| Author | Message | ||
  Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 452 Registered: 8-2006 |
Joanna, Apparently the Marmottan has recovered beautifully, though it may have had an even more extensive collection at the time you visited. It is now concentrated entirely on Monet. It has so much that only a portion can be displayed at any given time. The jeu de paume still exists, but all the impressionist paintings have been transferred to the d'Orsay. The jeu de paume now contains a collection of "modern" paintings. Please don't be prejudiced against the d'Orsay because it was once a train station. It is actually very beautiful on the inside and has a superb display of 19th century impressionists, as well as related art. I know that retirement has given me the unusual privilege of extended travel, but do try to make the trip back and take a first hand look for yourself. You could appreciate it much more than I was able to do! | ||
Joanna Advanced Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 114 Registered: 10-2006 |
I liked very much the Marmottan (edge of the Bois de Boulougne) in Paris, but some years after I visited, it suffered a big theft of important works. Not sure if it is as good anymore. Many impressionists. The old Jeu de Paume (the court tennis park turned into a museum near the Tuillieries and a very lovely museum) was apparently replaced by the Musee d'Orsay. To me, it looks like a train shed. But on a trip to Paris in 2000, the lines were so long, I just decided not to go in, despite its excellence. (Back then I could take a train there, but since I'm back in the US, this is now a luxury I can't indulge in so easily! Maybe I'd change my mind...since I can't get there anymore on a whim.) As to Pompidou Center, I've been to Paris maybe 15-20 times, but I never somehow could get past the plumbing and scaffolding that beckons you to delights inside. It is forbidding-looking. Perhaps a warning by the architect? | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 444 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, I am SO sorry you spent a day at the Pompidou!! Though I passed it several times, it was one of the few museums I chose NOT to visit. It's not so much that I am not particularly fond of "modern" art, but I found the building itself to be an eyesore in an otherwise architecturally beautiful city. I agree with Joanna that the I. M. Pei pyramid at the Louvre somehow blends much more easily, despite being a radically different style. Even the new musee du quai Branly near the Tour Eiffel nestles into the general landscape much better, as*isted by the grassy landscaping! Incidentally, can't something be done about those crazy red dots that the thread censor insists on imposing on our word construction? (Ha Ha! He missed "grassy!") | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Eugene, the composition is much improved. It’s beautiful! Jack, Paris! That’s wonderful! When I went to Paris I made a mistake of using one of my two days to go to the Georges Pompidou Center. The lesson learned – plan ahead. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 442 Registered: 8-2006 |
Eugene, I like your changes, which seem to move in the direction you intuited was needed. What great work with corrections -- isn't watercolor a fabulous medium given the tools now available to us? I have to say that I feel somewhat awkward commenting on your work -- you are the professional, and I am just giving reactions as a layman. Take my comments with a grain of salt! | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 414 Registered: 8-2006 |
Griz, I washed out The background in the upper right corner and a spot about halfway down on the left side. and also added 2 buds at the bottom. By using some masking tape and Mr. Clean magic eraser, I could get down to almost white. -- then put in a few subdued flowers and repainted the background. Now I like it much better . It's already framed, so I can't take a head on shot, but you'll get the idea.  I seldom have much success with corrections, but this time it seems to work. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 440 Registered: 8-2006 |
I have to disagree with Joanna about the background of your amaryllis painting, Eugene. I think your use of the Betts technique lends a reality to the painting that otherwise would be missing, without distracting my eye from your center of interest. Your obvious love of nature reflected in your painting would have made you a great Impressionist! Apparently your use of glazes to achieve the gradation of color you wanted also worked well. You may be right about separating the stems, taking a flower off the edge, or something similar to lend a dynamic, vibration, mystery, or more variety to an almost too perfect, centered and statically balanced composition. Nevertheless, your skill as a painter gives us a truly lovely still life! To answer your question, George, I do still post here, though like you, I have been absent for a while. Actually I am just back from a 5-week stay in Paris visiting the various museums and art galleries at leisure without the tourist crowds of summer. My love of the Impressionists led to long, lingering visits at the Musee d'Orsay and the Marmottan (which has a wonderful collection of seldom seen Monets). Like you, I appreciate the Impressionists for their yearning to capture the light and realities of nature (I also join you as a fan of Turner, Rembrandt, and Caravaggio). Monet's technique of using dabs of unmixed color closely applied so that the eye could do the mixing does indeed give a brighter, cleaner look as you retreat from the painting surface. I must admit, however, that I do not especially care for the way the pointillists later carried this technique even further in the direction of the pixels that digital photography and computers would use later -- they look like poorly