Web Class Questions March 12

Q: Oils and water mixable oils, do they mix?

A:Yes, they do. Make sure, however, that you don’t use water anymore if you integrate normal
oils. Water soluble oils also can be mixed with mediums used with normal oils but leave out water
when you do so.

Q: Regarding the Grisaille technique, what do you think about it and who is known for
applying it?
A: Helen Van Wyk is a good example on how she used it to quickly demonstrate the nuts and
bolts of painting in her TV show. We personally prefer students to depend more on alla prima
work, as well as using cadmiums and other techniques to ensure brilliance and luminosity in their
paintings. However, doing monochromatic value studies of subject matter, without color, is a very
good practice to train the student to perceive value better. While it is true that Grisaille gives more
transparency comparable to watercolor, the thin paint does not justify withholding texture which is
what oils is so well known for.

Q: Can you discuss muting nature’s colors instead of painting them as they are?
A: We do not have the range that nature has in terms of value and color, therefore, to give the
idea to the viewer that the artist has matched a certain color, which would normally appear too
strong on a canvas, but normal, in nature, artists therefore have to modify it - gray it down - in
order to give the impression that a certain color was matched. If you try to match colors in
isolation, not from an already established color plan, then you will tend to go too far with color
since you will have nothing to relate the color to, other than a blank canvas. This is why we do not
really paint what we see, since painting is a completely different language than reality, we have to
find ways to interpret something real into the limitations of pigment. So, we do not match the
colors in nature, particularly outdoors, as if you were holding your brush in the air against the
subject, instead, we set up a pattern or context of colors mostly on the gray side so that we give
the impression of brilliance. I would dare any artist to match the color of summer trees and grass
as close as they can and make the painting work. The greens in nature are too neon looking.
Most pros gray these greens. I tell my students to match the green trees to an olive.

Q: How can you avoid cracking?

A: By not putting a faster drying layer on top of a thinner layer both still being wet. There is much
more information about this on the internet. I would not worry about this unless you are an artist
who sells paintings for many thousands of dollars where the collector’s painting will lose value if
the paint cracks.

Q: What is the difference between masses and planes?

A: Masses refer to the design aspect of painting in terms of how you divide a canvas into 3 to 4
flat value patterns. Planes refer to depth, how one plane sits behind another, like mountain
ranges, or in terms of light, planes in relationship to light etc. If you can designate each plane a
value mass that will work but once again each plane does not mean it is its own mass. You can
group a background plane in the same value as a tree in the middle ground. If you want them to
appear in separate planes you shift the colors. The idea is to get as many mid value areas as
possible even if the values are in different planes. If the background plane is small then it may be
a good idea to make it into a different value to show depth.

Q: Is it true that you need to be a good draftsman in order to be a good painter?

A: There is controversy in this, so I will present both views. The Old masters would take in
students after reviewing their drawings, not their paintings mind you, because a good drawing has
all the prerequisites for good painting, where the artist has to focus on the language of paint
instead of drawing. Michelangelo himself, who preferred sculpting than painting, declared that
drawing was the basis of every visual art including sculpting and architecture; his drawings
surpassed many of his contemporaries because he thought like a sculptor, in planes, not in line.
The idea behind drawing as a requisite for painting applies mostly for subject matter that requires
accuracy like in the case of figure drawing, or like portrait or still life, of course (the impressionists
broke free from this for reasons I will explain later). Drawing is good to learn, for it enables you to
forget about the drawing while painting, and therefore you can focus on brushstrokes,
abstractions, and composition while working. When drawing has been undergone as a discipline,
it allows the artist to focus on the main concept, instead of dealing with plumb lines, proportions,
basic shading, mapping out elements, etc, because paint, no matter how dazzling, cannot cover
up a bad drawing in a painting. So for discipline, it is encouraged, because here the student will
not focus on typical and limited ways of solving problems,- resorting purely to immature paint
techniques and applications, in order to cover up a bad drawing. You see this in recent portrait
painters where evidence of flawed drawing skills overshadows their dazzling paint application and
“bravura”. The impressionists however, broke free from this, because they were not aiming for
accuracy, but for the rendition of color, and impression. The impression of the actual thing, not so
much its characteristics through drawing; but they all learned the nuts and bolts of drawing before
doing this convincingly. Even Picasso, his early figure drawings show great scholarship. But
nowadays, since landscape tend itself to be more abstract and more implied in its rendering,
artists can forget about the drawing, and not necessarily study drawing to a professional level.
But you do need to know the basics or proportion, shape, angle, basic shading, mapping, etc, so
that while painting, drawing is no longer a concern; it’s a tool not an end in itself in painting, since
here we deal with mass and brushstrokes, not line and pencil strokes. As long as you can
recognize and produce an well deigned abstract shape either with a drawing or brushstroke, that
is the essence of a successful painting. A midsize brush to create these shapes is all you need.
Landscape painting requires lots of knowledge in composition but it is forgiving if you don’t have
good drawing skills. As long as a tree is somewhat oval and different in its contours and its line is
melodic it doesn’t matter if the tree does not match the one in the photo or the field. You can be
really good at drawing round rocks because they appear like that in nature but those round rocks
do not look good in a painting. Rocks look better when their shapes are angular. Knowing this is
more important than accurately drawing. As a matter of fact we should not be accurate at drawing
what is in nature, but redesign it so it looks better than the real object.

Q: How do you start a painting?

