WATERCOLORS: THE MOST DIFFICULT MEDIUM??????
Dr. Slick
I'm doing a portrait, and i decided to try watercolors after
doing oils and acrylics for so long.
And it's not easy. Because you can't manipulate the paint to
much, or the watercolor paper starts to turn to mush and bunch up.
Which gives creedance to why people consider watercolors a
very difficult medium.
Any tips for watercolor portraits?
Slick
Mike Stengl
charles reid / don andrews
both work on an easel allowing the pigment to flow with gravity rather
than working flat where the action is dead. h2o colors are the
opposite of acrylic & oil in that you start light and work dark rather
than the other way around. it can be a mind f*** at first (i started
in h2o and then moved to oils and it took me 3 months before anything
made sense). also, you need to think about the fact that h2o colors
dry lighter than they appear, so you have to be bold with the pigment
especially towards the end other wise you'll end up with a faded image
when your done.
"interpereting the figure in water color", watson-guptill, by don
andrews turned me on to painting. i think it's out of print but you
could probably find it used at e-bay or something.
good luck.
framing h2o colors is a whole different problem however...
mike
Chris
"Mike Stengl" <eatn...@humboldt1.com> wrote in message
news:45dd5dd.04040...@posting.google.com...
> radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote in message
news:<1d15af91.04040...@posting.google.com>...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm doing a portrait, and i decided to try watercolors after
> > doing oils and acrylics for so long.
> >
> > And it's not easy. Because you can't manipulate the paint to
> > much, or the watercolor paper starts to turn to mush and bunch up.
> >
> > Which gives creedance to why people consider watercolors a
> > very difficult medium.
> >
> > Any tips for watercolor portraits?
> >
> >
> > Slick
> >
> > http://www.drslick.org/
>
> charles reid / don andrews
>
> both work on an easel allowing the pigment to flow with gravity rather
> than working flat where the action is dead.
Well Mike (& Slick) - if you guys keep working with watercolors, it won't
be only the action that's dead. Invariably watercolours contain one of the
most deadly substances known; the toxicity of which has been supressed
because of the huge investment so many influential people have in it. Here's
a link to a very good study on the problem:
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
And remember it's all true, it's been published on the Internet.
Chris
Carmen Smith
I have worked with gouach for 15 years and so I thought the switch to
watercolor would be a sinch. What a joke. Yes it is addivite color vs the
subtractive that you were doing with oil and acrylic. I like to work paint
and texture too,but what I discovered is that it really is a visual texture
in watercolor. The texture that you got with acrylics you now have to create
visually cause the paint soaks into the paper. If you let it dry in between
layers you can create the depth you are seeking. It is like working with
transculent colors. When you take on that mind set, layering of colors will
help you to not work the color on the paper but in the palate.
I am not sure it is the most difficult just a totally different challenage
to making art.
"Dr. Slick" <radi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1d15af91.04040...@posting.google.com...
cantueso
>
> Any tips for watercolor portraits?
>
>
> Slick
>
> http://www.drslick.org/
I have just been told that Ruskin thoght that watercolours were a
waste of time. he seems to have thought that watercolours are too
restrictive, not sensitive enough.
I do not know nearly anything about these things yet. I realize that
Ruskin´s ideas of art all sound like great poetry gone nuts, but he
himself did watercolours which are excellent (or so I am told).
Dr. Slick
> Dr Slick,
> I have worked with gouach for 15 years and so I thought the switch to
> watercolor would be a sinch. What a joke. Yes it is addivite color vs the
> subtractive that you were doing with oil and acrylic. I like to work paint
> and texture too,but what I discovered is that it really is a visual texture
> in watercolor. The texture that you got with acrylics you now have to create
> visually cause the paint soaks into the paper. If you let it dry in between
> layers you can create the depth you are seeking. It is like working with
> transculent colors. When you take on that mind set, layering of colors will
> help you to not work the color on the paper but in the palate.
> I am not sure it is the most difficult just a totally different challenage
> to making art.
>
as you cannot really control the capillary effects of the colors very well,
you can only estimate how they will move and try to make good predictions.
In other words, you don't have the precision and control that you have
with an opaque medium, like either acylic or oil or gouach, and you can't
really paint over the mistakes and start over again.
Although i have seen people successfully remove watercolors from the paper
using a type of blotting technique, though i haven't done this myself.
Anyhow, my portrait is done, and i will post it when i can. It turned out
well, although i had to use some colored pencils for certain details.
I like the lightness of watercolor, very pastel and airy...you just cannot
get this with other mediums (unless you really dilute them)!
