small squeeze bottles of pearlescent acrylics
that Walmart sells. They are ideal for craft
projects where a fine line is wanted, or
for 'lettering' with - which is what I use
them for - allows me to write in a flowing
script style.
st...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk
"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> writes:
...
>For what it's worth, I haven't seen gouache mentioned as a good
>beginner's medium. In theory, at least (I have no significant
>experience with it), it combines the convenience of watercolor with the
>opacity - and hence relative ease of control - of acrylic.
Gouache (at least when I try it) dries a lot lighter than it appears
when wet, which is frustrating for beginners (including myself).
Acrylics (IMHO) dry too quickly to facilitate subtle colours.
Watercolour is difficult. Oils are smelly & remain messy for ages,
with consequent collateral damage to furniture, fittings & clothing.
I'd recommend Alkyds (see http://www.winsornewton.com/index2.php
- creative encuclopaedia - product information - oil colour
- range information - Griffin Alkyd fast drying oil colour )
as handling like oils but drying in hours.
...
>--------------
>Marc Sabatella
>ma...@outsideshore.com
--
J.E.H.Shaw [Ewart Shaw] st...@uk.ac.warwick TEL: +44 2476 523069
Department of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
http://www.warwick.ac.uk/statsdept http://www.ewartshaw.co.uk
3 ((4&({*.(=+/))++/=3:)@([:,/0&,^:(i.3)@|:"2^:2))&.>@]^:(i.@[) <#:3 6 2
Marc Sabatella
> - creative encuclopaedia - product information - oil colour
> - range information - Griffin Alkyd fast drying oil colour )
> as handling like oils but drying in hours.
Still just as messy, though, except in that the finished painting can be
handled sooner.
I'm not sure there is any really great introduction-to-painting medium
based on all these concerns...
Marc Sabatella
Bob
> Ross's "Joy of Painting" shows and try to follow along. You don't
need to
> buy his paints, they're expensive, but you will need to buy his liquid
white
> unless you make it yourself.
The necessity of "liquid white / liquid clear" is but one piece of
evidence that, from the perspective of learning to paint, Bob Ross'
method is only a fraction of a step up from paint by numbers. Neither
will teach you any principles that will serve you in any meaningful way
if you should ever choose to paint "for real" in the future. My law of
sucking will still apply: paint-by-numbers or Bob Ross methods will
allow you to produce something that looks OK right away, but you will
have learned nothing in the process, such that when you do decide to try
regular painting, you will still suck at first. You will have gained
nothing and lost time and money.
Michael
> - creative encuclopaedia - product information - oil colour
> - range information - Griffin Alkyd fast drying oil colour )
> as handling like oils but drying in hours.
Alkyds are great, the best of oil with fast drying of acrylic. But they're
EXPENSIVE. You can buy huge tubes of normal oil paint, but when it comes to
Alkyds they're sold in tiny tubes for the same price. Really there isn't a
bigger, inexpensive line of alkyd and for that I don't recommend it to
beginners. Beginners need to buy an inexpensive paint so they can just
paint paint paint and not worry about skimping on it.
Michael
Holly Daze
please_do...@hotmail.com says...
>Alkyds are great, the best of oil with fast drying of acrylic.
Most painting mediums can be retarded or
accelerated in their "drying" times. Acrylic
dries fast, but it can be retarded
significantly by additions of either commercial
or over-the-counter retardants. I prefer the
use of ordinary ethylene glycol (anti-freeze).
Additionally, acrylics have a versatility
not found in any other medium, from use as
a glue to use as a glossy finish and everything
in between. Plus the ease of cleanup and lack
of toxicity.
Marc Sabatella
> Alkyds are great, the best of oil with fast drying of acrylic. But
they're
> EXPENSIVE.
Not compared to other artist quality paints. W&N alkyds are priced
about the same as most student grade paints, at least in the stores I've
seen them in.
