Uses of Watercolour

Uses of Watercolour

There's more than one way to skin a cat - or paint a watercolour

http://www.painters-online.co.uk/gallery/art-view,picture_141169.htm?cm_pg=2 I was pleased with the reaction to my Old Blackgang Road watercolour, and it was Bill Cook's remark that the painting at first made him feel it might be an acrylic that is prompting this blog entry (not sure I really write blogs: they're more mini-articles - the old journalist pops out now and then). There are assumptions we make about watercolour because we're used to seeing a particular way of painting them. There are those who have always painted in watercolour and have a profound respect for the many traditional ways of applying it: nothing I have to say is intended as disrespect to them or the traditions they value - in fact, I love traditional watercolour, for its transparency, clarity, and the way it can reflect light. I am not too good at painting like that, because I'm not a traditional watercolourist at all, and took to it quite late in life; I actually started out by painting in oil, then in acrylic; so when I first had a crack at watercolour (I still don't quite know why I did) I tended to try painting dark to light. That is emphatically not the right way to paint in this transparent medium, for obvious reasons, if you wish to follow the traditional, classical route: because the only way you can do this is to employ either masking fluid or body colour (as we doubtless all know, body colour is paint mixed with white or in which white has been mixed in manufacture - so it's gouache, or opaque watercolour). I have learned better by now than to paint from dark to light intentionally - it can cause massive problems with watercolour, your pictures get darker and darker, you can't achieve detail, things get lost against slabs of deep darks. Even so, because I've not been trained in the traditional methods of applying watercolour, I do sometimes, even often, slip back into techniques more suitable for acrylic and oil: and have then either to tear the paper up (I hate doing that!) or use techniques such as scratching out, lifting out (avoid the dyes if you're going to do that on a regular basis - colours like pthalo blue and green, and prussian blue, sink into the weave and are hard to lift out with water), or even taking a putty rubber to the paint. Or of course, one can use gouache - the snag with that being that the picture looks less and less like a watercolour the more you employ it. Eventually, I realized why my watercolours weren't working, and started working from light to dark instead - but while I could then begin to compete with the traditional watercolourist, I couldn't produce anything that was recognizably "me"; and I just wasn't as good as the traditional painters: to this day, I have trouble mixing light, delicate washes. It's said that watercolour washes dry two or three times lighter than when you apply them - well mine don't! I don't have the feel for watercolour that would cause me to recognize it as a distinct paint with its own properties, at least not to the extent required. I thought of it as just another paint - just another means of putting colour on a surface: and when it didn't behave, I attacked it; with salt, fingernail or pen-knife (I never graduated to anything so subtle as a scalpel), kitchen towel; I drew into it, added pastel to it, mixed opaque white - not Chinese white - into it. I did things with watercolour that would make a purist's soul shrivel, and I did it because I really didn't know any better. What I've got now is a fusion of methods that I would never have arrived at if I'd started out the right way. I do now paint from light to dark; I hardly ever use masking fluid; I've largely abandoned drawing into the paint with pen or pencil, or adding pastel - I've become sufficient of a purist myself to want to start and finish a painting in watercolour. But I do use opaque colours, sometimes a bit of salt, and the pen-knife is always to hand: I employ Naples Yellow, never white now, and introduce Light Red (also opaque) to it, and can modify this colour and darken it - I can take pthalo or perylene green and introduce that to the Naples Yellow; at a pinch, I can use Yellow Ochre instead of the Naples; and I use Cadmium Yellow, and Turner's Yellow; and I can thus paint opaque lights over darks - for branches, and to a degree for foliage (although the more freely you use these opaque colours, the more of a horrible mess you can get into: I would never use opaque paint in a watercolour in mass - use it for detail and fine touches, where you might otherwise have used masking fluid had you sat down and thought carefully about where you want your lights and details to be). In general, I don't believe most painters in oil and acrylic plan their paintings with the care required for a traditional watercolour - we experiment, let things grow in front of us; we might scrape paint away if it isn't working, especially in oil, but we might also just let it dry and then paint over it. That's how I learned to paint, and that's what I tried to apply to watercolour - it didn't work, but I learned a lot by doing it. I don't recommend my methods; but if sometimes I manage to convey energy in a watercolour, movement and dynamism, this is how it's been done: learning the wrong way, and using watercolour opaquely, has given me a freedom I might not otherwise have had. Fighting the paint and trying to bend it to my will (and of course, you can never guarantee success there) certainly taught me what I couldn't do, but also helped to discover things I could do with this medium. So .... if my watercolours often look at first sight like acrylics, that's the reason: I started out by trying to treat them that way - and when they work - they don't always! - they may not look much like classic watercolours, but at least I can recognize them as mine; and am hoping that one day this painfully derived technique will give me a painting I'm happy with and evolve further into a method I could actually recommend. It's still trial and error at the moment: I doubt that watercolour will ever be my main medium - but for good or ill, that's how I got to where I am at the moment.
Content continues after advertisements
Comments