Slick
Thur
Depends upon each colour which has a different staining ability.
Some colours cannot be removed totally by washing/blotting etc.
Thur
Mike Stengl
>
> Well, it has a reputation for being hard to control, which it really is,
> as you cannot really control the capillary effects of the colors very well,
> you can only estimate how they will move and try to make good predictions.
the 'running affect' of watercolors is the beauty of it but you must
plan for it. also h2o color and pencil go together very nicely, i.e.
pencil lines add another point of interest. what you must do is work
wet into wet but moisten the paper carefully and specifically. much
painting time with water color is wetting and rewetting the paper
where you want to put the pigment. this is also why i suggest working
with your paper at an angle. once you have created a path for the
pigment letting it expand into certain areas and blocking the affect
with dry borders you then 'apply' the pigment to the paper. there is
very little brushing motion with water color.
>
> In other words, you don't have the precision and control that you have
> with an opaque medium, like either acylic or oil or gouach, and you can't
> really paint over the mistakes and start over again.
there is an incredible precision possible in watercolor and it is
balanced by it's unpredictable nature. an illustration of my
watercolor:
http://quicksitemaker.com/members/jan/images/ms100b.jpg
Dr. Slick
> radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote in message > Which gives creedance to why people consider watercolors a
> > very difficult medium.
> >
> > Any tips for watercolor portraits?
> >
> >
> > Slick
> >
> > http://www.drslick.org/
>
> I have just been told that Ruskin thoght that watercolours were a
> waste of time. he seems to have thought that watercolours are too
> restrictive, not sensitive enough.
>
You believe everything you are told, eh?
I don't really care what Ruskin thought.
S.
Dr. Slick
> >
> > In other words, you don't have the precision and control that you have
> > with an opaque medium, like either acylic or oil or gouach, and you can't
> > really paint over the mistakes and start over again.
>
> there is an incredible precision possible in watercolor and it is
> balanced by it's unpredictable nature. an illustration of my
> watercolor:
> http://quicksitemaker.com/members/jan/images/ms100b.jpg
I like it! She is hot!
I would change one thing myself: I would define the face and hair
a bit more, with more black, and paint out the colors their, but
that's just me.
I've got some nudes too:
Slick
Carmen Miranda
saw it, I gasp at its beauty. I do not see any black, though...only a deep
indigo blue that I might use more to balance composition a tad......it is
slightly top heavy. I am a fan of using colors in a triangular fashion so
the eye travels across the picture plane. Or if that is not an option
lifting thus lightening the face and hair area would also balance it.
BTW... I am not sure what weight of paper you used but you can rewet the
surface(with either a spray bottle or brush) and actualy lift out pigment
with a dry absorbent tissue...dabbing ever so slightly with a single ply.
It must be something extremly soft and pourous (like Kleenex as opposed to
paper towels ....as it must absorb the water instanteously before it runs
and contaminates its neighbors.
If you do rewet it I would lay it flat.
Carmen
"Dr. Slick" <radi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1d15af91.04041...@posting.google.com...
Robert
Firs5t, I wouldn't begin with a portrait. I'd start with something a
little more amorphous like landscape to get used to handling
watercolor. The differences between w/c and other painting mediums
are too numerous to enumerate, but suffice it to say that if you are
coming from another medium it seems almost impossible to pull off a
decent watercolor. You have to have lots and lots of experience
gained from numerous failures, I feel, and then one day you know how
to do it and just go for it. A "real" watercolor painiting displays
bolness and lack of timidity--not niggling little brushstrokes. To
get to that point takes work. For portaits, first, I'd use a limited
palette of three colors: cobalt blue, Cadmium Scarlet, and Cadmium
yellow pale (I'm using Winsor Newton Color names because they are the
most used). Mix your flesh tones from these and, allow for white
areas made of the bare paper, but on lightest wash and before it dries
lay in the next lightest washes in such a way that the edges merge
without running wildly (knowing just when comes from experience)--if
the protrait were painted entirely in a few minutes you would get the
maximum effect of the edge blending. Mel Stabin has a great book on
the topic:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0823016943/qid=1082253605/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-5682232-3008654?v=glance&s=books
It's on the figure but has sufficient portrait work in it to be
useful.
Robert
> most deadly substances known; the toxicity of which has been supressed
> because of the huge investment so many influential people have in it. Here's
> a link to a very good study on the problem:
>
> http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
This is hilarious!! Thanks for the laugh.
H2 (di hydorgen) O (monOxide). DHMO is WATER!
Robert
> waste of time. he seems to have thought that watercolours are too
> restrictive, not sensitive enough.