CR
> evidence that, from the perspective of learning to paint, Bob Ross'
> method is only a fraction of a step up from paint by numbers. Neither
> will teach you any principles that will serve you in any meaningful way
> if you should ever choose to paint "for real" in the future. My law of
> sucking will still apply: paint-by-numbers or Bob Ross methods will
> allow you to produce something that looks OK right away, but you will
> have learned nothing in the process, such that when you do decide to try
> regular painting, you will still suck at first. You will have gained
> nothing and lost time and money.
I get the concept of "the law of sucking" (that's good!), but it still
seems like paint-by-numbers will help in the very, very beginning.
Won't you at least get a feel for what it's like? I can't speak for my
wife but I've personally never used a paintbrush in my life for
anything other than painting a wall! It's got to help a little to at
least get the feel for dipping your brush in paint.
Marc Sabatella
> I get the concept of "the law of sucking" (that's good!), but it still
> seems like paint-by-numbers will help in the very, very beginning.
> Won't you at least get a feel for what it's like? I can't speak for my
> wife but I've personally never used a paintbrush in my life for
> anything other than painting a wall! It's got to help a little to at
> least get the feel for dipping your brush in paint.
That's not saying much. You don't get anything you wouldn't get in your
first couple minutes of actual oil painting.
b b
>My wife wants to learn to paint. She doesn't have time for classes
>right now
>(maybe this summer). What is a good beginner book for learning to
>paint? What method is easiest? Watercolor? Does she need to learn to
>sketch first? Please help, I'm totally clueless!!!
>
>Thanks!
>
>Chuck.
I don't agree that your wife doesn't have enough time for classes and
I don't even know her! Since you didn't mention money, I'll assume you
can afford to pay for a class with a real artist. If she's going to
sit at home struggling with paints she'll need to give it at least a
couple of hours a week. She'll waste a lot of time trying to figure
out how to mix colours -- any number of steps. How to keep her brushes
clean, how much water or medium to add. There was one artist I knew of
here who had studio exercises with one or two students at a time and
they really learned a lot. I say get going, but not alone.
Good luck.
Phan C. Pant
says...
>I don't agree that your wife doesn't have enough time for classes and
>I don't even know her!
And I disagree with the need for lessons. I am a
self-taught artist who went for years without taking
a single lesson, and was successful in selling most
of what I produced. I did avail myself of the various
"how to" books available to me from my library back
when I was first learning. But 'back then' I knew
no artists and didn't seek them out to ask questions.
I just did it "my way."
b b
wrote:
More power to you. Those words "my way" don't ring a great bell
with me but I have to think about it. By the way, you didn't know
artists in your early days, you learned all on your own, no sarcasm
intended -- what does this group give you?
I am not talking about a "need" for lessons. In this specific
instance I think the woman wants to get started but doesn't have much
time.
vxxxa...@vxxxagabondpages.com
wrote:
>In article <imhpuvoihfh16orek...@4ax.com>, luebo...@hotmail.com
Based on my experience and observing other artists I know
that you can start by yourself without any lessons, just the basics --
how to mix oil or whatever. You have a wealth of topics to paint, just
staying at home. Anything may serve as a still life. Paint yourself in
the mirror for a self portrait and most important: Don't think about
your topics. You are not a clerk doing inventory. You just paint what
you see, not what you know. Pure painting is the path between your eye
and your hand, meaning, when you paint your eye, forget it is an eye.
Just concentrate on what you really see and it will be a better eye
than you knew you could paint. Other advice: Avoid painting from
photographs because photography is bi dimensional and you have to
paint a three dimensional universe. Painting from photographs will
always be flat and thin, lacking organic feeling, vitality. Once the
pleasure of painting what you see and not what you know is discovered,
you'll experience the true exaltation of a painter. Good luck.
to reply by email remove all exes (x)
Phan C. Pant
says...
>By the way, you didn't know
>artists in your early days, you learned all on your own, no sarcasm
>intended -- what does this group give you?
There is always "the rest of the story" doncha know.