Well done Robert, your work really shows progression and confidence. I particularly like the way you show depth in your work. The way you achieve the result is much less important than the result itself. I was amused to read your use of the term "traditional watercolourist" in my own experience I have yet to find one I would be happy to class as that. Your landscape is a lovely piece of work.

Posted by John Kay on Mon 29 Jun 16:58:18

My M & S knicks are always white so they might be an issue to paint - masking fluid, body colour, or white paper - decisions, decisions. Wincy pink is rather like calamine lotion (remember that?) and I actually think Holbein do a colour called Shell Pink which would fit the bill perfectly. Now feeling very excited about your forthcoming works, Robert!

Interesting about the fade-back thing: I've just never observed it - I think that you may be like me in that you apply your washes in full strength (indeed, you say so). A pale wash may well fade back by an appreciable degree, and I'd like to be able to mix pale washes, to achieve the results that Alan Owen, for example, achieves in his skies. But as yet - I can't do it. Perhaps for my next piece: Nude in Wyncyette Pyjamas .... I'd need a pale tone for the Wyncy-pink.... (if those other than Thea don't understand this, don't worry: you obviously didn't see the exchange under a recent gallery painting....).

Ah Robert, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that watercolour can't be managed like other mediums. If you try and micro-manage watercolour, it loses it's heart and all the wonderful properties that make it a unique medium. I only used watercolour and over the past few years since I started painting, I have got more used to it's capricious nature and it's unpredictability. In the beginning these qualities just annoyed and frustrated me, but now, with more experience under my belt, I delight in these properties and capitalise on them as much as I can. I feel that if you are going to work in watercolour you have to be prepared to go into partnership with it rather being its controlling master. You do your bit and then learn to sit on your hands while the paint works its magic and all those happy accidents occur. Like you, Robert, I don't find that my watercolours dry a lot lighter - they pretty much stay the same. I am not sure how that 'rule' first started as it has always baffled me. Perhaps early watercolour paints did that, but more modern methods of manufacturing have eliminated this problem? I actually don't work from light to dark as I generally employ a very direct method of applying the paint and try and get the colour and tone right with one hit. It doesn't always work and I do have to lift paint out occasionally and add a bit more pigment to passages that look too light. I have never used masking fluid, but occasionally will use a bit of white gouache to re-capture a small area of lost white paper. It must be very difficult having cut your artistic teeth on other mediums to then try watercolour. As a medium, it has a sting in its tail in that there are far more pitfalls with it than the mediums where it is easier to correct a mistake or even make drastic alterations to a painting. However, the rewards are stunning and no other medium can produce the effects of clarity, transparency and achieve that wonderful watery look which is so attractive. Mind you, Charles Reid says he starts every painting as if he has never painted before and that mistakes in a painting is what sets it apart from the pedestrian. Given that - I think the way forward in any medium is just to muddle through, keep the faith and something good will come out of it.