Watercolor WIPs- Sharing and Learning

[Steve B]

Oh, I agree with that in large part-- though I might disagree that it's the market place that has anything to do with judging the artistic "value" of a painting. Beyond that, I agree.

All art is artifice, and that goes both ways. Natural media art is no more "real" than digital art. That's partly why I don't call it "real watercolors" or "watercolors in the real world". It's all the real world.

I'm not against using digital tools to do magic digital things- like mixing media in ways you wouldn't normally be able to do. Look at my self-portrait 2 or 3 pages back. I suppose it's "watercolory", but the truth is that it does all sorts of things we can't really do with natural media watercolors. It's just play.

But I do think interesting art tends to have a feeling of texture and grit to it. There's a lot to be said for the value of seeing two things interact, like a mark-making tool (a pencil, a brush, a crayon) and a surface. As chinapete so astutely observed the other day-- bringing texture and visual grit into your art is interesting to many of us because that technique is reflective of the fact that the world is full of subtly and texture. I like natural media watercolors because I like how aggressively it interacts with paper grain, how the pigment moves and bends to the will of water, how translucent the layers of color are, how you see through it, how soft and ambient a visual can be.

Those are all aesthetic choices that I bring to digital watercolors because they happen to please me regardless of the medium. I don't think it has as much to do with "replicating" natural media watercolors (although much of this thread is couched in that language to help focus conversation), as it does with general aesthetic choices. I'm not really interested in only a "fidelity" to natural media watercolors, like it's a kind of dogma, where, for example, you wouldn't be allowed to do certain things because you couldn't do them with natural media. I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in interesting art. These are just techniques, IMO, to achieve some of those results.

If I'm accused (haha!) of using texture in an interesting way that's reflective of how I see the world, and of laying down my color in a translucent layered manner, than I'm guilty as charged!!

.... Ha! Did I just make my Digital Watercolors Manifesto?

[maddog]

Oh, I agree with that in large part-- though I might disagree that it's the market place that has anything to do with judging the artistic "value" of a painting. Beyond that, I agree.

I hope I stayed away from broaching 'value' in my post. That's dangerously close to philosophy or religion. Upon some further reflection though, I thought of the Lascaux cave paintings and aboriginal 'art' that was not created for a market per se, but had an entirely different 'purpose'. It's all good, as they say. Perhaps that can be a subject of another video, using some cave art as a texture or mask. I'm working on a cartoon where 2 cavemen are studying their cave painting and one says to the other "I don't know, it lacks a certain je ne sais quoi...."

[chinapete]

@ maddog: hahahaha, so your "real" master would have judged van Gogh a poser, who sold nothing, and was kicked out of art school because his every brushstroke challenged the worldview of his academically trained teachers ... btw, your "je ne sais quoi" has already been done, see The New Yorker ...


@"master": 死木疙瘩脑袋要开窍!


@steve b: I've attached a quick study that combines a few ideas I gleaned from your videos for more expressive brushwork, and a chalk wash, a technique that is meant to add texture --

[eighty+]

He He He Pete Your looking cool Man R O M





































r

[D Akey]

Yeah China Pete. You got game, dude. Very nice sketch.

[maddog]

btw, your "je ne sais quoi" has already been done, see The New Yorker ...

-

My buddy thought a better punchline would be 'I just don't think it's primitive enough.' He also has a quick deflating line about ANY creative idea, "It's been done."
Good point about Vinnie Van Gogh. What a kidder.

[Steve B]

On the note of what's real--
I can only say that painting with light on a computer is pretty real. It's made of real photons and real electrons. I push the pixels around on a real screen with a real plastic bezel and real glass face that I can really touch. It has real electric parts inside of it, and I use a real electromagnetic pen and real electricity to run it. Heck, I can even print it on a real printer onto a real piece of 140 lb watercolor paper and frame it in a real frame and hang it on a real wall. I could even eat it if I wanted to.

The difference is largely about the process, IMO. Natural media watercolors use water and pigment that relate directly to gravity and evaporation, and the medium has a tactile sensory element to it that is very pleasing to experience. I don't disagree on that point at all. I, too, enjoy natural media watercolors.

Aster, I appreciate your input, but you didn't respond to any of the points I made in my last post. That's frustrating. I agree that natural media watercolors and digital watercolors are not the same thing, and I said as much in that post. I even mentioned that there are things each medium can do that the other can't. I completely agree-- there are wet washes that are very hard to replicate digital, just like there are mixed media results that are near impossible to get with natural media. I mentioned all the functional techniques one could use when doing digital watercolors, and why I liked them aesthetically, independent of the medium (natural media or digital). I also mentioned that all digital art mediums are not the "real" thing-- and that that goes for oils and pencils and charcoal, etc. Why do any of us use any tools that are digital that vaguely relates to their natural media cousins? But you didn't respond to anything I said, all of which I thought were valid, well-thought out points.

I'd love (in truth, honestly) to see a few examples of what you think are evocative pieces done in digital watercolors that meet the basic precepts you're speaking of, and that don't try to "fake" being natural media. For all I know, we agree on what makes a nice piece and are debating a moot point, right? As it is, though, its pretty esoteric, because you haven't given any concrete examples for me to relate to, so I don't really know if we're talking about the same thing or not. I do, however, think the natural media piece you posted is beautiful.

[Steve B]

I should say, of course, that this is all in good fun. I mean, we are talking about the esoteric comparative benefits and applications of digital versus natural media watercolors. It's not world hunger or abortion. So I think we can do it civilly, eh? haha!

[chinapete]

maddog, my bad, steve's right ... I think your friend is on to something ... hope you will share how you render the "primitive" in the drawing the cave people are looking at ...

m aster, the chinese says, more or less, don't think too rigidly (about the digital and traditional -- for lack of a better word -- ways of doing art) ...

hey eighty+ and d akey, if you like that little man, all the credit goes to steve, for his loose energetic style and all the great effects he's been sharing in the videos and on this thread ...

[Steve B]

Now, what am I right about in re: to maddog??? LOL. !!! All this referential talk is starting to confuse me.

I like the sketch you did chinapete-- you're putting down the chalk first and then bringing in the thinners, right? Do you feel like what this is offering you has more to do with the process you're using (sketch tone and form first--> blend with thinners and wash away pencil work), or more to do with the result in some way (that this process is giving you different end products)? I'm trying to think about how I might apply this.

I like what you're doing, but I'm trying to figure out if I could be doing it without the chalk, see? I can definitely see the chalk on top. That's clear functionally to me, and very interesting too in terms of how the canvas texture could be showing through on the chalk. I could see a tandem between these two tools being a nice way to bring tone and real tasty grit in to a sketch quickly-- something that can sometimes be laborious with a watercolor process alone, but which comes easy to the Chalk tool. But I'm curious to hear about your opinions on laying the chalk down first, and why you do it-- process oriented choice? or more about effect?

I also like, btw, the pomegranate you showed. That's very nice. What is it about it that's most appealing to you that seemed "special"? You brought it in to talk about the chalk and thinners process, so I figure you must have some thoughts on what you were able to achieve in that pic using the process you used, instead of other less-experimental process. If you have the chance to post a pic of the kind of Chinese media effects you were looking to achieve (I know I know, I keep coming back to that.... but I find it interesting...), that would also be interesting.

******

BTW, I've been very busy the last few days and haven't been able to make a video since last weekend. I'm planning on making 1 or 2 this weekend. I think I've got my fancy Artrage Pen Only Toolbar to a stage where I can demo it's functionality in a video too. I would think it would be very useful to anyone using Artrage that would like to a keyboard less or have more screen real estate in general.