A quickie lesson in layering warm and cool paint
 

It is OK to paint what you see, but it is much more important to paint what you know. The human eye is not always "sophisticated" or "trained" enough to observe reality and the Old Masters certainly knew this.

Here is a quickie visual lesson in layering warm and cool paint to define realistic looking form. It is excerpted from a longer and more detailed post "Building Art Beyond the Image" http://forum.portraitartist.com/show...s=&threadid=58

As a highlight transitions into a deep shadow, warm and cool tones begin to alternate. This creates each layer that defines form. The overlapping of warm and cool color is essential in building realistic form. (The terms "warm" and "cool" color are relative to the specific color used...i.e., warm and cool skin tones)

1. Highlight is cool. The lightest value, cool color paint on an object.

2. Light is warm. The next lightest value, warm color paint - and it continues to get lighter still as it approaches the area of highlight.

3. Halftone (where light and shadow meet) is cool. A mid-value, cooler color paint where light begins to turn into shadow - but can't be defined as either light or shadow.

4. Shadow is warm. A dark value, warm color paint.

5. Deep Shadow (cast shadow at the origin) is hot. Darkest value, hottest color paint.

6. Reflected light within a shadow is as close to pure color as you can make it. The reflected light should match the value of the shadow and it can be either warm or cool in color.

I like to make reflected light by mixing two color opposites (i.e., red/green, purple/yellow) to neutralize each (can look like mud). Add enough white to this mixture to match the value of the shadow (and sometimes a touch of blue in addition).

Below is a detail of a face by Rubens. With specific reference to the numbers above, I hope you can see the layering technique I have described. If you can begin to see this, you can begin to paint it. :exclamati

A Novel Idea:

Get 4 or more non-fugitive colors, preferably including red, yellow, blue and one white. Get canvas, 3 or 4 brushes of your choosing. Look at your subject, squint occasionally, and paint what you see.

Steve

A (not so) novel idea
 

Steve,

If your paintings consistently look good when they are finished, you obviously have a very sophisticated and trained eye. You are lucky to have found that the method of "painting what you see with a very limited palette" works perfectly for you. And I would certainly enjoy seeing some of your excellent work!

However, not everyone can do what you can so easily do. If someone with a "less perfect eye" is not producing consistently good work, it would behove them to consider trying something else.

The Old Masters had an easy method they used and it is practically "lost knowledge." Unfortunately contemporary art suffers greatly because of a lack of genuine knowledge.

I think that the real "novelty" nowadays is to NOT paint what you (think) you see but to paint from genuine knowledge.

Karin,

This isn't neurosurgery. It's observing, relating, measuring, and making an effort to paint
what is before us. Why have the subject sit if he is to be ignored because we have a supposed better knowledge of what is there than the truth before us? None of this is easy, but I trust my eyes more than a laundry list of what supposedly might be there.
Let me restate what I said in my previous note. I said "four or more colors." More can be any number above four; that's not "very limited." I don't understand the infatuation that so many artists have with formulas, recipes, tricks, supposed secrets, and "lost knowledge." I think that if an artist abandons his or her judgement and vision and instead depends on formula, he is lost. The highlights, lights, halftones, shadows, reflected lights, etc. can be warm or cool, or any color, depending on the circumstances. Their true color can only be discerned through observation of the subject in a particular setting, time of day, time of year, color of dress, etc. No one can know this by relying on what Rubens or anyone else did on the day he painted his portrait.

Steve

I'll try to explain this again...

If you look, for example, at Vermeer....any Vermeer, he layered warm and cool paint to create "reality" in the manner explained above.

Lots of artists (with the exception of you and a few other lucky ones) are not able to make their paintings look "realistic" like the subject matter they wish to paint no matter how long they stare at a subject.

There IS a way to do it when the eye fails....why would you wish for so many artists to continue to produce unsatisfactory artwork when it is not necessary for them to suffer and fail at all?

As you know, there are many ways to paint a picture...and the one way most used is to try to directly paint what one sees. If that method worked all the time for all the people, the world would be filled with much more wonderful art.

If an artist finds that a way of working (even if it works for you) is not getting a satisfactory result, it would be silly to continue in that manner without considering another way of looking at things.

Painting what "you think you see" just doesn't work for everybody. Get it?

No Karin, I don't "get it". And furthermore, I don't want it! I gave up "paint by number" at 9 years old. Thank you.

Steve

Ouch! your sarcasm hurts...
 