rendered color photographs to me, though they do have a certain charm of their own. I can't help but thinking that the more we apply fresh, appropriate and adequate color correctly in our initial strokes and don't continue to fiddle with the painted surface, the better off we are. Tony Couch has an approach I admire greatly, painting on presoaked paper (drying certain areas or allowing the paper to dry for areas where he needs hard edges or texture), letting paint mix on the paper, and studiously avoiding going back into painted areas except for brief, quick and sparse overlapping strokes to blend two areas with a quick glaze. I'm impressed by the vast technical knowledge some of you have acquired about various pigments and papers and their manufacturers, glazing properties, etc. My head starts to spin just reading these various posts! Such knowledge must be a great help in achieving just the right effect you want. I'll never get there; I'm too old to memorize that much. I'll just have to keep on putting down the colors at hand that seem right to my eye in my own simple and naive way, whomever the manufacturers might be. It's an ongoing adventure, with some wonderful serendipities along the way. The paintings may not achieve a theoretical ideal, but given the vast range of taste and opinion in art, surely they will please someone, if not me -- which is apropos to one of my last posts pondering why it was that my least favorite of three paintings I entered in a recent show was the one that sold! | ||
Joanna Advanced Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 107 Registered: 10-2006 |
Nice amaryllis, Eugene. I love growing those. I think perhaps (?) your dissatisfaction with the painting may stem from the scale of the texture in the background? I like the technique Betts uses, have tried it myself, but the small "chunks" here don't seem to work so perfectly compositionally with the large flower and leaf forms. The colors are lovely. | ||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 408 Registered: 8-2006 |
Eugene, these flowers are so lovely you want to grab them out of the monitor. What pigment did you use for the flowers | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 409 Registered: 8-2006 |
Well, here's the finished painting that started this discussion. I'm not really happy with it, but decided to show it anyway. I think the renderng is not too bad, but the compostion is boring. There were two flowere spikes on the amarylis- I should have separated them to make a more interesting shape, and maybe having some of the flowers running off the page. Why do we always think of these things after we're finished? The background was somethng I learned in the Judi Betts workshop. You paint it using full strength dark colors--burnt sienna, ultramarne deep, thalo green, deep purple or any combination of deep colors alternatng colors and letting them mix, and randomly leaving white holes between strokes. I used a 1/2 inch flat brush. Then go back and fill the holes with somewhat lighter brighter colors. I think it makes a more interesting backgrond than a wash. Not a great painting but I learned something.  14x10, direct paintng, no masking. | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 408 Registered: 8-2006 |
Marie, May introduce you to the wonderfull world of stretched paper? This is my easy way, if you'd like to try it. first get a piece of gator board, -- you'll like it for a support even if you never stretch paper again. It's so lightweight and easy to turn and maneuver. comes in half and full sheet sizes. Soak the paper 8 to 10 minutes in a clean tub. If you don't agitate the water you will lose little if any sizing. Carefully lift the limp paper by a corner and let it drain until it stops dripping. Lay it on the gatorboard and staple the edges about every 1 1/2 to 2 inches, wit an ordinary office stapler, NOT A STAPLE GUN. It will dry drum tight over night and is a joy to paint on. And if you want to work wet in wet, begin immediately, and it will stay damp for a long time. The staples are very easy to remove from gatorboard. I usually lift mine with an old palette knife. I've even stretched a full sheet of 140# when I wanted a faster drying time than I would get on 300# STRETCHING WORKS ONLY WITH 140# AND LIGHTER. I have even used it with 90# with success, although I don't recommend it. I use Arches and Waterford 140# CP and find them both good. I use rough sometimes when I want granulation. Haven't tried other brands because I'm satisfied with these--and I must have a liftime supply,that I have won as merchandise prizes | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 442 Registered: 8-2006 |
Oh yes, even 140# paper *never* dries close to a waterfall. I learned that one the hard way, too. That's funny. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Before I switched to synthetic paper I used a lot of different papers. One thing I found out about 300# paper is you should never paint on location at a waterfall on 300# paper. You would think that would be obvious, but I found out the hard way. On another subject - until about a week ago I’d been off this forum for quite some time. Does Jack no longer post here? | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 441 Registered: 8-2006 |
