As my response to these remarks would have to be lenghty this would move this thread into another direction where it probably starts to get off-topic in this critiques-section. Probably many things regarding this have been discussed before in other threads.
I do not think that easily about glazing. It is one of the most misunderstood aspects of painting-technique. Painting in opaque paint a subtly modelled area, and putting a glaze on top of it often spoils the nuances of the modelling. Once added it is not so easy to remove a certain glaze without damaging the painting in some way. Glazed areas, (or what people do when they think they are glazing) often appear like dark stains on paintings from certain angles, mostly distorting the appearance of the painting.
Quote:
|
What is the point of underpainting if you paint opaquely on top of it?
|
I don't know where to begin to start to answer this (rethorically meant) question... let's keep it at the conclusion that karin and I differ in opinion.
Searching this forum will provide you lots of information, which will probably be (admittedly) a confusing amount of contradictory remarks by the several different pros on this forum since the misunderstandings, especially about glazing and the use of underpainting are a crucial part of the many differences in interpretation of the painting-techniques of the 16th- and 17th century painters.
Peter