| Author | Message | ||
  Anonymous Painter Unregistered guest |
Hi, George, thanks for the tip. I have tried Yupo (one synthetic paper, sort of!), but normally I like to do a lot of wet-in-wet work during earlier stages of the painting. In fact, I often 'resoak' the whole paper (laying it still in a shallow pan of water) on my second pass at the work, sometimes even on a third pass. As Susan Harrison-Tustain (sp?) notes, working really wet helps several pigments get deep into the fibers of the paper, so my initial work usually isn't adversely affected by my peculiar work habits. Fortunately, my ability to 'see' much more of an abstract work before beginning to paint it is developing, slowly. Painting abstractly is just a bit harder, in watercolor, or requires a series or careful 'color studies' approach. Recently some people pioneered beginning with a digital composition, using that as their reference (almost as if it were a photo of a landscape). This is a very promising approach I hope to try one of these days! | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Joanna wrote; “I don't think Klee or O'Keefe had too much trouble using watercolor with abstracts. It's all in the approach.” Some artists have the visual acuity to see, at the time they are inspired to paint, the entire design fully developed in their imagination. All they need do is pick up a brush and put their vision on paper. These artists are uncommon. Most of the rest of us need to develop the design over time. | ||
Joanna Intermediate Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 90 Registered: 10-2006 |
Joe's "Palette" magazine has been running more than one article by Skip Lawrence on abstracts in watercolor. The last issue showed two artists and the process they used to create an abstract work. He does employ opaque or semi-opaque watercolor as part of his process (the Am. Journey Orchid and Periwinkle being some useful tones.) I don't think Klee or O'Keefe had too much trouble using watercolor with abstracts. It's all in the approach. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Anonymous Painter, if you’re interested in doing abstract art in watercolor you might want to think about using synthetic paper. The non-absorbency of the synthetic paper will allow the corrections needed to do late redesigns. It takes some practice to get use to using synthetic paper, but its well worth the time spent. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
That makes sense to me. Watercolor really isn’t more difficult except when doing an abstraction. It explains why I see more abstract paintings done in oil paint than abstract paintings done in watercolor. And, many of the abstract watercolor paintings are really done in acrylic paint. | ||
Anonymous Painter Unregistered guest |
While I agree techniques or methods are not more difficult with watercolor, I believe composition with non-opaque media can be far more difficult. If you simply wish to paint a landscape or still life setup--anything you can paint as you see it (or have already determined to alter it)--watercolor composition is not that difficult. If, however, you enjoy complex expressive abstraction, it can become quite difficult. I often work on a piece only to realize at a late stage that I ought to have left some white space in another area than I originally planned. Lots of series paintings ensue.... Recently I hired an "art tutor" to come help me every couple of weeks with composition. One trick that turns out to be helpful is quick color studies (or thumbnails) of the current state of an abstract, then working out on that sketch the intended next moves. Perhaps this and other tricks may cut down the number of paintings in the series before I am finally satisfied.  | ||
Laurarose Junior Member Username: Laurarose Post Number: 16 Registered: 9-2007 |
Ok, i begin to see.... I was getting caught up with the word "glaze" and my pre-conceptions. I kept thinking of a SEPARATE material or medium. But its just adding new layers of paint to dry ones to change a look or depth. Thanks everyone. | ||
Joanna Intermediate Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 76 Registered: 10-2006 |
That painting of the men I did a few weeks ago is done with glazes and patient drying (overnight in some case) between layers. I normally do not do this technique, but I liked the depth and the ability to alter color. For example, I used a sort of red ochre for wood doors, and put glazes of warming gold over at the end when the color tended too much to the purple to please me. At the end, I dusted some opaque here and there to look like hazy reflected highlights. It was very fun. I plan to do this again, if I can get a day to paint. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 372 Registered: 8-2006 |
Laurarose, Memorize Marie's last post -- it is so right! Glazes done properly, like Dobie's, are able to retain luminosity while gaining the complexity of the applied colors working together -- absolutely gorgeous at times. The problem is time and patience, as Marie says. Most of us dont have enough of either, and therefore violate rules 1 and 2 that Marie sets forth -- and they ARE the "law of the Medes and Persians" if you want to glaze! Also, the more glazes you apply to an area, the more likely you are to lose your luminosity, unless you are a Dobie! On the other hand, Marie is right in saying that it is a little easier to glaze very small areas. If they are not perfect, at least they will probably not spoil the painting as a whole. You are less likely to overwork your strokes and disturb the underlying layers if you just "dash" a little glaze here and there on a COMPLETELY dry painting. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 403 Registered: 8-2006 |
