|
Just a quick aside. I consider myself a tonalist who uses color. I was studying with one of the great tonalists, Cedric Egeli, when he became a colorist, and followed him to the Cape School, where I studied the colorist method for six summers. Cedric would now very definitely be considered a colorist, but I have found myself pitching back to the tonalist path, by way of my study over the last five years of the 19th Century Russians and the 16th century Flemish painters.
I do, however, use a colorist palette, I apply the paint to the canvas like a colorist, I build up the paint, manipulate the paint, make use of the refractive quality of light like a colorist, I paint a mud head like a colorist, and make plane changes with color changes instead of value changes.
But bottom line, I am a tonalist. Value is more important to me than color. My definition of a tonalist is his being a valueist. Richard Whitney spoke admiringly of the oh so subtle value changes in Ivan Kramskoi's work. Of how Kramskoi could turn an edge in a whisper....(ahhhh)
Having studied at great length both disciplines, I can tell you that it is not possible to define either in a sentence, because both have intricate and extensive theories and philosophies.
Henry Hensche used to say that if you got the color right, with the right value, the right shape, and in the right place, you didn't need to draw. James I. (a tonalist artist) once said that it didn't matter if you get the color wrong, as long as the value was correct. Many a classical realist will tell you that the drawing is everything. Should we call them line-ists?
I've studied all three, and thankfully, no one is making me sign a pact to use only one discipline.
Peggy
|