Maybe I’ll do oils some day, but for now watercolor is the medium for me. It’s inexpensive, it’s portable, and I have paint thinner on tap.
It’s true that luminosity comes from the paper. For some reason, with glazing, that happens. Mix the primaries together on the pallette, and you get brown mud. Mix them on the paper, and you get – well, luminous brown mud.
Try using Golden Fluid Acrylics for glazing on WC paper.
I’m still back on the sexy bit.
I think there is a difference between seeing that someone can be sexy or is sexy at any given moment and wanting to have sex with that person or even considering having sex etc. Whynot is correct-teens some days look like they’re kids and then wham! the light hits a shoulder or they turn just so and it can be quite startling.
I went to my son’s first fencing lesson yesterday. I don’t really take in his physique day to day, but man! he is almost 15 and is 5’11"-built like a swimmer. The way he has to move his body when fencing made me aware of his body.
No wonder every incoming phone call is a girl for him!
I don’t know if that squiks folks out or not-I’m no MaryKay Latourno (sp?). And I highly doubt that the OP is a predator. Nurses notice things-something we’re paid to do. Artists must see things differently in order to create. Not such a big difference, really…
I would like to see the boat ships, if possible. I would like to see the pic of your niece, but completely understand why you wouldn’t link to it–not everyone can note a physical reaction within themselves and leave it there.
Sorry if I killed this thread-didn’t mean to!
Thanks, elenorigby (and Why Not). It seems that only one person did not get it, though. But to explain a little, I think Mel Gibson is sexy. I do not want to have sex with him. Like, ever. I think a Ford Jaguar is sexy. I do not want to have sex with a car. I think Portia DiRossi is sexy. I do not want to have sex with…
…Mel Gibson.
For the boats, see the links in post #30.
I don’t know what a “boat ship” is-I think I meant boat pics…
Nice pictures-you have a deft touch. I especially like the Schooner one.
Do you do landscapes? I’m not much into boats (in the Midwest, tis a looong walk to the beach!).
I own a book of Prince Charles’ watercolore of various royal residences. why I own it is not clear, but I like the pics in it. Just thought I’d share…
tdn, it’s not called glazing.
Glaze is really only used to describe oil paintings, and is part of the “Indirect” painting method - here’s some more information.
Thank you, dearie!
That’s what I started out doing. I think the direction my style is taking me is New Englandy quaintness. (Then why the hell am I doing a portrait of a Florida girl?)
At last year’s exhibit I had a barn in a field, a lighthouse on a cliff, and a tree in four seasons (I divided the paper up into four parts).
In fact, I gave one as a gift, sold one, and have one hanging in my office.
So I’ve done landscapes but I prefer seascapes. In addition, I’ve done:
Portraits
Still life
Flowers
A rocket (Saturn V)
Abstract
Nudes (Well, one. And it sucked. And I didn’t have a live model.)
And that’s all I can remember.
Not to contradict artlex, but I believe that every single watercolor book I own disagrees. If it’s not an official term, it’s certainly in nearly universal use. I’m on my way home now. If you want, I’ll type up a few excerpts.
I was agreeing with Fessie on the wash/glaze thing but then I found this:
It appears you’re both right (but I never heard the term “glaze” with relation to watercolor in all my art education).
In fact, those are the colors I use most often, for those very properties!
Since I’m lazy, I’m picking up the book closest to me, The Complete Guide to Watercolor (no author listed).
“Traditionally, watercolor painting is built up in stages. Since the watercolor medium is generally characterized by transparent color effects, with the color of the paper underlying all the painting, the overlaying of color is really a form of glazing. Any number of colors may be glazed over each other, and each will affect the look of the whole. (snip)”
Huh, that’s a new one on me. I’ve never heard it called “glazing” in reference to watercolor – potters are really the ones who talk about glazes. Oil painters talk about underpainting. Watercolorists, washes.
But, as you say, it’s a big world.
I always understood glazing to be adding a glaze product to the paint to thin it and give it a high sheen. Specifically acrylic paint. Go figure.
Well, tdn, I don’t know what your attitude was while painting. But Cptn. Seagull there is most definitely telling me to piss off. I hope that’s what you were trying for, because if so, you succeeded splendidly.
Heh. My hope was that the gull had assumed complete control. They tend to do that.
And this bird strikes you as what?
A midlle aged soccer mom with jaundice?
A teen boy with acne?
A really bad rendition of Boy George?
Be honest, I can take it. I really dislike this painting.