>
> I do not know nearly anything about these things yet. I realize that
> himself did watercolours which are excellent (or so I am told).
The art of watercolor has really exploded since his time. Back then
there were no real pigments to give brilliance and the techniques were
a carry over from oils. Look at watercolor as a medium that
effectively post dates Ruskin entirely.
Gorne
> Hello,
>
> I'm doing a portrait, and i decided to try watercolors after
> doing oils and acrylics for so long.
>
> And it's not easy. Because you can't manipulate the paint to
> much, or the watercolor paper starts to turn to mush and bunch up.
With gouache or aquarel I stop the paper from bucklingby streching the
paper first. I wet it with a sponge then glue the side on a drawing
board after it has stretched a bit. In this way if i wet it again
while painting it get beck to a realy flat sheet later on, when dry.
Gouache is not very different from acrilic but with aquarel, the paint
benefit by being really transparent, keeping the color luminous...
This means some planning before you make your strokes.
I do not agree with the guy who tell you to paint vertically. Aquarel
is rather watery and you loose a great deal of control when a drop
drooles down the page by gravity. I also prefer to rest my arm and
move the brush from the wrist... But this is my preferences. I also
put a mask so I can have a net white margin... obviously there is
nothing wrong with going to the very edge of the paper or cropping the
paper afterword, or using the paper as well as cut off in collage.
That is for you to choose... but I must say that good, though
outrageously expensive brushes are not really an handicap.
>
> Which gives creedance to why people consider watercolors a
> very difficult medium.
People say that to give value to their work, they try to bluff you
into believing that there is a lot into tecknical achievement they
mastered. Don't worry about it. Think of what you observed. What about
it worth saying ... If you are not happy with the results, do it
again. It is not a difficult medium. It is just a medium. But ! You
may be just an avarage painter. In this case find something better to
do.
cantueso
>
> I don't really care what Ruskin thought.
you do not have to tell me. I can see that. it is very very easy to see.
Bernard Victor
>
>I do not know nearly anything about these things yet. I realize that
>Ruskin´s ideas of art all sound like great poetry gone nuts, but he
>himself did watercolours which are excellent (or so I am told).
The big question is WHY do so many beginners start with watercolors ?
It is the most difficult medium but the hardest. I'm sure many
beginners are put off, whilst if they started with acrylics or oils or
even pastels they would get on better and stick with painting.
Thur
"Bernard Victor" <bvi...@HotPOP.com> wrote in message
news:mvtv709acbn47e2u1...@4ax.com...
>
>snip
> The big question is WHY do so many beginners start with watercolors ?
>
> It is the most difficult medium but the hardest. I'm sure many
> beginners are put off, whilst if they started with acrylics or oils or
> even pastels they would get on better and stick with painting.
If you use Google, there should be a thread there to which many
contributed, dealing with this issue.
As someone who started with watercolours, I can say for myself
and a large number of locals that it is first and foremost the level
of financial commitment , then the amount of mess, then the feedback
from quick-drying paint, and no bad smells.
It is true that producing a work that will sell requires a number of
skills which are normally local to the medium, and quite difficult
to conquer.
Producing something that a beginner can feel happy with in just
3 hours maximum is the clincher.
Thur
Miriam
easy to clean and dries fast. Make a drawing and fill in the colors.
Paint at home, without any serious practical problems. Not much space
needed to store those things not suitable as birthday presents to a
happy family and other appropriate victims, but still something you
want to keep. Those that want to do more than drawing and filling in
has to learn WC techniques - as you have to learn other media. There
are tons of books on WC and watercolorists offering courses in
watercolor. Join Wetcanvas. WC is neither more difficult nor easier,
whatever and both, than other media.
radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote in message news:<1d15af91.04040...@posting.google.com>...
Cliff D. Weller
>> The big question is WHY do so many beginners start with watercolors ?
>>
>> It is the most difficult medium but the hardest. I'm sure many
>> beginners are put off, whilst if they started with acrylics or oils or
>> even pastels they would get on better and stick with painting.
Another reason: finger paints and watercolors.
The mediums kindergartners are allowed to use.
Along with poster paints, sometimes.
As adults, when we decide to try painting as
a hobby, we're already programmed to recall
those kindergarten days and how 'easy it was'
to paint with those watercolor mediums. And
I suspect our first attempts at it as adults
looks like we are kids again!
Mike Stengl
> > The big question is WHY do so many beginners start with watercolors ?
> >
>
>
> and a large number of locals that it is first and foremost the level
> of financial commitment , then the amount of mess, then the feedback
> from quick-drying paint, and no bad smells.