So here's my dilemma Steve....when I post something to try and help someone who wishes to paint better portraits, are you going to attack me again? I don't much like it and I find it hurtful.

I would like to think that I am safe to express an idea, opinion or question without the possability of a sarcastic attack by someone who may disagree. It takes a lot of courage to post anything here, most especially my artwork. It is frightening to think that someone may make fun of me (or anyone) when I need help or try to help.

Sarcastic remarks/attacks have no place here - ever - it undermines the whole idea of this forum.

Hey Cynthia....
 

I know that you're out there reading all of our postings. How about if you start a new thread in the intro. section regarding a POLICY ABOUT THE USE OF SCARCASM AND PUT-DOWNS? Everyone should be alerted to this potential problem and notify you asap if they spot this kind of thing in a post before you do.

I suggest that anytime someone posts something that even borders on the nasty, pull the post, and privately email the person who put it up. Give them the opportunity to reword their thoughts in a way that is beneficial to all.

I think that most scarcasm is the result of a passionately held belief. Sometimes someone pretends that - or maybe even really thinks that - they are "just being funny". But this causes hurt and is counterproductive to the growth of this unique forum.

I am really worried that some timid soul is lurking out there, reading the unpleasant exchanges posted above, and would never feel safe enough to express an idea or an opinion on this forum. We would all lose so much if this kind of thing is allowed to continue.

I would like to think that the person who mistakenly directs a put-down toward another person on this forum will be given an opportunity to express their thoughts and opinions in a way that benefits everyone.

What do you think?

Yes, I've been reading all the posts and cringing as things seem to heat up. The purpose of the forum is to encourage others to reach their highest potential, no matter from what point they are starting.

In order to accomplish this, it is necessary for members to feel safe to express themselves without being attacked. I don't remember who the first member was that posted for a critique, but I commend their courage at being the first!

I agree that we should express outselves in a manner that is considerate of the believes and practices of another and if there is a disagreement to express it in a courteous way. This is especially necessary on this forum because of the wide variety of career levels. If this was a forum where everyone had a well-developed career and confidence in their painting, this might not be such a significant issue.

I also cringe at the thought of the impression we may be giving the extremely polite members from other countries that are on this forum. Are we being the Ugly American?

I agree that passionately-held beliefs are often the cause of saying something that is condescending to another. Sometimes this is intentional and soemtimes not. As we can easily see in the world today, this happens all the time in the area of religion.

There is more than one way to skin a cat and often no right or wrong. When I first started designing web pages, a potential client criticized the fact that I had put the images against a pure black background. He said I should never use pure black. My feelings were extremely hurt at the way he expressed it (he was a former minister!) and I turned him down for Stroke of Genius (he wasn't that good anyway). Also, when I looked at his web pages, I knew they weren't good pages, so he was no authority on design. But, for years, I never used pure black again. Then, in the last year, I had 3 artists complain because I wasn't using a pure black background. Who is right or wrong?

What I see is that both you and Steve are incredibly talented and recognized in the field and would love to see both of you continue as contributing members as I know you both have a lot of value to offer to other artists.

By the way, when a post is offensive, there is a line below the icons in a post that says "report his post to a moderator". In this case, I'm the moderator. I will add something in the registration agreement regarding coutesy. If a reminder is necessary, I can certainly do that.

Hello Karin & Steve,

I didn't mean to interfere but I remembered what Mr. Daniel Arredondo said "artist helps another artist." That's a nice words.

Actually I agree with both of you, any artist can do either paint by seeing it or by his/her knowledge. Depends on the artist skill, favor.

I believed some of the Old Masters painted what they did see, they emulated all the conditions of the subjects, the surroundings at that time on the canvas. And some did not instead they created the conditions, meaning what they had in mind. Rubens, for instance, sometimes he painted very yellow for skin and elongation of the hands which had been followed by his pupil Anthony V Dyck.

That doesn't mean they were not capable to do such realistic illusions. They were, but they just liked to paint that way. Realistic painters are not similar, Jacque L David, Rubens, Ingres, Rembrandt, Delacroix had their own techniques, differed one to another. I admire Ingres for his photorealistic portrait painting. I also like Rembrandt for his stroke. He scratched the subject's face eagerly and still looked realistic. Goya for his bold stroke, deep color etc.

The way out is up to the audiences to select each of the painters that he/she favors the most.