Glazing is when you paint one layer, let it dry completely, and then paint another layer on top. Some artists -- Jeanne Dobie is an excellent example -- create gorgeous and luminous watercolors with many thin glazes of paint. A lot of early 18th and 19th century watercolorists could also glaze beautifully. I'm not patient enough to do a lot of glazing, but I can give you some basic tips. 1) Make sure that the previous layer is completely dry before you apply the next layer. 2) Glazing works better if you are confident and resolute when you apply the second wash. If you fuss with the top layers too much, you'll disturb the washes underneath. 3) I prefer to paint smaller glazes on top of larger passages. | ||
Laurarose Junior Member Username: Laurarose Post Number: 12 Registered: 9-2007 |
What exactly is a glaze? What is the purpose and process? | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 296 Registered: 8-2006 |
jennie, Glazes certainly are "just a part of painting," and all of us use them from time to time, and in areas of our paintings where we can't get the desired effect any other way. It's just that a lot of people are not careful about how they do glazes and therfore detract from a painting that could have been rendered more effectively with awell-done first application that often is more vibrant. By the way, the advice I continue to receive is to put more time into thinking about and planning a painting than into the actual painting process. "Think like a tortoise, paint like a hare." | ||
jennie Unregistered guest |
I don't think about painting as much as you do. Glazes to me are just part of the painting. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 260 Registered: 8-2006 |
I should add Edward Wesson, David Taylor and John Yardley to my list of those who paint both freely and effectively. jennie, glazes are beautiful when applied correctly. Unfortunately, many painters are impatient and apply glazes before the underlying layer is completely and absolutely dry, or fail to apply the glaze with a light touch, thereby disturbing the pigment in the underlying layer and creating a muddier color. There is no question that a final glaze of something like a raw sienna can help a painting that is lacking unity or harmony, but I see that as a corrective of an earlier failure to achieve an initial unity and harmony. To me, it is best to get the color mix (intensity, variety, value, etc.) right on the first go, so that it is not necessary to go back in with a wash or glaze, wet or dry. Tony Couch is a good example of this kind of technique. Painters like Tom Lynch go back in by observing a "rule of thirds," always reducing the amount of paint used by thirds in subsequent "passes" that apply detail as the paper dries. The colors in their paintings are more vibrant as a result. Even painters like Seago, Wesson, Yardley and others who use more subdued color, tend (or tended) to paint in this way as well. | ||
jennie Unregistered guest |
The watercolors I paint are of real subjects and painted as such. I still like watercolor best. I like the way they travel into the paper. Also how adding color on color creates blends and glazes with real depth. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 255 Registered: 8-2006 |
I finished my series of Monday night classes in acrylic painting yesterday with a session on portraiture. Frankly, wearied of the characteristics of acrylic [colors don't blend as easily or smoothly on paper, a hidden "glob" in the brush unhelpfully turns loose at the worst time, the texture always seems "heavy" and "sticky" or slimy to me (except when thinned so much the color becomes anemic), etc.], I took my set of traveling watercolors to class. After I spent most of the class observing the teacher and my fellow students painting heavy, pasty, or chalky images with acrylic, I just did a few quick watercolor sketches at the end of class trying to catch the personalities of my classmates at work. Had some fun, and think I nailed a couple. Cleaned up in no time. I love watercolors -- and they are not all that hard if we don't take them too seriously, have fun with them, and avoid obsessing and overworking them. They were never intended to be used like oils. Turner moved away from using them like "Oils, Jr." and started capturing light and mood. Monet did the same. Homer was rather loose. Ron Ranson and Charles Reid paint with freedom. So did Ed Seago, adding a lot of grace. Approached this way, with just a little time and practice, watercolors, for me at least, are far more satisfying, and in that sense "easy," as we "go with the flow." For those artists who prefer working in a more labored, precise and painstaking manner, perhaps oils or acrylic would prove to be more appropriate media. Certainly the efforts of such artists are rewarded with higher prices! By the way, I love what Marie and Eugene paint, and I know they do put a lot of time, effort and labor-intensive technique into their work. The results are amazing. That kind of painting, done in oil or acrylic, would fetch some amazing prices! | ||
Jennie Throckmorton Unregistered guest |
Having painted both with acrylic and watercolor. I found that acrylic was easier to learn. Watercolor with a lot of practice is easier to use. | ||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 326 Registered: 8-2006 |
