Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Inspiration from Artists Week 52 Bonus Artist Edmund George Warren. Changed to Charles James Adams .
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Message
Posted
I tend to agree with Robert Jones, that those "cleverly depicted techniques" should not looked down upon as being inferior to direct observation. After all, in today's world there are a number of artists selling – sometimes very expensive – hyper realistic paintings that have more to do with 'clever techniques' than en plein air (my spell checker doesn't like this French phrase!) direct observation and atmospheric representation. I have always thought of John Ruskin as an architectural critic (his 'Seven Lamps..." comes to mind) rather than an art critic (probably because I studied architecture).
Of the above, I particularly like the painting of people seated in a ring on the ground around the old tree; this painting has a wonderful play on light and shade and great detail of the tree, leaves, etc.
As someone who is fairly new to this website, do you have a single list of the past 'Inspiration from Artists' artists, rather than having to scroll through all the previous submissions. I ask as I have a suggestion for an artist, but I do not now if he has already been covered?
Posted
I tend to agree with Robert Jones, that those "cleverly depicted techniques" should not looked down upon as being inferior to direct observation. After all, in today's world there are a number of artists selling – sometimes very expensive – hyper realistic paintings that have more to do with 'clever techniques' than en plein air (my spell checker doesn't like this French phrase!) direct observation and atmospheric representation. I have always thought of John Ruskin as an architectural critic (his 'Seven Lamps..." comes to mind) rather than an art critic (probably because I studied architecture).
Of the above, I particularly like the painting of people seated in a ring on the ground around the old tree; this painting has a wonderful play on light and shade and great detail of the tree, leaves, etc.
As someone who is fairly new to this website, do you have a single list of the past 'Inspiration from Artists' artists, rather than having to scroll through all the previous submissions. I ask as I have a suggestion for an artist, but I do not now if he has already been covered?
Posted
Firstly welcome to the site and the forum Trevor , it’s always nice to have new people join us and in the chat on the forum .
It is a pain having to trawl through the entire thread to find who we have already seen. It’s part of the reason I’m often caught out and duplicate artists however it my fault as I use a black market to mark names off the list I hold , yes you can guess I then can’t read the names . I’m working on a list of past artists on my iPad and will post it on the forum when it’s completed as the intention is to update it weekly I will either do it online or periodically post the updated list.
You mentioned that you have a artist for the list if you let me have the name I will check for you and add if we haven’t already featured the artist , feel free to let me have as many as you like. Currently I have enough on the list for about two - three months but it’s always useful to have more.
Posted
Trevor - we've all done it, but try not to double-click! Not that your thoughts weren't worth reading twice, you understand...
If Dixie can arrange a summary, that'd be very useful (not least for him). We've had a whole year of different painters, one or two duplications, and I've enjoyed all of them - you (and indeed I, simper, blush) raised interesting points. En plein air just wasn't a thing at all before the Impressionists arose - I don't mind a bit, personally, if people head back to the studio, because I have trouble with walking, never mind carrying anything with me at the time; so I go out, and photograph things, and sketch things, and come back home to paint them because I should certainly fall over my own easel and get stuck there if I tried to paint on the scene. It just goes to show - you can be brilliant if you never leave the studio!
Um. Can't you?
Posted
Earlier I said I look at these paintings, note the skill, and then move on. That sounds more dismissive than I intended. (One day I'll get the hang of my native tongue, but no guarantees on that.) This art is splendid, how I wish I had their skills. But it leaves me curiously unmoved. Maybe because there were battalions of similarly gifted artists all producing the same fantasy of rural life. The fantasy element is no bad thing, what's wrong with painting things better than they are? I can't really tell these two artists apart, nor many of their peers. In these two, some difference in colour values...I wondered if some are watercolours. Several of the Charles James Adams paintings above ARE watercolours. So, that leaves me even more impressed with the skills on display. I consider watercolour a more demanding medium than oils. No expert here...but I've tried both. For me, oils as a medium sailed off into the wide blue yonder many years ago. So it's watercolour now. However, I think ALL mediums are demanding.
