Wilma, There was nothing wrong with your choice of words so there is nothing to be sorry about. I understood exactly what you were asking and tried to respond appropriately.
The Reilly palette arrangement, which is based on seeing value first and considering hue relative to value, followed the basic approach used for artists' academic training which was taught for centuries. That is until the Impressionists put color first and things spiraled downward from there. Fortunately, through the efforts of Reilly, and others like him, the basic tenants of this tradition were kept alive and have survived. Now there is a real momentum back to a more logical approach.
I find it quite ironic that the very colors that were championed by the impressionists, the cadmiums, are now embraced by many of those who claim to teach a traditional approach. My hero, Paxton, was an artist, who though academically trained, was able to marry the concept of impressionist color observation into the academic credo of seeing form first. My innovation was to transpose Reilly's palette arrangement over Paxton's choice of colors. Another marriage made in heaven, the way I see it. This of course eliminated using all cadmiums in the flesh. A move I've never even given a second thought.
Reilly studied with George Bridgeman and Frank Vincent DuMond who were students of Gerome. He was also an apprentice to Dean Cornwell the great illustrator and muralist. Reilly's teaching incorporates a tremendous amount of insight garnered from the above sources. The only thing I find questionable is the use of cadmiums in the flesh. Like all things in life, we need to sort through the options afforded us and cobble the best solution based on our own judgment. My only allegiance is to the effectiveness of what I employ. Show me a better way and I'm there.
|
Threaded Mode