In 19th Century There was dispute between two most influenced painters. I think we all know that, Ingres and Delacroix. They threw bad remarks each other. In my opinion the Masters should not do that, bad image, disgraceful. They could not pacify their egos. Every artist has the ego but don't let the ego burst out uncontrolably.

I apologized for my words and my English.

Regards,
Abdi

Don't worry about your English Abdi, you're a pleasure to have on the forum. Thank you for the lovely post.

Dear Karin,

Please don't stop posting all the information you have been sharing with this forum. As a beginning portrait painter the information I get from your posts has helped me immeasurably. You have given me so much food for thought, in fact, I can't paint fast enough to try to incorporate all the ideas you generously share.

Having this forum available and a constant stream of helpful information has helped me further develop my style, some things I read on this forum work for me and others don't. But I enjoy reading them all.

Joan Breckwoldt

Karin,
I'll second what Joan said!

I find your discussion of techniques fascinating. I went to college in the 70's and majored in art. I learned ZIP about techniques because none was taught. The philosophy was that technique instruction would stifle our creativity. For the most part I produced such ugly garbage that I still cringe when I think of it, lol.

For the past year I've been studying art by reading books, viewing the work of many artists, and reading this forum. I'm grateful that you are taking the time to explain your Old Masters style of painting. Whether or not I incorporate this information into my paintings, it will help me to better appreciate much of the art I see.

Karin,

I'll third what Joan said!

I often transcribed your information and pasted it on the wall beside me.

Karin I fourth Joan!
 

I am one of those people that had a HORRIBLE time in art classes, because following someone else's instruction on how to create completely left me uncreative! SO, I quit and tried to learn by trial and error. It has been 13 years since college, and I have had plenty of time to "piddle" and learn on my own.

NOW that I have a better understanding of how I paint naturally, I am in a much better position to learn the the different techniques without being so overwhelmed. Did that make ANY sense at all? LOL As Cynthina said, "there is more than one way to skin a cat" and I find it fascinating to see all of the different ways each gifted artist here paints a face. I feel that I have learned more through this forum in the past few months than I could have learned from any other form of art education.

Your work is beautiful, and you explain yourself very well. SO PLEASE DON'T STOP!! ;)

Big-hearted artist
 

Karin,

I hope you are not upset, I think Steve was trying to test you. If I were you I would say "Ok I appreciate what you got but I believed mine is easier for everyone."

Ingres once forbade his students to see Rubens paintings because the master felt they would be corrupted by his color. I am trying to say let's take only the good things from the Masters.

I have a true story happened during the reign of a Tyrant from 1965-1998. I recalled in 1985 there was an artist got locked up behind bars because he painted a figure of future president in the year of 2000. The tyrant was being harassed and ordered to punish the fool. In 1998 by student movement/people power, the dictator fell down and the artist was set free. Miraculously, as if the artist knew that the tyrant were not gonna make it until 2000. The point is "Free to express the idea."

In my opinion contemporary art doesn't suffer at all in determining the value of classic/realism. I saw Nelson Shank's paintings which are amazing, realistic skin tone, texture, woods etc. There was time where the glorious classicism/realism faded by the emergence of impressionism. It doesn't matter every style has its audiences.

I admire yours just like everyody else.

Okay Karin I supposed to share my work and have your suggestion regarding precised skin tone. Actually, "I paint what I know" so adjustments are needed.

My work in progress, life size (24"x32"). Pallete for skin I used: burnt umber, titanium white, talens yellow, talens red, french ultra.

After various attempts I failed to have sharp and natural light. I use 700k pixels Digital Camera, indoors with daylight fluorescent. I plan to buy a tungsten floodlight which is cheap.

Regards,
Abdi

Wow....nice portrait. My computer monitor makes it difficult to see much subtle color, but your skin tones certainly look good (realistic) to me. I assume that I am looking at a detail?

I am not familiar with the lighting you mentioned but whatever you did it worked for you in this portrait. Lighting is so important in portraiture. Not only does shadow define form, it can be made to fall on the subject in interesting patterns. When I pay a lot of attention to proper lighting, I get a better portrait.

I got a chuckle about your story concerning Ingres and Rubens....I had never heard that before.

I was born with an underdeveloped conflict gene, so my impulse was to say "Oops, excuse me", back out of this thread, and quietly close the door behind me.

But the subject matter intrigues me and I think there's likely some arbitrable common ground, however slight the overlap may be.