Well, George if you are going to take on masters'/undergraduate students for this project, at least consider the following: 1. number of students for statistical (nonparametric - SPSS) analysis to be > 100 to make any sense. Human studies by and large have a coeff. of variation of >0.6. 2. Also are you testing them on a simple task, which brings in the age and past experience into account. Age because people tend to from other experiences make a studied judgment. The complexity of the task will really determine which of the two media takes longer to learn 3. Are they being given identical tasks, except the medium. That is, if you are asking watercolourists to throw away their paper if they make mistake, the acrylists should be doing the same. If you have done at least all these, and you can provide a robust stats on it, your claims may be worth accepting | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Gary, it’s been a very long time since I studied research methods too, but I think it would make a good topic for a master’s thesis. If anyone reads this and wants to run the experiment - go for it! But, please come back and tell us the results. Clarification; my next to last post should read - both spend the same amount of time redoing the painting to correct their mistakes. Both spend the same amount of effort redoing the painting to correct their mistakes. The amount of practice is equal. The level of quality in improvement is equal. | ||
Garydoc Advanced Member Username: Garydoc Post Number: 136 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, there exist statistical tests for just the situation that you present. I am no statistician, so I can't remember the test name. I do know that there is a certain test to test 2 dissimilar methodologies for statistical equvalence. Thus one could certainly check the accuracy of your thesis, that the difficulty in learning to paint with w.c. using typical w.c. methods is similar to the difficulty in mastering acrylic technic. The variables are, time spent in the endeavor and/or number of attempts to master a given skill or skill level. If the given skill level is the invariant parameter, then it is perfectly reasonable to posit the time or number of attempts as the variable parameter. This stuff is so far back for me as to be a real stretch! Gary | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Rekha, in giving it some additional thought I think I may know what you mean by “like with like.” If I understand your point correctly, the opaque acrylic painters and the transparent watercolor painters did not use the same approach to learning (one painting over the top of existing paint, the other doing a series); therefore, the conclusion would not stand the test of proper research methodology. In other words, the two types of artists would have to use the same approach to painting (for example, doing a series) before it could be proven that watercolor is no more difficult than acrylic. I don’t believe it would change the results but I can’t fault your argument about technical procedures in research. I can however offer this argument. If I cannot claim watercolor really isn’t more difficult because of an error in my research methodology, then by the same reasoning others cannot claim that watercolor is more difficult since no research has proven it to be true. I assume you agree with that. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Rekha, No! I don’t see a contradiction. If you would, please expand on your question about a possible contradiction. What I wrote was; both the opaque acrylic painters, and the transparent watercolor painters, paint over their mistakes three or four times. The opaque acrylic painters do it on top of the existing painting, and the transparent watercolor painters do it in a series. Both spend the same amount of time redoing their mistakes. Both spend the same amount of effort redoing their mistakes. The amount of practice is equal. The level of quality in improvement is equal. Also, please expand on your term “like with like.” | ||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 324 Registered: 8-2006 |
Also you haven't compared like with like using the same argument | ||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 323 Registered: 8-2006 |
You seem to have contradicted your own statement. The fact that it is possible to paint over with acrylic paint in contrast with watercolour shows that it takes 3-4 times more practice (not necessarily qualified by time) to reach the desired skill in watercolour | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Rekha, on another thread, asked that I comment on my experiences concerning the myth that watercolor is more difficult to use. I thought it would make a good topic for a new thread. For a number of years, just for the fun of doing it, I’ve taught a class that includes transparent watercolor painters and opaque acrylic painters. I have observed many times that students (regardless of their level of skill) learn to use transparent watercolor paint and opaque acrylic paint with about equal effort in an equal amount of time. I have the opaque acrylic painters paint over their mistakes. Some of these learners will paint over an area of the painting three or four times before they get the painting to a level of quality that shows a significant improvement in their skill as a painter. However, with the transparent watercolor painters, I use a different approach. The transparent watercolor painters cannot paint over their mistakes. Instead I have them paint a second painting (then a third painting or more in a series) of the same subject with the idea of correcting the mistakes. Some of these learners will paint the subject three or four times before they get the painting to a level of quality that shows a significant improvement in their skill as a painter. I have observed that it takes a transparent watercolor painter and an opaque acrylic painter about the same amount of time to reach the desired level of improvement in their skill as a painter. Their individual level of natural (God given) skill influences this level of improvement, but I have observed that the type of paint has little influence in the degree of improvement or the time required achieving the desired improvement. From these observations I believe it is safe to state that it is a myth that transparent watercolor is more difficult to learn or use than opaque acrylic paint. |