I don't want to bore you with details I've repeated
here in the past about my art education, but suffice
it to say that once I began teaching myself to
paint I developed a 'broad interest' in art and the
arts and have never looked back and that's been over
35 years ago now. So what this group offers me is
an "association" with people who have a common
interest in "art and the arts." I try to contribute
based on hard-knocks experience and a latter day
formal university education in the arts. And oddly,
in my retirement years I probably spend less time
at creative art pursuits than I did when I was
fully employed with family responsibilities!
Jax Place
vxxxa...@vxxxagabondpages.com says...
>Other advice: Avoid painting from
>photographs because photography is bi dimensional and you have to
>paint a three dimensional universe.
And I disagree with that advice.
My advice is to "just paint" - from whatever
source you find useful. You're in for a very
steep learning experience regardless. Most people
who use photographs KNOW that everything isn't
flat or as simplified as a photo shows it. My very
first painting, in color, was copied from a
B&W illustration of a Greek temple that I found
in an encyclopedia. The mistakes I made were
not so much in the depiction of the 3-D elements but
rather in the colors I used, particularly the
sky, where I got it all backward - blue at the
horizon fading to lighter overhead. Had I been
copying a color photo, I would not have made
this mistake, I'm sure. The photo of my first
painting is half way down this web page:
http://www.zianet.com/jaxart/bio/biopage.html
Bob C
> ... Don't think about
> your topics. You are not a clerk doing inventory. You just paint what
> you see, not what you know. Pure painting is the path between your eye
> and your hand, meaning, when you paint your eye, forget it is an eye.
> Just concentrate on what you really see and it will be a better eye
> than you knew you could paint. Other advice: Avoid painting from
> photographs because photography is bi dimensional and you have to
> paint a three dimensional universe. Painting from photographs will
> always be flat and thin, lacking organic feeling, vitality.
Also beware of those who believe that whatever is right for them must be
what is right for everyone else! :)
For many people, the topic is what is all important, not the visual
impression of it. Furthermore, the knowledge of what you see, when
properly used, is for most people a tremendous help in achieving optical
accuracy and the illusion of form, and can even help you learn to see
more than you would have otherwise seen. This is why so many serious
artists study anatomy.
I paint from photographs (my own) because I prefer to respond to how I
remember the entire experience associated with the spot rather than the
visual impression I get when I'm actually looking at, which is usually
too overwhelming for me to be able to organize into a coherent statement
of expression. The photograph just serves as a reminder of the visual
information.
- Bob C.
vxxxa...@vxxxagabondpages.com
Yes, You'll achieve accuracy through using photos and knowing the
subject but you'll never achieve the instant impression, the gut
feeling which is the first motivation for all creativity. Either you
are a painter, writer, musician you name it. When you are a
photographer and photography is your first and last media, it's of
course all right because, to start with, the photographer looks for
something else than the painter. And we take and appreciate it as
such. The photographer expresses his guts and feelings in the moment
he clicks and fixes the image. There is no such thing as better or
worse way for self expression, just be faithful to what you are doing.
Concerning skill, which is achieved by experience and study, the
orientals have a formula: Find the child within, meaning that skill
and freshness have to coexist without competing however difficult it
may be.
William
http://vagabondpages.com/gallery/AboutWilek.html
remove "exes -- xxx to reply via email
Thur
<vxxxa...@vxxxagabondpages.com> wrote in message
news:vlnruvcugk19804ah...@4ax.com...
Generally I agree, and wish to point out that the beginner never achieves
the
skill that worries some of the posters here.
A beginner is struggling with all aspects of the medium, so finds that the
results
never achieve reality that can be called copying a photograph.
However, this is the point where it can be realised that some aspect of
reality
can be altered (in this case as of necessity) to achieve something that will
be liked both by the beginner and those who are encouraging her.
At some point in the future, the beginner drops the photos and uses them
more and more as a guide, rather than an exercise in copying.
This will be achieved by the competent instructor.
Thur
Phan C. Pant
says...
>This will be achieved by the competent instructor.
>Thur
The person who started this thread said that
the beginner had no time for instruction or
classes and just wanted to paint. I've tried
to keep that in mind in my responses. People
with full-time lives, who are looking for a
hobby, are vastly different in both wants and
needs from someone who has an interest in
pursuing "art" as a career choice.
arachedeux
news:3fee1292$1...@news.zianet.com...
