Tricks of the masters
 

We are all forever seeing books and articles entitled the tricks (or secrets) of the masters. There are of course no secrets, there are only methods and techniques and these are NOT secret. It may be hard to find the particular formulas for their mediums etc. but even these were many times put into print.

I think the hardest thing to grasp is that if we were given Bouguereau's equipment, very few of us could make a convincing copy. It's the skill we all really want. The "secret" just sounds like it might be easier to attain.

Information is required certainly and the more the merrier. We share that sort of info here. It's the quiet hours and days alone in the studio applying that knowledge that makes the larger difference in our work.

I agree with you, Tim, that there are no secrets, really.

But what is it then that makes the one in 10 million painters so much better at pleasing the general population? One who makes a painting so nearly perfect that it can enchant generations? Yes, they used the very same elements and principles that an artist of today uses, so it can't really be any "secret".

However, if there were a secret, it might be that they used their colors and values more wisely than the ordinary artist does. And one of those could have been that they kept their overall color schemes very simple. So simple indeed that if one of the masters themselves could tell all modern artists to paint with an analogous, or complimentary color scheme, then artists of today might think the idea rediculous and/or boring.

Most of their really succesful and recognized masterpieces contain analogous or complimentary color schemes.

I am beginning to form the opinion that the reason for this is that color takes up space on the canvas. And the more that colors are closer in proportion then the more the painting loses its "one thing" as Curley told Billy Crystal in the movie, City Slickers.

It loses its identity as being a mostly red painting, or a mostly blue painting, or a mostly yellow painting. It loses its simplicity.

Look at the beautiful cover pages of the books that are featured on the left of this forum's home page. The book with the little girl is mostly blue. The book above that seems mostly green. The book above that is mostly monochrome/maybe analogous. The one above that mostly analogous. Very pleasing to the eyes.

Now, I am not saying that success cannot be acheived any other way, because a rainbow painting might be just what sells tomorrow for thousands of dollars and everyone just goes crazy over it.

But by studying the paintings of the old masters and the new masters and comparing them, then it will likely be that the rainbow painting won't endure generations unless it employs a lot of balance and proportion.

Take a look at the home decorating magazines that show beautiful room designs and you will see one thing in common. They have "just one" major color (or neutral). Now look at Van Gogh's painting.:)

More often than not, the old masters were using 2 or 3 colors overall. I know that when viewed up close that some of these examples of paintings may have many other colors in them perhaps, but when viewed from a distance one can only perceive 2 or 3 colors.

So, Tim, you are very right in saying that there are truly no secrets to the paintings by the old masters. Perhaps there are only similarities in some of their paintings. And though they are not secret, most painters and artists (with the exception of a few master artists such as yourself and others on this forum) don't use those similarities as a guide. And I would hope that not every artist would use them as a guide because that would become so limiting.

You are a very wise man Tim. I hope to get in one of your classes some day.:)

Here is one last example of a painting by Mr. B. in which used a simple color scheme.

We agree I think
 

Here's my worn out old analogy; there are no secrets in baseball. There ARE lots of skills to learn thru practice and one gets better and wiser the more one studies, practices reads etc. but none of the information or skills acquired are secret. The advanced stuff is harder to get like how to hit a curveball from a left handed pitcher or how to paint reflected light in a shadow-but nothing is really a secret.

To me, the reason one person excels over the multitudes (whether painting or mathematics) is the uniqueness of their brain.

This is difficult to hear. It's difficult to hear because it's not controllable. Technique, formula, ingredient are all controllable items. And so we tend to gravitate towards answers which are controllable.

This is why there are so few masters of any endeavour. There are so few brains so uniquely wired for complete success. Einstein unlocked many secrets, one would suppose that many Einsteins would follow, it just doesn't happen that way.

Many can study the controllables and become proficient, even more can become down right good, but genius quality is the province of a unique mind.

I don't think great success as an artist is necessarily an inborn "genius" thing, personally.

Some artists did achieve great and new things with their work, of course. DaVinci and Monet come to mind as examples of trail blazers. However, many others developed a reputation as "great" or became famous mostly by prolific hard work, learning to produce high quality work in a high quantity (Bouguereau and Rubens come to my mind).