What I'm looking for in art is some sign of the man or woman's hand, some sign of individuality. Modigliani's art looks like Modigliani's
art. I don't see that in these paintings. A personal view. I'm not seeking approval. But I can, and do, appreciate the skills that made these works.
Posted
I do agree with Lewis’s last comment about wanting to see some sign of individuality in an artist’s work. These two artists have produced some lovely, very skilful paintings, but they are ‘of a type’ and hard to distinguish from a lot of other artists producing similar work. It’s an artist’s individuality which makes their work memorable. (Think we had a similar discussion a while ago when looking at photorealistic work.) I still enjoyed looking at their paintings, though.
Posted
I think I agree with both of you in general. However because of this thread I feel that when I next visit a gallery showing such work, I will take more time to look and appreciate the skill involved, whether the reality and hardship has been softened or not. If such is the case, I assume many artists over time have amended what they see in order to sell their work.
Posted
I have spent the last few months looking at paintings through the Victorian era and slightly before, I have mainly concentrated on watercolours as that interests me more , I have looked at oils as well.
The above discussion about the looking similar isn’t far of the mark due to what was fashionable at the time. Also artists were making a living from their work whilst still alive something that historically hadn’t occurred before in such numbers. I think it was due to for the first time that we know, quite a lot of people had money to spend on artwork , there was a competition between the up and coming rich industrialists to show there wealth off.
And try to look more knowledgeable and educated than many where , it seems that many had a favourite artist who the paid well to produce paintings for them. This I believe led to the many artist of that period and promoted amateur artists who went on the grant tour of Europe , this prompted the art industry and in particular the use of watercolour as its a easier medium to lug around. I might be off track here but so far it’s what reading and looking at the different artists has led me to believe, as it’s a ongoing study I may well change my mind.
Posted
Watercolour can certainly go wrong more easily than oils - or at least, in oil you can scrape off and start again, or just bury your mistakes (acrylic is great for that!).
In that sense, it is more demanding - and, looking at some of those watercolours above: no - there's no denying the skill involved.
A glimpse, Dixie, into the world of art collecting in the Victorian era and a touch later is offered in Galsworthy's Forsyte Saga, which tends to support your theories - the emergent middle classes are represented by Soames Forsyte, "the man of property" - well worth reading or re-reading, if you can find the time from everything else you're doing.
Posted
Your spot on Robert watercolour can be unforgiving and is not easily put right when it does go off and do it’s own thing.
I do however think that the reputation scare people off using watercolour, yes it difficult at times but it can be put right to a degree and can be manipulated a bit more that people thing . It’s a case of practicing thing like lifting out a colour , adapt the colour slightly , there are lots of for of a better word techniques / methods that you either find out the hard way or learn from someone. I’m in find out the hard way group, it does take perseverance and a lot of mistakes but for me that’s what I like about using watercolour and of course the outcome. I would suggest that anyone who is thinking of having a try at watercolour to spend time just playing with the paint and seeing how and what it can do before diving into a painting and struggling with it.
I’ve used acrylic bit did not like it and unfortunately health reasons prevent the use of oils and the necessary chemicals etc needed . I did try water soluble oils and like acrylic not for me , I will plod on with my watercolour untill I either can’t anymore or go upstairs or down stairs to the studio where we all end up eventually.
I will look at the book you suggested Robert, I do recall reading a part of it years ago but it went unfinished for some reason.
Posted
Watercolour can be more forgiving than you might think. The secret is to use good quality materials, starting with a quality handmade gelatine sized paper, or something similar, but it doesn’t necessarily need to be handmade.
You need your paper to be around 300lb in weight, and you can correct any errors in a multitude of different ways, I won’t go into those now, some are obvious, others not so obvious!
Admittedly it doesn’t come cheap, and if you’re just setting out or on a limited budget then I totally understand. You can’t expect to correct errors if you’re painting on 90 or even 140lb stuff, it’s too thin.
Two Rivers Paper Mill in Somerset or Ruscombe Mill in France is where I source most of my paper, the latter for their handmade Turner Blue and Turner Grey papers.