Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
The old masters...painted darkly or aged?
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
Not having been there at the time, despite wicked rumours, I can't be certain. But I'm reminded of a well-known painting (by? damned if I can remember!) of a man in a quilted blue-sleeved jacket, for want of a better word; it was assumed to have been painted the colour it seemed to be, until it was cleaned of centuries of old varnish - and the colour transformation was startling.
The only thing against this in Rembrandt's case is that I assume his paintings have been cleaned over the years; he did of course specialize in the effects of light, and to bring these out would often counterpose areas of thick impasto lights against areas of much thinner, darker paint. There's also the point that oil paint tends to become translucent over many years - centuries in this case of course - and may read more darkly than it was when first applied, as you can see through it to the, probably, darker ground (a good reason, if you're hoping your paintings will survive the centuries, to paint on a light-coloured surface - at least if painting in oil).
How much of the resultant effect has been created by the hand of time, and how much by the hand of Rembrandt, isn't easy to say for sure. But he did go for tonal contrast in a big way in many of his paintings, and perhaps that's the answer.
Edited
by RobertJones
Posted
Painted so dark.
I am sure a lot have got grimy and tobacco covered etc but I think guys like Rembrandt were all about the darkness and focusing the viewer on the areas of strong contrast and light. If you look at the ratios of light to dark I am sure this is the clue, the light areas are still light but the majority is in shadow.
Posted
Perhaps there is a lack of ability today. The demise of classical artistry, artificial lighting and the confidence required to put 80% of your painting in the dark probably all contribute. Since the 60's people have been using the old chestnut of personal expression to excuse themselves from less than competent representational ability and I am not sure that there are many teachers actually advocating for strong darks and soft lines in order to maximise the impact of eye magnets and areas of hard line, light and contrast. Maybe this is just fashion too , I didn't used to get it at all (from a viewers perspective) but I am far more fascinated than I once was with the large brown paintings that I used to think were boring.
Posted
There are more colours; brighter colours; pigments that won't fade, or at least not so much as many of the pigments of yesteryear did - artists would use a limited palette in part because they knew that some of the bright reds and yellows available would fade in their own lifetimes to nothing. Some of those brighter colours - eg ultramarine - were also appallingly expensive at the time: very lightfast, but ruinous to use in any large painting: God bless M. Guimet for synthesizing it.
I've always liked quiet, under-stated, paintings - hence my love of Corot. But I think also that one grows into different genres of painting - maybe as Daveyboyz indicates: those 'large brown paintings' can grow on you.