I wonder what he bought her and if she liked it?
cheers,
Bob C
> Yes, You'll achieve accuracy through using photos and knowing the
> subject but you'll never achieve the instant impression, the gut
> feeling which is the first motivation for all creativity ...
>
> ...There is no such thing as better or worse way for self expression...
Then why do you keep telling us that your way is not only the best way,
but the only way?
Why should I be so worried about achieving the instant impression if my
creativity is inspired by impressions which take longer to develop?
- Bob C.
vxxxa...@vxxxagabondpages.com
You don't develop your impressions, you develop your
skill. Impression is always with us, spontaneously as part of life.
Though impressions are easily tired if, for instance, you abuse your
sight by trying too hard. The best impression is the one that you let
come to you. You don't manipulate impression, you don't develop
impression, you are just blessed by its presence.
William
(to reply by email remove exes (xxx)
Bob C
I believe that the impression is always changing, and that therefore our
impression of any given sight will develop as we look at. The impression
we have at the first instance cannot possibly be the same as the
impression we have 5 seconds or 5 minutes later. This would be true even
if we are making no attempt whatsoever to manipulate or consciously
develop our impressions - our impressions develop all on their own with
no effort from us.
Question: do you think that our impressions are in any way affected by
our upbringing and the culture we live in? If no, then does this mean
that it is purely an artifact of our genetic coding? If yes, then by
refusing to direct your own impressions aren't you just passively
accepting the random chance of whatever influence these external factors
have forced upon you?
- Bob C.
Werner H. Kramarsky
<bob...@erols.com> wrote:
Impressions are also affected by context or maybe reaction to impression is
so affected. Seeing a painting of a crucifiction in a church is very
different from seeing it in a window of a frameshop.
"Impression" seems an enexact term...not very useful for this discussion.
Inspiration, an equally inexact term, can as easily be caused by a fleeting
glance as by the extended study of an object. The execution of an image of
the inspiration certainly needs skill and practice.
It is particularly interesting to me that hardly anyone seems to value
rigorous exercise in the execution of what we try to recognize as "art".
Bob C
> Impressions are also affected by context or maybe reaction to impression is
> so affected. ...
> "Impression" seems an enexact term...not very useful for this discussion.
> Inspiration, an equally inexact term, can as easily be caused by a fleeting
> glance as by the extended study of an object. The execution of an image of
> the inspiration certainly needs skill and practice.
Absolutely. The aim of my responses in this thread was to expose the
contradictions and evasive vagueness that necessarily ensue when one
tries to defend a simplistic fundamentalist ideology about something as
complex and subjective as art. The same thing usually happens in
discussions about skill.
> It is particularly interesting to me that hardly anyone seems to value
> rigorous exercise in the execution of what we try to recognize as "art".
>
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Of the many students, instructors,
and artists I've met, the critics and instruction books I've read, and
the curators I've heard talk, the large majority of them seem to very
much value rigorous exercise in the development of the skills needed to
communicate and express oneself, whether in a traditional manner or
otherwise, or, as is usually the case, in some combination of the two.
- Bob C.
Bernard Victor
>CR wrote:
>
>> My wife wants to learn to paint. She doesn't have time for classes
>> right now. What is a good beginner book for learning to
>> paint? What method is easiest? Watercolor? Does she need to learn to
>> sketch first? Please help, I'm totally clueless!!!
>>
>
>
>Acrylic paint is probably the easiest to start with. You can get it
>cheaply, it dries fast, you can paint over mistakes, and you can paint
>on almost anything.
>
>Having basic drawing skills is usually a good pre-requisite for learning
>to paint, although it can be skipped for someone who likes working out
>their ideas in paint, or is simply looking for a cookbook
>paint-by-the-numbers approach to being able to create some pretty pictures.