Whoever she is, she is pissed.
but if you look at it longer-she seems more contemplative, but solemn.
She does look a wee jaundiced (carotenosis?).
Yeah. It’s supposed to be my “sexy” niece, trying looking sad but in her funny way, almost cracking a smile. Back to the old art schooling that I can’t afford. I posted the OP confident that this would be the Mona Lisa of our time. Guess I was pigment-happy.
It’s a nice picture, but I wouldn’t say her depiction is sexy. (full knowing that “sexy” is in the mind of the beholder).
I think you have some skill with a brush-any watercolors I’ve ever attempted have turned into drops of muddy greige/brown nothing…
Thanks, but…
It doesn’t look like her at all. In the original photo she looks relaxed and pseudo-sad (while actually somewhat bemused). In that painting she looks – I don’t know, somewhat demented and malformed?
I don’t know if you’ve ever tried this approach, but if you draw a 1-in. grid on a photo and paint each square individually, you can get either a very close likeness of your subject or a very interesting rendition. It’s oodles of fun to do.
I’m really enjoying this thread – you actually inspired me to spend an hour painting yesterday, which is something I hadn’t done for about 6 months. It’s really fun exercising the old “art muscles” in conversation, I rarely do that since becoming a mom to twins. So I’ll tell you what I would say about this painting if we were in a critique together, as peers.
Things that work for me:
You filled the paper very well – although, anatomically, there’s no way that her hair extends all the way to the edge like that, the paper needs to be filled there; if you had background along the right edge, it wouldn be a very choppy effect. Instead, there’s a nice flow from the curve of the hair to the wrinkles in her shirt, to the background. It’s a swirling composition. The necklace breaks that action in a good way, and draws your eye back up to her features. The composition is the best thing about this piece. Your background colors support it well, too - the triangle of neutral brown, just above her shoulder, is a really good choice; it “sets” her down, gives some counter-balance to her shoulder. The swirls in the background echo her hair in a good way. The lift in her hair, where it kind of sticks up, looks good in this piece (although it would be a strange hairstyle in reality).
Now, unless you took this photograph yourself, you can’t really take entire credit for the composition; you’re borrowing from choices that someone else made. But you adapted them well in the way you put the photo to paper.
You also rendered her features quite well - the eyes are the same size, and they make sense (you let her nose crop her right eye accurately). The nose is even stronger and shows a lot of volume. Good right cheek. The chin and mouth are really expressive and individualistic - this isn’t a generic person, but a specific one.
Your color intensity is balanced well, too – with that strong pink shirt, you needed a powerful background to keep her in place. I think that contributed to her yellow skin, too, but in an abstract way it makes sense. If you’d used a pale skintone against that background and shirt, her face would be overpowered by the other elements.
Now for the criticism:
Anatomically, this gal has some issues – her neck is twice as big as her jaw (feel yours), and her shoulders have no volume whatsover. The fabric of sher shirt seems to be draped across a piece of cardboard, not a 3D human being.
Her hair is really problematic for me – given the care that you took with her mouth, nose and shirt, her hair is way too formless and flat, and ends abruptly.
Since her shirt goes lighter towards the right (which is a good choice, compositionally), you need to explain why that’s happening, by showing the same effect elsewhere in the painting. Is her shirt lighter there because that’s where the light source was? If so, then her hair and face would be affected by the same light source.
Her yellow skin tone is clearly not “true” to reality (and it IS a bit much), but that’s not always the main goal of a portrait. With the other strong colors in the piece, her face needed a powerful tone in order to compete. At first glance a person might say “Wow, that chick’s yellow”, but if you turn your piece upside-down to examine the composition (and forget that it’s about representing a person) you’ll see that a normal skintone wouldn’t have worked here. I don’t object to it as much as you might imagine, because it’s a part of a whole; change one element, and you have to change the whole thing.
It’s nowhere near as “bad” as you described, and actually shows some competence (and attitude, on her part).
When we’re starting out in painting, we often think that “more paint = darker”, but that’s not actually true. In black & white, yes, more black = darker. But in color, more pigment = more saturated, and depending on the color that can mean a lot of different things.
Start mixing complementary colors when you want a (realistic) “dark” – add green to red, orange to blue, purple to yellow (that last one’s a bit tricky). Don’t just add more of the same pigment. Unless you want a flat, graphic look, that is. If you want a 3D value effect, you need good browns and greys.
And if you’re really devoted to watercolor, let some paper show through, somewhere. Her left cheek and jaw should be transparent.
