Acrylic Colours AAARRGGHH!!

I think the answer is to look more at POL than at Google. I only use acrylics, yet have been struggling, on and off, for nearly 40 years 'to get it right'. There are times when I think is it just the wrong medium, and then I see something exceptional on the POL galley, that proves it can be done. It's not the medium, it's the artist.

It actually gets quite annoying - to me, anyway. I struggle to achieve unsaturated colour, in oil and acrylic (and watercolour), because I do not like paintings that scream at me. But then, yes - I see acrylics which are anything but unsaturated. Because acrylic has a range of new pigments that are very strong and can be used full strength to create impression which would look odd in more traditional media. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea to resort to 'pure colour' - colour that knocks your retinas out; or that you need to use colour at the full strength of which it's capable in every part of your painting. Hold back a bit...... There are collectors who like this approach; there are yet others who won't buy acrylic paintings, and look at you sideways if you propose to complete a composition in acrylic, as though you've made an improper suggestion. But acrylics don't have to be brash and garish, and I much prefer them when they aren't.

Sylvia - this one should get your tootsies tingling, then. https://www.painters-online.co.uk/gallery/art-view,picture_233516.htm Nothing unsaturated about the colour here, but I think it's fabulous - it sings at you, but it doesn't shout.

I'm more in the subtlety camp, and yet I started out with vibrant acrylics, gradually changing as time went by. I have an old warped pond scene, that still hides in the cupboard under the stairs, which screams at you, and yet I couldn't see it at the time. Then, of course, there's simply the question of taste. The glaringly loud acrylic often looks quite the thing in a modern kitchen-diner. I think realism, especially in the UK, tends to lean towards subtlety because that's what we face on a daily basis. Looking out of my kitchen window, on this grey, damp and overcast day, I can't see a vibrant colour anywhere. Bri

I may be more fortunate than you, in that I looked out of my window this morning, and indeed yesterday morning, and saw reds and yellows of autumnal foliage and berries - and incidentally a couple of young kestrels who have been successfully reared; and good luck to 'em. Though the crows and jackdaws obviously don't agree with me. But yes - brash, strong colour can be completely appropriate if that's what you see where you are; but in this country we tend to see more muted colour, and that's what I've always tried to capture. If I may indulge myself in a bit of - well, perhaps spite? There are two Scottish artists, presumably affected by the generally muted colours of Scotland whatever time of year it might be: those can be powerful, but are rarely vibrant. One of these artists is Scott Naismith, another Julie Dumbarton. By and large, I think they work in oil rather than in acrylic, and that's why I'm mentioning them: to suggest that the brash, or more neutrally highly-coloured, is not just restricted to work in acrylic. Both sell well, I believe. Certainly better than I do. Confident that nothing I can say will hurt them, therefore, I feel reasonably safe to suggest that I loathe their work - I find it crude to the extent of being actively objectionable. I find no subtlety in it and no genuine love of or feeling for the landscape they claim to depict. It is hardly accidental that Scott claimed at one point that Julie was copying his paintings - their approach is just about the same, and so far as I'm concerned it's identical in its hatefulness. I've wondered why I have such an extreme negative reaction to them, and I think it's because I can't help comparing them to the late Ken Bushe, also a Scottish painter (from Syd Edward's part of the world) who painted in powerful colours but never, ever, strayed into brashness. I don't think it's the case that acrylics are obvious, crude, brash, but that some painters see the world in this (in my opinion) ludicrously enhanced colour scheme. Acrylic will lend itself to the obvious and the crass, if that's how you choose to paint with it. It offers you that facility. Oil - well oil is harder to reduce to the crude; it's softer by nature; it allows and even encourages subtle blending. You can achieve the same with acrylic, but it needs a bit of effort and an understanding of the medium. But a crude painter, however commercially successful, is a crude painter. They may suit the mood of today, where some like big, brash, bold, highly-coloured paintings on their walls, and I wish them no ill. I don't wish those who buy 'modern' furniture, as opposed to the old, brown stuff that someone spent a long time carving, polishing, cutting, and fitting together, any ill either. But - I think you couldn't be more wrong if you tried: and I hope that one day, you and your sense of taste will make a date and meet up again.

I've been reading this thread, but haven't commented because my use of acrylic and practice of landscape painting has been slight. But of course, this conversation goes beyond those two subjects. I've looked at the two artists Robert finds brash and crude, and the artist he prefers, and in truth, they are all not to my liking, they look pretty much the same to me...bright gaudy colours. But it's not because the colours are gaudy that I dislike them. But I'm looking at their work on the internet, which isn't the same as the real thing. When you've admired a work of art known only through the internet, and then get to see the real thing, it can sometimes be a bit of a shock. I guess it all comes down to your own inclinations...I've avoided use of the word 'taste', because it's a movable feast, and can suggest that someone, somewhere, is the arbiter of what stands for 'good taste'. There's no such thing. All there is is a bunch or people who like, or dislike, what suits them...thank goodness. My own likes swing from one extreme to the other. Black and white pictures can be vivid and maybe brash...they don't represent real life...flora and fauna don't exist with black lines and cross hatching etc...they are entirely unreal. For me, this unreality is what makes them wonderful. When I think about paintings I like, for the most part they are what others might consider to be brash and gaudy. For instance, I find artists like Mati Klarwein fascinating and inspirational. That doesn't mean I like everything he did, but, for me, his paintings are never less than interesting. He sometimes gets tagged as a 'visionary' artist (I find these labels unhelpful), he does paint landscapes, but calls them 'inscapes'. They are bright, colourful, detailed, and bordering on the surreal. I guess what I'm saying is if you don't like bright colours don't paint that way...if you do, slosh the paint on straight out of the tube. This makes for variety in art, and that's what I REALLY like. As always, it's down to personal likes and dislikes...opinion. This has been mine. Lew

Well, it all helps to point out that brash painting isn't just a feature of acrylics - that you can zoom right over the top without much concern for your subject whatever medium you use. Still, in Julie Dumbarton's words, "Colourhugs!" to all. PS - I don't think I'd have described Ken Bushe's work as generally "Turnerish", but then that depends on which examples you happened to have spotted, perhaps. Not sure whom I'd liken him to, if anyone. He was fascinated by skies and cloud formations, of course.