Thanks to you, too, George, for bringing up the idea. I learned a lot from the experiments -- glazing has never been my strong point. I agree with with you about sizing in paper. The sizing makes a tremendous difference in what kind of techniques work best. I don't think that one paper is necessarily better or worse -- it's simply a matter of finding what works best for your style. By the way, I have never stretched a piece of w/c paper in my life. I keep meaning to, but I never have the patience for it. The discussion of paper also makes me think about the weight of the paper. Lately, I have been experimenting with some very wet techniques, really drenching the paper before I start working. I have found the 300 lb. paper works well because it holds more water and extends the working time before the paper starts to dry out. I am beginning that the capacity to hold water, not the absence of buckling, is the main advantage of using really heavy paper. Of course, the water holding capacity would be a huge disadvantage if I did a lot of glazing because I would have to wait so long for the paper to dry between glazes. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Marie, I forgot to say thank you for duplicating my experiments. Because of your efforts I’ve learned something new about the art of watercolor. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
I’m guessing the difference has more to do with the amount of sizing. When paper is presoaked for stretching (as I did in those days) it removes a lot of the sizing. When you paint with watercolor onto paper the paint particles settle onto the surface of the paper. Some of these paint particles sit on top of the paper fibers and other paint particles are washed into the crevices between the paper fibers. On a paper with little sizing a glaze of the same color, and each successive glaze, washes more of the paint particles deeper into the crevices between the paper fibers. This sinking of the paint particles deep into the paper dulls the color. Anyway that’s what I believe happens. The higher level of sizing in the paper must reduce this dulling of the color – especially if it isn’t presoaked for stretching. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 440 Registered: 8-2006 |
I have always had trouble glazing on Lana paper. My experience with Lana has always been that it's works better for lifting than glazing. Whenever I try to glaze with Lana, it lifts up the lower layers. It's great if you want to slap some paint around and then scrub out the the lights and refine the details. Arne Westerman (http://arnewesterman.com/) uses Lana very effectively. Burt Silverman uses bristol in a similar manner. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Eugene, right, a glaze is very difficult on synthetic paper. It can be done but it can also mess up the painting faster than you can snap your fingers if you aren’t careful. Because of this I glaze only as a last resort. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Marie, your results for multiple glazes made me pull out my paints to see if I could find an explanation for the difference between your findings and mine. You mentioned that you used Arches 140# CP paper. When I first did this experiment I used a sheet of Lana with less sizing than most watercolor papers (presoaked because that’s how I worked when I first did the experiment). Tonight I did the experiment again. This time with Quinacridone Red on two papers, one with little sizing and the other a sheet of Arches 90# CP paper. The multi glazed swatch looks more dull than the single application swatch on the paper with less sizing in it. The same result I got in the past. When I tested Quinacridone Red on Arches 90# CP paper the results were different. I repeated the test many times to see if I could figure out what’s causing the difference. On the Arches 90# CP the single application swatch and multi glazed swatch don’t look the same, but dull isn’t the word that fits. I asked my wife to help me find the right adjectives to describe the difference. She thinks the single application swatches look more airier. She thinks the multi glazed swatches look more complex. I agree with her, but I don’t know how much that communicates to someone interested in the effects of glazing. I should add that I made the single application swatch and multi glazed swatch the same value, and did the test for three different degrees of color intensity. It seems that the type of paper does have an effect on how the glaze looks. | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 407 Registered: 8-2006 |
George,I forgot that you work on synthetic paper. We're talking about two different techniques. I find it's almost to glaze on yupo without disturbing the underlayer. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Eugene, I’m guessing you’re responding to my question in my last post - why glaze if it’s the same color. Your answer is; for subtle gradations of that color from light to dark with soft edges. I didn’t think of that because working on synthetic paper as I do forces me to find other ways to achieve subtle gradations of color from light to dark with soft edges. Good catch Eugene! | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 406 Registered: 8-2006 |
GEORGE QUOTE "Marie, my tests also showed (as did yours) that when the colors are the same or similar a glaze doesn’t do anything to improve the color. I believe this is because adding a glaze only adds more pigment particles. That’s something that can be accomplished by adding more pigment particles to the first wash. So why glaze?" I think you misunderstand me. I don't normally glaze the same color to get it darker, unless I misjudge the first wash. I do repeated glazes of the same color only when I want subtle gradations of that color from light to dark, with soft edges. It gives me a lot more control than trying wet in wet. | ||
Joanna Advanced Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 106 Registered: 10-2006 |
The pyrrole orange from DS is listed as "transparent pyrrole orange" but I find it a very dark color. It's hard to tell if it is transparent but deep in tone, or somewhat opaque. It isn't exactly "orange-orange" either, kind of reddish with a twinge of something to it. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 439 Registered: 8-2006 |
The pyrrole orange (which, incidentally, I don't use very often) is reasonably transparent according to Handprint -- that's part of the reason I chose it. If I get a chance, I'll try it again with the M.Graham thalo blue. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