Because I came to the practice of art pretty late in life (mid-40s) and I didn't have 20 or 30 years (or the patience) to slowly acquire through trial and error the myriad techniques and tips for satisfying, professional work, I spent some years in intensive study with professionals whose work I admired. After putting in between 4 and 5 thousand hours in that effort (drawing and painting 40 to 50 hours per week for three years), I got pretty good at representing on the paper or canvas what was in front of me.

And yet, I still can get completely flummoxed by what is "wrong" with a piece that just won't come around. I suddenly feel like a rank beginner again. I look and I look and I look, I measure, and I know something's not on, but I can't spot it. That's one of the times when the "formulas" become useful to me, as places to start in analyzing problems.

If I have confidence in my drawing and I think the problem with form might be related to color, then yes, absolutely, I will enlist a "formula" -- to TEST my work. I might say, okay, I have a quite warm light source, and so as a rule I would expect to see relatively cool shadows. I look at the subject anew to see if that expectation is borne out. If not, then I simply proceed to another step in the analysis. But if indeed with a new focus I discover cool violets and greens in the shadows, and then look to find reds and oranges in those areas of my painting, I don't ever say, well I can't change it, because then I'd be painting to a formula. I say "Eureka! That's it! How could I have missed it?" (And in fact, part of my analysis will be to try to determine why I put the reds and oranges there in the first place.)

No less a contemporary master than Daniel Greene makes "formulaic" assumptions about the location of features on the face. He gets stuck into a drawing very quickly, and the eyes aren't where the eyebrows should be and the mouth isn't rubbing elbows with the nose. But he ALWAYS TESTS those assumptions against the actual subject, which controls. The assumptions remain valid and useful, even if they may not in a particular instance have resulted in an accurate representation and have had to be modified.

Another award-winning master, Peggy Baumgartner, kind of employs an assumption after the fact in the initial portrait sketch: if her eye tells her that something is "off" but three measurements confirm that the drawing is correct, she accepts the measurements and not what her eye is "telling" her. Yet could anyone look at Baumgartner's work and say that she was painting to a formula and not her unique perception? Hardly.

I have an expectation that the tannin-hued sands on the bank of a particular river can be captured by various proportions of ultramarine, cadmium orange, and white. That's a formula, and most of the time it's useful. Of course it doesn't excuse me from making a judgment as to whether the expectation provides accurate readings on a particular bend in that river on a particular day.

Richard Schmid, much of whose work is heartrendingly beautiful, expresses disdain for certain mechanical and formulaic tools and approaches. He says he "feels sorry" for those who employ them. With all respect to Schmid, whose palette I'm not worthy to clean at the end of the day, people don't need such pity or deserve such contempt. I'm just doing the best work I can do, using every resource at my disposal, trying to excel at and enjoy my artistic vocation.

I suspect that what most folks addressing this matter are concerned about is what Harry Chapin sang about, the soul-killing straitjacket of "flowers are red and green grass is green, there's no need to see flowers any other way than the way they always have been seen."

I don't believe anyone here has suggested any sort of regimen or rule like that.

Of course, sometime flowers are red, and green grass is green.

Steven

Color question
 

Karin, I have a couple of questions I think you can help me with. I have been studying this post of Rubens as I'm working on my first underpainting. I think I'm getting it! But . . . could you explain 5 and 6 in a bit more detail. .

"5. Deep Shadow (cast shadow at the origin) is hot. Darkest value, hottest color paint.

6. Reflected light within a shadow is as close to pure color as you can make it. The reflected light should match the value of the shadow and it can be either warm or cool in color.

I like to make reflected light by mixing two color opposites (i.e., red/green, purple/yellow) to neutralize each (can look like mud). Add enough white to this mixture to match the value of the shadow (and sometimes a touch of blue in addition)."

How do you get that 'hot' color besides just using red? How does it look like Rubens did it here?

I understand how reflected light within a shadow is close to pure color, but could you explain why you mix two color opposites? Is it because two color opposites give you some 'movement', some excitement/light in the reflected shadow? This makes me think of some of the Van Gogh's I saw at the VG Museum, for example green and red to create movement. Is this the same principle you're using?

Thank you!
Joan

There are lots of ways to do this and the easiest is to glaze a "hot" color into the deepest shadow....it does not have to change the color, but it adds warmth. i.e., try a thin glaze of cad. orange, indian yellow, or alizarin crimson.
I can probably agree with all you say but basically I do it because it "looks good." Sometimes a "pure color" also looks good but not as often as this mixture of opposites. What is important is that you do NOT put whatever you used in the light into the shadow area. The value of the shadow must always be darker than any value in the area of light. This can be subtle because it "fools the eye" but if you really look, you will be able to see it in the work of the Old Masters. I think that Vermeer is the easiest to see these important lessons in the layering of warm and cool paint.