>
I think that this and the following advice to steer clear of
watercolors is excellent advice. Gouache is probably a good substitute
if you eventually want to paint watercolors. Another not mentioned
medium would be water soluble oils. Still messy and slow drying, but
at least they clean up easily and you do not have to worry about the
paint drying on your brushes if you forget to keep them wet. I believe
that they are also non-toxic so are safer than conventual oils.
When I first started 3 years ago, because it seemed nearly everybody
did watercolors and the shops were full of watercolor instructional
books, I followed the masses. However all of my professional artist
aquaintances, warned me not to. I soon discovered the error of my
ways, and after a flirtation with pastels, good for quick sketches, I
moved over to acrylics and water soluble oils. I feel my skills fairly
quickly improved and I was able to experiment as with either of these
media you can paint over when things go wrong. Now I switch between
the two media. Acrylic if I want something to dry quickly, water based
oils if I want to work more slowly .
Going to museums and shows is also excellent advice. If you get the
chance to watch , or even to paint with experienced artists grab it.
Join a group, even if you feel everybody else is way ahead of you. You
will get advice , some good, but you can always learn by watching
others paint.
Good luck to your wife, I'm sure that soon you will be hanging her
paintings !
Thur
"Bernard Victor" <bvi...@HotPOP.com> wrote in message
news:qqaeuvch1a7eh72g4...@4ax.com...
> However all of my professional artist acquaintances, warned me not to.<
Not surprising. The return on the sale of watercolours does not support
many full time artists.
A professional would be pro oils, or perhaps acrylics.
The advantages and disadvantages of the common mediums are not
enough to stop a beginner following any path.
What is required is that the beginner knows the costs, any possible
mess, practical awareness like drying times, and then to form a
preference for one of those mediums.
As I read it, the person we are talking about is not going to be a
professional
any time soon.
I have sat alongside and watched many beginners attending classes,
and observed that they were not overly troubled with the technical demands
of watercolour. Pleasing results can be obtained before an advanced array
of skills is acquired.
I would recommend classes for a beginner at least to begin with.
There is no need to commit to a whole course at some academy,
but select one-off classes for beginners. Other limited courses
of several classes, say about 7-10 two-hour sessions do not
represent much of a commitment, or too much of an expense
either, since the expense of setting up for oils has been considered.
(expensive)
As I have said before, there are many many videos available
if you check out via Google. I have several and most of them
were great and none were duds.
Fear of starting and fear of criticism are the only barriers.
Switching from one medium to another is not too difficult so long as
the artist is prepared to assume the beginner position again.
In my part of the world, watercolour is the dominant medium for
beginners, perhaps because of a cultural prejudice, and helped by
the fact that it is a clean medium, and cheap, and therefore requires
the minimum commitment from a nervous beginner.
Thur
Mani Deli
most people might like it
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
CR
> I don't agree that your wife doesn't have enough time for classes and
> I don't even know her! Since you didn't mention money, I'll assume you
> can afford to pay for a class with a real artist. If she's going to
> sit at home struggling with paints she'll need to give it at least a
> couple of hours a week. She'll waste a lot of time trying to figure
> out how to mix colours -- any number of steps. How to keep her brushes
> clean, how much water or medium to add. There was one artist I knew of
> here who had studio exercises with one or two students at a time and
> they really learned a lot. I say get going, but not alone.
> Good luck.
She's going to take a class this summer. Maybe drawing instead of
painting. So far she did a paint-by-numbers kit and now is working
with a basic acrylic set. I noticed that the very first exercise in
the acrylic kit is to sketch flowers and then paint them. This makes
us think that drawing or sketching is the first thing to learn and
then the painting. Anyway she has until the summer to figure out what
to do.
Thanks! I'm getting some really good info from this post!
Chuck.
CR
> I wonder what he bought her and if she liked it?
> cheers,
I bought her a really easy paint-by-numbers acrylic kit and another
acrylic kit by Walter Foster that has a book with exercises, 2
brushes, about 8 tubes and a palette. The first exercise you draw
flowers, the second is a seascape. She really likes it, it was a
really cheap Christmas present!
Chuck.