Skip to main content

Complementary Hue/Value/Intensity Study

Progress on my value study a day? Slowed to a halt. But I have been making progress and moving forward on my goal of considering myself an artist by the time this Corona Virus ordeal is over. Mostly working on things that make me happy during this summer of staying home. No need to add any more stress to the anxiety we all already feel. 

For the past week, I've been using a previous value study to work on my my color theory knowledge while continuing to explore acrylics. I'm not a new-comer to color theory. It's a subject I love and find fascinating. But I will say, there's a difference between reading about it and actually using it for a painting.  I picked up a used copy of Stephen Quiller's Acrylic Painting Techniques, and I've been devouring it. (I have several other books by him; his theories aren't new to me, but they were challenging to use with watercolor). The first exercise asks you to paint six small, simple paintings using two complementary colors. I had to head down to my local art store, Way Up Art and Frame (so happy they're weathering these crazy times), to pick up seven tubes of paint to be able to flesh out my color wheel to match his. I'm glad this acrylic thing is still fascinating me because I now have A LOT of acrylic paint! Anyway, I decided to work my exercises with Pyrrole Orange and Phthalo Blue. Interesting combination; interesting outcomes. 

This was a fascinating exercise and much harder than I thought it was going to be. But, wow, I learned a lot. For each painting (5.5"x7.5"), I chose the value range and the intensity range, and decided if I was going to use white and black. It was a lot to think about before starting, but having done all that thinking, I found I could start focusing on the painting. I liked that a lot. I don't think any of these paintings is a masterpiece, nor do I think the color is very sophisticated, but I am really happy with how they came out, and they will now be on my studio wall for future reference. Here's my results:

  • Top, orange dominant: lighter value range (no black used), full intensity color plus white (tints).
  • Middle, orange dominant: darker value range, added black (shades), every color neutralized. 
  • Bottom, orange dominant: full value scale, used tints, tones (made from mixing blue and orange), and shades. 
  • Top, blue dominant: full value scale, all intensities, used gray but no black or white. 
  • Middle, blue dominant: darker value range, all neutralized color, added black.
  • Bottom, blue dominant: full value range, used a mixed gray as a "mother" color (some amount of gray in every color or color mix). 
So which do I like best? Hard to say. At first I hated the top orange, but it's kind of grown on me; it has its own charm. I also didn't like the middle blue; it's dark and creepy. But I think what's interesting is that it goes back to what Mike Bailey asks of all of his students...what is the mood? If I had said my mood was a happy, bright day, the first orange one would be perfect. If instead I was after something glum, the middle blue would be perfect. In the end, I think I like the last one the best, the one with the gray mother color. In fact, I like it enough that I'm going to paint one more in this series, a repeat of the bottom blue but with orange as the dominant instead. I'll get back to you!





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Back on Track with My Value Studies

Value studies #14, #15, #16. I thought I was getting better, but then I realized they really don't look like anything. Oh no.  Took a little break there. Not a good one. Prescription drug-related side effects. But I've got the issues worked out (I hope) and I'm back to work on my year of value studies. (I'm also rereading " Coaching the Artist Within ," by Eric Maisel, which is a GREAT book to use to tame the inner critic so that you/I can get back to making art.) A few days ago I watched a great promo teaching video from the Tucson Art Academy Online on value. Afterwards, I created three value studies from vacation photos. Studies #14 and #15 are from the same photo, but they don't read as masses that make up an interesting scene. Study #16 reads as three distinct value masses, but you really don't know what it is (a canyon in Zion). I'll need to think about these some more. Barn near Holdener Park, Livermore, CA Meanwhile, I reread ...

Value Epiphany!

For the new year, I've decided that before I start a painting, I'll note the goals for that painting session and/or the finished product if I'm not painting alla prima (in one session). I've sort of informally been doing this for the last couple of months, but now I want to consciously follow these steps: 1) write down my goals, 2) paint, 3) acknowledge that the painting is crap ( see previous post ), 4) note how I did or did not meet my goals, and finally, 5) create a next steps list. Of course, these steps won't be executed until I've done the all-important value studies! Last October I painted a lesson from Dreama Tolle Perry's Flow class , a cute carafe of cream with a white ceramic basket of strawberries. The basket didn't read "white" in my painting, which I didn't like, and I wanted to figure out why...but I wanted to use my own still life to do it.  So I set up a scene informed by Dreama but all my own. My scene used my own props to...

Finishing My Acrylic Complementary Study

I'm rereading Carlson's Guide to Landscape Painting, as I've decided that I really miss painting landscapes, especially in plein air, but the reason I stopped doing it was because I wasn't happy with my results and I wasn't making progress (ugh, watercolors!). Carlson's book is  DENSE. I gave up highlighting it because almost every paragraph would need a highlight, but I am typing up notes as I read, with the hopes of eventually creating a cheat sheet for myself.  One of the first lessons he writes about is his "theory of angles," where, for an average landscape, the sky, ground, trees, and mountains have certain relative values. Thinking about the six studies I just completed , I realized that I had arbitrarily assigned the sky a mid value, to make the house more the focal point, but according to Carlson, the sky should be the lightest value of the natural objects. Oops. So I redid the value study, using his theory. I kind of like it. Looks more ...