A, The reason for your sucess was because you used a different color in the glaze, | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Marie, your last post came in while I was writing my post so I didn’t see it until now. My results for multiple glazes of a single color were a bit different, showing an increased dullness with added glazes, otherwise our results are the same as mine. I wonder if the reason for the difference is because you tested slightly opaque colors (with cadmium red, raw sienna, or pyrrole orange). Try it with very transparent colors and see if you get the same result. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Marie, my tests also showed (as did yours) that when the colors are the same or similar a glaze doesn’t do anything to improve the color. I believe this is because adding a glaze only adds more pigment particles. That’s something that can be accomplished by adding more pigment particles to the first wash. So why glaze? I also found (as you did) that when the colors are very different, the glazes are more interesting looking. I believe this is because the pigment particles in the second color sit above the pigment particles in the first color giving a color separation you don’t get if the two colors are premixed and then applied. This color separation allows the eye to mix the colors. Just as in the color theory behind impressionist painting, and pointillism the colors will appear brighter and cleaner when the eye does the mixing. I’m looking forward to hearing about the results of your 3 glaze swatches. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 438 Registered: 8-2006 |
Okay, I have more results: * The only time I see a difference between a single wash of a single color and multiple glazes of a single color is with a granulating pigment such as ultramarine blue. The glazing destroys the granulation of the ultramarine blue. I can't tell any difference with cadmium red, raw sienna, or pyrrole orange. * With similar colors, I can't tell much difference between a mix and a glaze, except that granulating colors work better in a mix. Once again, I think that multiple glazes will destroy the granulation. (There's one side note here. When I did my tests, I tried very hard to get the glazes and mixes to come out to the same value. I also kept the washes very wet/juicy. It occurs to me that I have a lot of experience handling paint and getting paint to the right dilution, and that might have an effect on my results. I know how to get single mix washes to the intensity I want without making it blotchy. Watercolorists with different styles or experience levels might get better results with a glaze.) * With different colors (cooler/darker on top of lighter/warmer) the glazes are richer and more interesting, but it's easier in many cases to get darks with a mix. | ||
A. Unregistered guest |
I just turned a failed painting into my best ever through glazing. It was a landscape involving layers of distant mountain ranges in hues of violet. I made the foreground a dull green. It was awful. I glazed the same purple over the green I used in the distant mountains and, voila!, a masterpiece! | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 437 Registered: 8-2006 |
Here are some preliminary results from my test. I haven't made sense of it all yet. First off, my basic process and materials: * back side of Arches 140# CP paper; * #10 and #12 sable brushes; * I tried to keep the washes very wet and juicy; * I kept the rinse water and brushes reasonably clean; Now, the results: * For a single color, I can't tell any difference between a single wash and a wash with a single glaze. I haven't finished the wash and 3 glaze swatches yet. I tried M. Graham Cadmium Red Light, W/N French Ultramarine Blue, W/N Raw Sienna, and Daniel Smith Pyrrole Orange. * For different colors, I tried a lot of things and got a lot of different results. First, some background --- I usually think of four classes of pigments: earth, synthetic inorganic cools (ultramarine blue, viridian, cobalt -- sometimes I call them mineral pigments), cadmiums, and synthetic organics (thalos, quinacridones, azos, pyrroles, etc). I put together 10 combinations of pigment classes: cadmium/cadmium, cadmium/earth, cadmium/mineral, cadmium/synthetic, mineral/mineral, and so forth. Then, I did up to four swatches of each combination: glaze with similar colors, mix with similar colors, glaze with different colors (warm/light color glazed first), mix with different colors. * When the colors are similar and the pigment type is similar, such as cadmium yellow and cadmium red, I can't tell much difference between a single wash and a glaze. * When the colors are similar and the pigment type is different (cobalt violet and indian red, or ultramarine blue and thalo turquoise), the single wash looks better. This may have something to do with the granulation of the pigments. * When the colors are very different, the glazes are more luminous -- or at least there is a complexity that is missing from the mixes. The mixes, though, tend to be darker. For example, any red/orange and blue combination looks better as a glaze. I am going to look at the results more tomorrow. Maybe I'll be able to organize my thoughts a little more. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Test it both ways and let me know what you get as a result. | ||
Joanna Advanced Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 105 Registered: 10-2006 |