>
i found the same to be true. it just seems so accessable. everyone
plays with the little box paints when young, then when older you
think, heck, i'll buy some tubes a couple good brushes and real
watercolor paper. the financial commitment thing falls apart however
if one actually succeeds with the medium and then wants to exhibit.
150. to 200. US dollars minimum for decent matting and framing.
Erik A. Mattila
Hey, Mike, I'm just now salvaging pallet wood for frames (and possibly
kitchen cabinets if I can get a good pile of similar wood). Amazing.
I've got some killer American Tulipwood (Poplar heartwood) with
beautiful cream & olive-green grain, and so very nice oak. I've got
about a hundred pallets to go, and who knows what kind of wood I will
encounter. It's really fun - but very labor intensive, and I have a
very nice white-oak splinter deep in the palm of my left hand. Is it
worth it? I don't know - I just like the excitement - a dirty grey board
magically transforms into a piece of quality hardwood.
Erik
Dr. Slick
> I agree this is a great use of shape, light and imagination. When I first
> saw it, I gasp at its beauty. > >
> >
It's very nice, isn't it? It's really one of the best things
I have seen on the net in a while. Really a great example of water
colors too.
Mike Stengl, are prints available of this woman?
You could make some ca$h, i would think...
:)
Slick
Dr. Slick
> > Any tips for watercolor portraits?
> >
> >
> > Slick
> >
> > http://www.drslick.org/
>
> Firs5t, I wouldn't begin with a portrait. I'd start with something a
> little more amorphous like landscape to get used to handling
> watercolor. The differences between w/c and other painting mediums
> are too numerous to enumerate, but suffice it to say that if you are
> coming from another medium it seems almost impossible to pull off a
> decent watercolor.
Well, it's finished, and it actually turned out quite well,
although i kinda "cheated" with some colored pencils, hehe!
I'll post it sometime.
You have to have lots and lots of experience
> gained from numerous failures, I feel, and then one day you know how
> to do it and just go for it. A "real" watercolor painiting displays
> bolness and lack of timidity--not niggling little brushstrokes. To
> get to that point takes work.
Actually, i know what you mean. The portrait i just did could
have
been done in acrylic as well, athough that doesn't mean much because
you can use acrylics very diluted, and it's virtually like watercolor
anyways. I did have another brush loaded with water in my left hand,
to blend out the hard edges, ala Olivia. However, i know what you
mean about broad watercolor strokes and predicting the capillary
effects to your
advantage.
You know, if Winslow Homer is allowed to use gouache highlights
on
his watercolors, I can use colored pencils for certain details on
mine!
Slick
Dr. Slick
> >
> > Which gives creedance to why people consider watercolors a
> > very difficult medium.
>
> People say that to give value to their work, they try to bluff you
> into believing that there is a lot into tecknical achievement they
> mastered. Don't worry about it.
I'm not worried about it, but i wouldn't mind learning some tips
to get results like Zubukvic:
http://kevinmacpherson.greenhousegallery.com/cgi-local/getworks.pl?artistid=ZBUKVJ
If you are not happy with the results, do it
> again. It is not a difficult medium. It is just a medium. But ! You
> may be just an avarage painter. In this case find something better to
> do.
Well, of course you only see what the artist wants you to see, and
perhaps one painting was the best of 10, with the other 9 being
"failures".
But I'll bet you money that very few can watercolor like Zubukvic
or
Winslow Homer.
>You may be just an avarage painter.
Judge for yourself:
But being above average or below average is not the point, really.
I mean, you could really suck at painting in general, but if it
relaxes
you, and entertains you, then it's certainly worth doing.
Slick
Neil Maxwell
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>Hey, Mike, I'm just now salvaging pallet wood for frames (and possibly
>kitchen cabinets if I can get a good pile of similar wood). Amazing.
>I've got some killer American Tulipwood (Poplar heartwood) with
>beautiful cream & olive-green grain, and so very nice oak. I've got
>about a hundred pallets to go, and who knows what kind of wood I will
>encounter. It's really fun - but very labor intensive, and I have a
>very nice white-oak splinter deep in the palm of my left hand. Is it
>worth it? I don't know - I just like the excitement - a dirty grey board
>magically transforms into a piece of quality hardwood.
The folks who make Taylor guitars made a guitar out of pallet wood a
few years back. The results were pretty impressive - a quick search
shows me that they're actually making a limited edition production
model now!
http://www.taylorguitars.com/guitars/models/pallet.html
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Inchy Lahda
>Hey, Mike, I'm just now salvaging pallet wood for frames (and possibly
>kitchen cabinets if I can get a good pile of similar wood).
