|
When venetian red, yellow ochre, bone black and flake white are invoked as the limited palette of Rubens or Velasquez, the use of vermilion and the occasional blue (Diego used smalt, Peter probably could afford lapis) is so sparing as to be negligible.
Often, folks make the effort to limit their color use with the masters' example in mind, but confound the proper use of some colors. The "old masters" followed a fairly narrow methodology for "constructing" a painting, underpainting/overpainting then glazing, using more opaque and naturally lean colors in underlayers and finishing with oil absorptive, transparent pigments in the topmost "fat" layers. The modern painter using even a limited "layered approach" should familiarize him/herself with the nature of materials, which colors are more oil absorptive, which are transparent, etc.
Feeling hamstrung by a paucity of available color is the frustration that makes children yearn for the 48 colors box of crayolas! None of us ever quite outgrow that "racoon" reaction to the availability of pretty colors to use. (I know I'm a sucker for a "new" color!)
The greatest benefit to be derived by working from a limited palette is the vast "head-room" that becomes available when you need to "punch" vivid color. Similar to mastering the compression of values, it is possible to imply local color variation with very limited means. A painter might work for months using only raw siena, ultramarine and white and never quite plumb all the possibilities . . .
|