I have a theory, too, on the glaze opacity issue. Subsequent glazes might disrupt the orientation of the paper fibers. The more disoriented and disorganized, the more light is scattered in all directions, making for a muddy appearance. The second theory is that the top layer of the dried paint takes on a skin-like effect, which renders the color under it more opaque in appearance. Of course, the test would be to use a pouring technique. If pouring layers of color over each dried layer comes out luminous, then it's the paper fibers getting disorganized, which could be confirmed with a microscopic examination of the paper fiber orientation. If there is a skin effect at work (the particles of paint drying in such a way as to scatter light on the surface), then the poured color will show the same dullness. •••••••• pouring doesn't disrupt the paper as much as brushing does. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Eugene, I'll post my understanding of it when my results are verified by an independent lab (so everyone grab a brush). If my experiment was flawed then tell me. As I said in my last post, someone using different colors, brands of paint, papers or approaches to applying the glazes may get different results. I need some independent feedback. Bonnie, I can't believe you haven't already responded. This issue relates to transparency. Isn't that one of your special interests? Got a brush?  | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 405 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, 'til I have time to experiment, i'll take your word for it. But to do these flowers that have very delicate shadings, I think I'll have to do multiple glazes of the same color. I need more control than I can get by doing it wet in wet. But I still can't understand why multiple transparent layers of the same color would turn out duller. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Marie, yes I have a theory on why multiple glazes of the same color end up being duller than a single coat of the color and yet 2 glazes of different colors is more luminous than a single glaze of two mixed colors. But, before I go rambling on about my understanding of how watercolor paint works I should wait for you and Eugene to verify the results of my experiment. I don’t what to be counting chickens before the eggs hatch as the old saying goes (is that saying the appropriate one to use here?). Anyway, as you may know, experiments conducted in different labs sometimes find different results because of small changes in the variables (for example the colors or papers used). Please let me know what you find (anyone who is interested). | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 436 Registered: 8-2006 |
That's interesting, George. Do you have any ideas about why that might be so? If it really is true that multiple glazes of the same color will tend to be dull, then it would seem that 2 glazes of different colors would be more dull than a single glaze of two mixed colors. And yet I always hear that lots of glazes will tend to be more luminous. In my own painting, I try to limit myself to 2 layers max. Hmmmmm..... I need to do some experiments. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Eugene, I’m guessing you mean you disagree that a glaze of the same color does nothing but dull the paint. Have you done a comparison? Do the following and let me know what you find. 1. Paint a swatch with one color and only one application of that color mixed with water to a nice rich hue. 2. Do a second swatch of the color but this time with a glaze of the same color to reach the same nice rich hue of the first swatch. 3. Do a third swatch of the color but this time use three glazes of the color to reach the same nice rich hue of the first swatch. 4. Do a fourth swatch of the color but this time use four glazes of the color to reach the same nice rich hue of the first swatch. When I did this I found that the most luminous swatch was the first (only one application of paint). Each of the other swatches became progressively more dull as the number of glazes increased. Maybe you’ll get a different result - let me know. | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 403 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, I disagree | ||
Joanna Advanced Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 104 Registered: 10-2006 |
Eugene, this is the Ticino red, making flesh tones and almost unmixed for the lip color.  | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Glazing with the same color does nothing but dull the paint. Glazing is only useful when one color is glazed over another color. Try a burnt sienna glazed with another color. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 435 Registered: 8-2006 |
I would vote for the quinacridone coral. Or I would make a big mix of quinacridone red with some yellow. | ||
Joanna Advanced Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 102 Registered: 10-2006 |
Another paint could be quinacridone coral. I like (love!) Tizino Red from Maimeri Blue. I thin that one and it can make almost a flesh tone or a lip color by itself. If I get a chance, I will post the picture where I used it. And American Journey makes a lovely warm red, Poppy, from Naphthol Red. A combination of this red plus some quinacridone coral (Dan Smith also makes quin coral) might work but be warned the naphthol is semi-opaque, while the quin coral is very transparent. | ||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 406 Registered: 8-2006 |
Daniel Smith's perylene scarlet is the probable candidate, Eugene | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 402 Registered: 8-2006 |
I am preparing to paint some salmon colored flowers, intending to start with a pale shade and gadually building up color by glazing with the same color until in get the deepest to the tone in the flower. I tried cad. red and cad.light--too orange perm rose-- too pink vermilion-- way too orange. Finally I made a thick mix of cad. red and perm.rose and poured it into one of my empty palette wells. I believe this will work pretty well, but I'm still looking for a red that thins to a nice bright salmon.. Any suggestions? |