I'm not Mike, but you triggered a memory in my fast-fading
databank. Once upon a time, there was a company that
invested in an industrial plant in the El Paso area, and
they named themselves "Border Steel." Their main purpose
at the time was to salvage railroad cars at a time when
RRs were taking the old "box cars" and "cabooses" out of
service in favor of containers etc. The salvaged steel
was melted down to make reinforcing bars and other low
grade steel products.
But what to do with all the wood from those old box cars.
Luckily for some entrepeneurs, it was given away free
to anyone wanting it - at least in the beginning.
Now here's the kicker. Did you know those old box cars
were lined with such exotic woods as mahogany? I knew
a married couple "back then" who were custom-building
their home, entirely framed with salvaged wood from those
box cars, with the interior walls paneled in seasoned
mahogany and other exotic woods that I can't recall.
And this home is now one of the most interesting in the
El Paso Country Club area - a neighborhood where one must
meet "exclusive" zoning requirements.
Erik A. Mattila
Wow...pretty impressive. I just got a piece of primo white oak today -
it was a thick "rail" that the "slats" were attached to. It was pretty
tweaked - a twist and a warp. But I made a jig for my table saw and cut
it straight and ran it through my thickness sander. It started out as a
two by four, and ended up as a one by three (full dimension). Now I'm
thinking of building a yacht. :-)
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
Wow again. Honduras mahogany? I've used that once - no, twice.
Incredible wood. Let's see, a 1 x 12 x 8' was 40 bucks, as I recall.
That was about 1990.
Here's a funny story. Around 1973 someone gave me a bunch of short (3
feet) pieces of Piss Fir (white fir) and I parqueted them into a
octagonal table-top. A Pit River Indian saw it and offered me a hundred
bucks, and I sold it to him. He gave me ten bucks down, and I never saw
the rest of the payment. A year later I ran into him, and asked him
about the rest of the debt. He said he would pay me if I fixed the
table. I asked him what was wrong, and he told me the story. His wife
would stoke up the wood-stove in the winter and keep the room temp about
a hundred degrees. It was really drying out the wood in the table, and
I a couple wanted to twist. Well, they were just sitting down to eat
dinner when one of the planks gave way with a loud report...and Ed's
fork flew straight up and stuck in the ceiling. Spoingggg.
Erik
>
>
>
Inchy Lahda
>Now I'm thinking of building a yacht. :-)
>
>Erik
For Pete's sake, stop it! Now I have to tell you
another true story. When I last lived in El Paso,
in the early 1970s, there was a person who lived
in a small house I passed on my way to work. As
you may know, El Paso has the unique distinction
that everyone who owns a house, no matter how small,
has a rock-walled-in yard (or in a few instances,
walled in cinderblock). This person was building
an OCEAN-going yacht in his backyard! And he did
it! When finished it took up the entire walled in
area of the back yard. He was able to get it out
of that yard because it was a corner lot and he
could tear down the wall on the side street when
it came time to move it to a launch site.
His goal was to have it finished in time for
his retirement, at which time it was trucked to
wherever he launched it, and that's where he planned
to live out his retirement years - on his home-built
yacht. For other than Erik reading this, you have
to know that El Paso is in the middle of the desert,
and hundreds of miles from salt water.
Erik A. Mattila
Shallow draft, Rio Grande, no problema. I'll bet he hit salt @ Matamoros.
I found one on-line book - Report of the Topographical Engineers -
concerning a steamboat chugging up the Colorado from the Gulf to a ways
past Yuma around 1858 (as I recall). The Delta was the largest desert
wetland in the world at the time. There were even Jaguars there until
Boulder Dam (Hoover Dam) dried up the delta. (No Mercedes Benz,
though). Also a unique species of deer, but that one has survived in
the San Pedro Martyr mountains, I understand.
Another interesting tale in these parts is the "lost Galleon" in the
Algondones sand dunes. Far fetched? I don't know. I understand that
Lake Cahuilla was receding in those days (AD 1500 - 1600) and some early
maps indicate a large lake roughly located where it would have been,
probably a word of mouth deal from local Indian sources. Cabeza de Vaca
didn't seem to do anything to dispel the "7 Cities of Gold" mythology,
so some hapless Conquistador may have tried to drag his ship across the
dunes to reach the lake. Wild speculation, of course. But had he made
it, he would have sailed north and discovered Palm Springs, Desert
Center, Indio, La Quinta, Cathedral City, 29 Palms, and Coachilla.
Erik
>
>