A: Many roads lead to Rome, but you need to k now where you are headed. In painting, the finish
has to be arrived at mentally before the start, so that the beginning is always aimed towards the
finished process. So first thing is first, knowing the result will generally dictate the means. Some
artist tend to know so well what the painting needs to look like, that they right away start painting
in the most difficult passages, like the center of interest or areas that require more drawing, and
then enjoy the rest of the process now that the painting becomes easier after getting the hard
parts over with. Other artists like to sneak up to the subject, crystallizing their ideas as they go
along in the painting, correcting and making decisions as they go along in a very guided and
intelligent manner. Sorolla himself said, in reference to his outdoor paintings, to ‘not know what
the picture is to look like until it is done, but to just see it coming.’ His versatility and experience
however, allowed him to improvise and steer all things into a solid finish. But in terms of more
technical ideas, painters usually apply a thin wash where the main values will fall, and then simply
block in the main masses, the foundation, the largest masses, since these will determine the
value and color of the coming details. You do not paint large masses in relationship to details, you
paint details in relationship to masses, otherwise, you risk losing the whole, and wind up with
many visually isolated things in a painting, instead of one painting of many things. This involves
finishing the painting in stages, and each one has its own completion. And finally some mediums
and artists tend to lead to different ways of starting a painting, of painting one part of the canvas
at a time without having the rest of the information to relate it with. A word of caution, only very
experienced artists dare to use such a method, for they know exactly how something will appear
without the reference of the rest. Many instructors will teach steps for painting such as painting
the sky first, then the background. As long as it is oils, acrylics or pastels. I disagree with this, I
prefer to tap into my artistic brain to see things as abstract shapes and paint those in that way. I
try to think in snapping puzzle pieces until I finish the puzzle. I have yet to hear a valid argument
why the sky has to go in first.

Q: What do you think of the traditional idea of painting darks first?

A: Not in plein air painting, since the artist cannot have a formula for such an approach; there has
to be a natural spontaneous reaction to the changing light in forms. The plein air painter has
therefore to be flexible in working form dark to light as well as light to dark, because he is not
thinking in layers, but in getting information down fast in the most immediate and practical
manner. Studio panting on the other hand, has to have a more systematized procedure,
especially when the consistency of the paint is part of the final result. Painting darks first thinly will
give them an airy transparent look and give the lights a richer solid look when the thick layers
come. You do not want darks to reflect light, so keeping them thick is unwise. Painting darks, for
shadows, is also a logical way of rendering forms, because the strongest contrast or most
important transition in any object is the line between light and shadow. If that gets out of the way
quickly, the modeling the object becomes easily resolved. The shadows hold the form together
just as the drums hold the beat in a song. So overall, it’s good to know and study several
approaches and take what you like and discard what you do not like. I don’t paint light over darks,
rather, I leave the white bare canvas and place the lighter value next to the dark, somewhat like
laying domino blocks next to each other, not on top of each other. Placing highlights on top of a
dark under painting just results into creating mud.

Q: Are trees always darker than the ground planes?

A: That depends on the exact lighting situation, the translucency of the objects, and their local
tone. For instance, under certain lighting situations, uprights will appear darker than the ground;
that is because the sun is more at a right angle towards the ground, than it is to the uprights. But
what if the ground planes are in the cast shadow? Uprights, like pine trees, have a darker local
tone than ground planes, because grass tends to be translucent, and dirt, water and other things
tend to reflect light. While pine, tends to absorb light and is therefore darker, and tends to be less
translucent than grass only a bit. So variables like these strengthen the illusion of the rule that
uprights are always darker, but they can get very light in the sunset when they are getting light at
a right angle, especially if the ground planes are in the shadow. Again, nature has to be studied in
all its variables in order to interpret it better. Formulas are dangerous unless they have a solid
logical foundation. But in general, when it comes to trees that are not cottonwoods or birch tree in
yellow foliage, trees normally would be darker than the horizontal plane if the sun is not close to
the horizon.

Q: I guess I should just take the short cut and copy artists’ symbols…
A: That is a short term solution, although it can give you good ideas of how artists solve problems
and thus explore their creative solutions for rendering or depicting forms. But honestly, you like an
artist’s painting, not because of this or that, but because of things you may be still a bit naïve to
see, like how he moved your eye, the abstract pattern of the composition, the usage of abstract
shapes, etc., the more subtle yet substantial elements in painting Understanding this will free you
form slavishly copying any style down the line, and will give you the creative freedom for inventing
your own style or your own way of depicting forms, though as a beginner, it is a fun process of
learning. But in more advanced stages you have to be able to deal with any situation nature
presents to you, and unless that artist you admired has painted every single possible existing
form, or every possibly situation, then by limiting yourself to knowing his language of symbols,
how will you therefore deal with situations when it comes to painting subject matter he or she has
not painted? You will most likely repeat the symbols that are not even there, in the new situation,
and will resort to painting rocks, trees or clouds, the same way every time, regardless of their
variety of kinds or types. If you do not overcome this stage soon, you will be a clone of the artist
you like, and will never be able to handle different painting situations that are not in your pre-set
vocabulary of symbols. The important thing is to get ideas from other artists, such as their usage
of certain techniques, their ideas on edges, on shapes, and other general things, not their
symbols, since even these change or are secondary bi products of their knowledge of the more
important aspects of painting that every student should seek to understand. However in early
stages in your art career it is much better to copy an artist than to copy photos. This way you will
think in pictorial symbols rather than in “realism”. Eventually you will want to produce your own
version of something. But yes, for now, by all means do a lot of copying of artists you like, as
crutches, until you can walk on your own.