Many more achieved fame, and the attendant high prices, because of how they lived their lives (VanGogh, Pollock) more than for the quality of their work, in my opinion.

Fame and high prices are nowadays more often tied to marketing savvy than they are to great achievement in the quality of the work. (Look at the whole world of modern art and at the Thomas Kincade phenomenon.)

I agree with Mike. We've all known painters who've been "at it" for ages, and never seem to evolve beyond a certain point, and others who seem to exceed their own benchmarks by leaps and bounds every few years. It's comforting to know this isn't a completely even playing field - it's nice be able to admire and idolize with discrimination.

There probably are some tricks too, much like in wooing, that work pretty much every time. But even the most earnest ear-nibbling from a novice just ain't gonna raise these sails.

;)

I really weigh in with Mike on this one. Certainly I haven't met every excellent contemporary painter, but among those I have met, and consider extraordinary, they all share the feature of extraordinary intellect.

I also think that extraordinary paintings share a clarity of purpose by their artists - that is the artist has a point, and brings every possible element into play in order to convey it eloquently.

So, I agree with you, Celeste, that color schemes, compositions, and everything else in successful and enduring paintings work to support the artists's point - why the painting was painted, and what was to be communicated. Ill-conceived color schemes, poor compositions and the like become the "thing" by default.

And with all of this, I think this thread is perfectly suited to the Cafe, and I will move it there.

Ok,I am going to fess up here:

I was actually on a knowledge SHARING mission when I posted this under the topic of Most Popular Paintings.

I had already surmised what I thought that I was seeing in the similarities of the old masters work by September 2003 (I have been looking into this subject since July 2002). Long before reading the article that is posted below which I just found 2 weeks ago. But I went ahead and included that article's information and asked questions of why that would happen, etc, in the other forum. I was trying to invoke thought and discussion.

If anyone is offended by my doing this, then I apologize. My only intent was to share this knowledge via using a different approach as opposed to the regular, "this is what I think on the subject of similarities in the old masters's paintings".

And also, I wanted to get your opinions and information on the subject. Again, I apologize if I offend and/or offended anyone by using this type of tactic to share information.


Here is the link that I found 2 weeks ago that seems to confirm my previous findings on those similarities. But remember that I know that both she and I could be very wrong in what we are saying.
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2003/0215art.shtml

There is a secret, but I'm not tellin'
 

Geniuses are thus designated, not because they can successfully negotiate the intricacies, but because they can identify the obvious. We scratch our heads when describing the great breakthroughs in history, wondering that if the answer was so obvious why everyone overlooked it.

To the painter, developing and harnessing a real understanding of visual perception is the key to creating masterful paintings.

The secret is that every successful realistic painting is essentially a big lie: the viewer is deceived into believing that a two dimensional surface represents three dimensional space.

This premise is so obvious that the vast majority of artists simply gloss over it looking for the big truths, genuine tricks or alchemistic secrets.

Anyone looking to "copy nature" is heading the wrong way down a one way street, a falsehood perpetuated by far too many.

The ability to incorporate ones understanding of visual spacial phenomena with the accuracy of one's perceptual acuity distinguishes great artists. They were just flat out smarter about painting.

Looking to imitate the color schemes or value structure of the masters is missing the point. You've gotta get into their heads and think like they did. Color schemes and value structure will automatically conform to successful models because the truth is the truth.

Anyone looking at the work of Bouguereau should see a shining example of true genius at work. Although working in a seemingly limited oeuvre, he was able to reinvent his solutions with infinite variety and great vitality. Best of all he never imitated himself.

Minds
 

The minds of the really great painters I've known seem to certainly understand deeply the craft of painting. I'm always impressed with how many styles can fit within our collective opinions of what constitutes great art.

Whether artists copy works of those they admire, or search for the

Browsing through an old issue of the Classical Realism Journal, I read a passage that brought this thread to mind. Any question that Wisconsin artist Jeff Larson, a graduate of Atelier Lack in Minneapolis, is qualified to comment will be quickly dispelled by a look at his website.