Thanks Karen
 

Thanks Karin for sharing all the techiques. I'm loving it. And I love to hear others opinons too. It really makes my brain ponder each point and then try to use what I digest. Tammy

Formulas
 

Although I don't support the manner of Steve Moppert's disagreement with technique and formulas, I believe that it is a legitimate concern. Right up front, I am in total support for the intellectual understanding of what we see. It is in learning these formulas that one can paint as the eye sees that much more accurately. The simplest analogy is anatomy. Sure, it can be abused, resulting in comic book superhero figures. Used wisely, however, anatomy can help you to turn a complicated form, illustrate a movement or tension, and to just understand what all those darned bumpy things are.

Any formula can be abused. But I'm not afraid to use them now and then, because the end result is what I see.

Adrian, I agree that formulas are not rigid rules. I think of them as a bit like learning to ride a bike...some of us (not all, but some) need training wheels until we learn to get it right.

When you really learn to ride, the training wheels will get in the way...just like those pesky "rigid rules."

Meanwhile, so many begining painters crash and burn...sadly, left alone to suffer from an untrained eye, they never learn to paint really well.

I feel that any help a beginner can get to produce a good result is valid. With a few successful paintings under their belt, so to speak, the beginner will gain the necessary knowlege and experience with which to judge what methods and techniques work for himself/herself.

Thank you for your kindly manner of disagreement, I appreciate it. Personal attacks over differences of opinion serve no useful purpose.

Seeing vs Formulas
 

Hello everyone,

I

Mr. Mattelson --

Congratulations on your acknowledgment at the recent portrait artist conference, and a great pleasure to read your contribution -- please get as addicted to it as some of us have become. The membership on the site -- folks extremely eager for your caliber of advices -- has now doubled in a very short time, but I suspect that hundreds, thousands, likely tens of thousands more are tapping into the well anonymously and printing out lots of postings.

It's a bit of a rub that you encountered the Maroger thread first, because that was probably the worst example of anything that's ever happened here -- by rule of order an extraordinarily civil, decent, informative home -- but the lapse was rather deliberately engineered, I believe, by the provocateur, who I hope has by his behaviour become an uninvited and quickly -- perhaps unprecedentedly so -- unrespected guest here and self-defrocked expert "contributor" to a civil and informed forum.

Please wander around SOG's topics, especially the critiques and topic headings for courses offered by you. You won't be reminded of any other website you've visited, save in occasional lapse that is inevitable and has become, particularly in the one instance you referred to, nefariously and legendarily sourced and predicted, and others, aberrations. Differences in procedure and protocol are accepted almost universally -- indeed usually eagerly -- here. Speaking only for myself, of course, your brand of tolerance, interest, professionalism, and eagerness to investigate all procedures and protocols is very welcome.

Cheers

What a fascinating thread this is and one that is near and dear to me. As Marvin put it so well, I won't add to his comments about seeing except to include one of my favourite quotes. It is from Robert Beverly Hale: "First, we draw what we see. Then, we draw what we know. And then, we know what it is that we see."

This picks up very well on what Adrian mentioned about anatomy, for example. Knowing anatomy perfectly does not in itself allow you to draw a convincing human form. Just go ask your doctor to draw a person. What it does do, though, is allow you to better understand what is in front of you when you are faced with the human form.

Similarly, chromatic and/or value changes that occur as the form (plane) turns away from the viewer is very much a natural phenomenon, but it is not always immediately evident to the eye, particularly when that eye is untrained. However, just doing it on the canvas, in a "formulaic" way--"on faith" so-to-speak--usually results in the thing looking right. Then, if we were to look back to the model, sure enough, there it is.

So, all of the various forumlas, conventions, and systems--call them what you will--that have been devised for painting, are there as guidelines for the painter to better express their vision. None are truly "reality". They are all abstract mechanisms for representing three-dimensional form onto two dimensions. It often boils down to what works best and what you know best. Marvin mentioned his willingness to make changes as he deems them fit and necessary. I love that attitude. Moreover, some conventions work better within certain painting systems than do others and so we must fit the approach with the treatment of subject within those systems.

Also, welcome back Stephen. I hope you had a fruitful and enjoyable R & R.

All the best.

Juan