Color truth

[Timothy C. Tyler]

Painters must come to the place where they can read color (values, intensity, and hue) at once. Perhaps, it helps to try to analize these aspects seperately - I can't remember ever doing that. When I see a color (before me, life painting) I see all aspects at once. My eye and mind read it all.

It's not unlike saying, "when you want to recognize a human being, you should consider the shape of the head, the hair color, the height, the skin color, the posture, the details of the features etc." None of us do that step by step. We consider all parts at once. Reading color is like that too. Doing this takes practice so that you can translate what you see to the world of pigment in your mind.

[Michael Georges]

Tim:

Yes, it is possible to learn to paint that way. Certainly for some it will be easier than for others - it was not easy for me.

The thing is, when you compartmentalize things for a new artist, it really can help them get their mind around the concepts. I have seen a 48 year old flight attendant, who has never picked up a brush in her life, do a very detailed monochrome underpainting in a week when she was first taught about value and told to focus on just that.

If I may steal a line from the Bible: Clearly there are many paths to so great a truth...

[Timothy C. Tyler]

As an added note; Your values can be right and your color wrong. If the color is right, then all other parts are right;

Color:

A. Value
B. Hue
C. intensity

I think this is sometimes misunderstood.

Hi Michael,

I respect your point, but I've always wondered if that piece by piece method maybe makes it more complicated. As I say, when you see someone on the street, your mind uses numerous devices simultaneously to recognize (or dismiss as a stranger) that person. This is a learned trait. We can learn this trait in art too. I notice if I don't paint for 3 or 4 days my skill and speed at this "reading color" decreases.

[Marvin Mattelson]

Going for the color directly is impractical, in my opinion, simply because it is impossible to duplicate nature in paint. You can't recreate the red of a rose in sunlight in paint. If the hue is correct then the value will be dark. If the value is correct then the hue will be bleached out.

What you perceive in reality is the result of additive color (light) mixtures while the colors you mix are the result of subtractive color (pigment) mixtures.

The key is to understand the relationships you see before you, and while maintaining them, ratio the colors and values down so that the relationships are recreated within the realm of pigment.

Ultimately you must choose between value and color. If you favor form then value comes first.

As a teacher, I have had great results teaching color mixing by having my students separate the three aspects of color: hue, value and chroma.

The greatest painters were also great scientists (objective observers who constanly strove to understand why the world appeared to them the way it did) and clever thinkers who never attempted to copy nature, but strove to enhance it instead. The choices they made, based on their analysis of nature, is what defines their creations as works of pure genius.

[Timothy C. Tyler]

No way, At least indoors you can nail both-if you try. Why choose one over the other. This work has both value and color right on.

[Timothy C. Tyler]

Which would you say I fudged on value or color. If you see it you can paint it. Sorolla did some pretty convincing paintings of wet red noses outside too.

[Timothy C. Tyler]

Sargent taught classes too and he said,"the harder a color is to read, the harder you must work to get it."

[Marvin Mattelson]

Tim,

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but I really don't see any evidence that you have presented here that encourages me to change mine.

I express my views here not to try to change your mind but to offer the possibility of the existence of an alternate view to those perusing this Forum on a lazy Sunday afternoon. I still feel to interpret and not copy nature is the hallmark of all great art.

Sargent was a great artist but produced works, in my opinion, of uneven quality. Perhaps if Sargent had been able to first determine the hue, then mix the value and lastly adjust the chroma he may have avoided having to start so many paintings over and over. One sitter alone had documented being required to show up for 80 sittings. Sargent was, from what I can tell, a very instinctive painter.

William Paxton, on the other hand was a far more cerebral painter whose output was far more consistent, quality wise. Sargent at his best (Lady Agnew), is one of the most brilliant paintings I've ever seen (up close and personal) but I've seen many others that were real dogs.

If you are posting examples of your own work to make a point here, I hope your realize that you are inviting the possibility of having your work and not just your point of view questioned. If you want this type of interaction, perhaps posting in the critique section would be a more appropriate venue.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I believe that the great painters were keen observers of the world around them. I equated them to scientists since they were looking to uncover the mechanics of visual phenomena. Identifying a color by virtue of its hue, value and chroma is the basis of scientific color identification and by adopting this method of objective analysis artists can only enhance their own attempts to understand the world that appears before them. A nice side effect of this approach is that you begin to see the interrelationships between all mixes on your canvas, a very useful tool indeed.

I would encourage those who agree with your opinion, or those who are interested in pursuing the possibility of its authenticity, to sign up for one of your workshops and explore your methods first hand.

[Timothy C. Tyler]

Marvin, my paintings hang beside Andrew Wyeth and Pino and there are exposed to pretty tough day to day comparisons from art buyers. I can bear some critiques from this Forum. But you said an artist has to choose between value and color. I'd like to know why. Which does your Paxton choose? Which did Vermeer choose? How about Bouguereau? To me, they got both rich color and correct values.

I too, think Sunday readers should get accurate information. You said a painter must choose; why? A good painter can paint what is before him - if he can see it - it can be painted. Why must anyone limit themselves? Electing to do so is a different discussion. By the way, my initial point was that an artist does not have to analyze each part, one piece at a time. Each aspect of color is precisely what comprises that very color. I'm just asking for a short to the point reply. Brevity is the soul of wit.

I'm not going to bother defending Sargent.

[Linda Nelson]

I find this debate very interesting, and certainly it is a compliment to the level of accuity that professionals reach, and is a priviledge for us (not there yet) to learn from. Please allow me to ask a question of you -

It seems to me in reading this that I am leaning more towards what Tim believes. I say this for two reasons:

1.) What we see doesn't really exist, as far as it is our brain interpreting information. For example, thank goodness for persistence of vision, or else we would "see" nothing but millions of separate frames of information. Marcel Duchamps' "Nude Decending Staircase", judged from this perspective, is more "real" than, say any Ingres. So as painters we are toying with visual sensory nerves, and should be possible to achieve our "trickery" in both value in tone - look at Chuck Close as a raw example in my opinion.

2.) I find that there is a level of cerebral "scientific expertise" that one may actually want to avoid, as the closer you may achieve it, it is to the sacrifice of other dynamics that are involved in portraiture. To me Sargent is exceptional, because he is human, and the fact that his works shows both mastery and fallibility is the common denominator of both him AND of his subjects. No one is perfect, and no one should be.

On the other hand, I it find ironic that Tim uses as an example a still life, and not a human being.

What I'd like to ask is, in the context of value/color, how does one capture a subject's spirit?

Thanks for your consideration of this idea.
Linda