For whatever value they may have here for Forum members, these remarks were made in the course of a feature article about Larson

Thanks, Steven.

As we Quakers say, "This Friend speaks my mind."

I don't believe there is any secret past the application of daily diligence and hard work directed at improving. The knowledge is certainly out there, available to anyone who wants to find and apply it. Innate or inborn "genius" is the least of it, in my opinion.

Best--TE

Dear All,

I found a very good website to discuss the issue of why our eyes see the way that they do and how artists can (I really hate to say exploit this because that sounds so crass) exploit this in improving their paintings. Most of you already do this so it's probably not a new thing to any of you. Most of you are already Master Artists. :)

Here it is:

http://webexhibits.org/colorart/anuszkiewicz.html

So this means, to me, that it is the ability of the painting or the colors of the painting or the use of similar values to grab our eyes by 'moving'. Didn't Van Gogh say that is why he placed complements next to each other? So that the colors would indeed vibrate?

It may not be a secret, but it seems to be a really interesting theory. True or False? I sure don't know the answer to that. I'm just trying to improve my paintings. :)

And I really admire all of the SOG artist's paintings.

Theory and practice
 

Thanks, I'll check out the site. I like those things done well. As to the broken colors next to each other idea, here's been my take on it. A lot of artists that talk about this but really never display it in their work. Fechin, my hero spoke of this, yet of the numerous works that I have enjoyed in person for hours, I've seen little of this truly in his paint. It seems to be a great concept not much done.

One may argue that yellow paint next to red makes orange and at the smallest level-or taking this concept to a microscopic level why not buy orange paint? To appreciate this concept of two distinctly differing colors "vibrating" next to one another they must by difinition be visible to our naked eye (as separte colors) and then one would assume the viewer must then determine that perfect viewing distance from which to consider the exciting visual occurance as the vibration happens. It seems altogther probable that this should happen but my experience is that in truth, the paintings are little more than curiousities-pointillism being the perfect form of this.

I see Schmid do it nicely enough and I agree that is it possible. I simply have seen it done very rarely even by the greatest proponants of the concept. This Fechin below shows the effect (at least in person).

Gosh Doggies, Tim, that is beautiful.

I think that the point that the website is making and that of Van Gogh is that he might paint the yellow/orange Chair (With Pipe) and then, right along the edge of the chair, he places a really clear thin line of blue. That made it vibrate yet in a controlled way.

In other words, it is the use of complimentary colors that are very near in value that is the key. I love the website because it has interactive examples of taking color out of a painting or adding more contrast to just one of the complimentary colors so that it shows that the effect would be lost if the near values were not maintained.

I found the above website today and I'm just really impressed with it. I think that it may be based on Margaret Livingston's theories. I just ordered her book from Amazon and I can't wait to receive it.

Also, the website is going to be invaluable to painters some day when they get it finished. See all of it at:

http://webexhibits.org/

This has been an inspiring thread with some excellent points and suggestions. The "secret" seems to be a little of everything: mastering skills, learning one's craft, knowing how to use color, etc. I agree with Tom Edgerton that
"The knowledge is certainly out there, available to anyone who wants to find and apply it."

I have an wonderful little motivational book that I have read more than a few times over the years. It is a small 92-page paperback that is not easily found but I highly recommend it. "The Pursuit of Excellence" by Ted W. Engstrom. Published by Zondervan Publishing House.

Although it is written from a Christian perspective, this book has principles of excellence that would benefit people from all belief systems and all endeavors whether art, politics, or any number of other life choices.

Of course we have to know our craft to be able to excel, but what to do with that knowledge is quite often the key. "The Pursuit of Excellence" gives some really practical advice to motivate people forward in their life pursuit.

Mary

Thanks Mary,
I have to go check it out! Sound like something that I would love to read. :)

Celeste,
"The Pursuit of Excellence" by Ted Engstrom is out of print. If you have trouble finding it try http://www.alibris.com. I've been able to find books through that website that I haven't found anywhere else.
Mary

Thanks Mary. :)