[black_fish]

For Fred:
It's really funny. What I was explaining is 'what you learn in art school' as I said at the beginning of my post. This is the theory of color, and I'm sure that somewhere someday a teacher probably told you that. Now, I don't give a damn about theory, I don't give a damn about recipes, tricks or whatever, and I surely don't give a damn about art school and crusty art teachers. Don't put words in my mouth, please!
I am only sure of one thing: art is freedom. You can do whatever you want when you are doing art. If you don't agree with me let's have a talk about all the major painters of the 20th century
That being said if some people (and I think that includes you) want to follow rules that's their problem. Not mine. I know I don't follow rules. I don't think I even have a style.
El Tigre was talking about theory of color (the additive theory of color it appears); I was just trying to make things clear for people that maybe don't know those rules and theory.
I totally agree with you and Spooge about cooler shadows, and the general use of color. Don't get me wrong.
My favorite artist is Simon Bisley. That should show you how I think color is best used

Hope this is clear.

And one more time: I agree with you Fred and Spooge!
Is that clear enough?



------------------
http://jmringuet.webjump.com

[Fred Flick Stone]

Black-fish...as I mentioned, no flaming. I was just talking back, sometimes I have a hard time holding back if I see someone typing in some of the art cliches, like the complementary color thing. Something you just gotta get used to here. I chime in like that frequently. The passion side of me with regards to art. Tis my life, love to talk about it...

Anyway, back to an abnormal day...
Oh yeah, welcom aboard, Mr. Black-Fish...

[black_fish]

Understood and thanks for the welcome!

You can flame me as much as you want but NOT on something I don't believe in, like color theory. That's all. Don't flame me when I agree

But I understand your reaction. And I learned from it. Yes.

[egerie]

I want the same ship. Where'd you buy it ??

As for the books, a friend lended me the Star Wars Ep I Book. I don't remember the exact title but it's filled with concept art. The technical drawings are amazing and if you like Pantone jobs this is the thing for you.

I don'T know about you but I spend a laborious amount of time trying to find my colors in digital painting without much success in the end.
I really prefer faffing about with color tubes on my palette. Why is the transition so difficult ? Anyone feels (felt) like this ?
Oh and for more theory shit, red is not a primary color but a secondary color.. Magenta is the primary color in "synthese soustractive"
Thing I loved most while painting is not using black nor white but making "black" out of my primary colors, as well as warm/cool greys. Regular tones with gray made of white and black kill the painting IMO.

egeeeeeeeeheheheeeee... :>
Edited by an idiot who'd better shut up and study.

[This message has been edited by egerie (edited August 09, 2000).]

[GoldenBoy]

Great pic Francis. I like your concept sketches a lot. There is something in the second version that bothers me.. I don't like cockpit of the ship at all. It makes ship look like a toy. Only my opinion..

[el tigre]

cheers Black-fish, Fred, Spooge. What I learned in my short time at college, was never completely clear to me, there always seemed to be too many conflicting rules. We should have some sort of excercise or tutorial for colour matching in the future.

As for that post, Fred, try mixing it against a nice, mellow soundtrack. You could be the next Baz Luhrmann

Again, guys, thanks for the advice.

------------------
Does anyone know the secret formula? :�

[Frost]

Fred: Very glad you wrote that. I agree with what you've said, and in fact, have been posting a bit in the past regarding this, but eh. Cool. =)

[sfr]

I've never understood the point of these art school color rules, even the simplest ones that are taught to 12-year olds. Red/yellow/blue primaries for painting always seemed incorrect to me, and I never even figured out how colors can be objectively classified as warm or cool. So I'm happy to see Fred debunking this stuff...

Saffron / Sunflower

[Loki]

[our internet connection went down - I originally wanted to post that yesterday]

while fred & blackened_catfish (mmmhhh - delicious!) were pummeling each other - with Fred being the winner after just one round, I took the freedom to futz a little bit with your fabulous concept art. Just tried to nail down a lightsituation - not very successful, but a little start. Very nice design Francis - I'd love to fully illustrate one of your concept-drwings one of these days (pull one out of the trashcan - will be good enough for me!)!

[Chapel]

Wow... that is really nice Loki. The lighting looks great in my opinion. I need to get a job were I can paint and draw neat stuff all day.

[black_fish]

Why is everybody trying to finish Francis painting before Francis finishes it? hmmm, I wonder. I'm sure Francis will come with something really cool.
Loki: who was pummeling who? Fred was doing some shadow boxing with his own 'color demons' but no pummeling in sight And don't make fun of my name, it took me time to find one But I also have to say that your lighting on Francis image is pretty cool.

[Isric]

wow, everyone is watching. I wonder what'll happen next!
This is the best post ever! It's like the never ending stroy of art learnin'

[Sumaleth]

Francis;

Great drawings as always!

Just a thought about the use of overlay images; I don't know how Spooge uses them but I've found that it's best to add them as the -last- step rather than paint over them from the start. Use them as a final touch.

So you take the image as far as you can go by hand first, then find a suitable image and load that in as an Overlay layer on top of the rest. Next you add a mask channel of mid grey or so.

Now you can paint the mask channel either darker or lighter around the image depending on the needs of part of the image. I usually like to almost go right up to white in the really dark areas (ie. get lots of the overlay) but only use a very dark grey in the lighter areas.

Using this approach you can sort of "paint" in the extra detail.

Fred;

I found your thoughts on color theory really interesting since it's something I've often wondered about.

On one hand, there are probably hundreds of books, and a similar number of art schools, that teach us these color theory "tricks", but on the other hand it's probably possible to find hundreds of great paintings that breaks all the "rules" yet still looks fantastic.

They're not really rules in the literal sense, they're more like guidelines intended to help the artist out or give them a starting point. Once the artist becomes more familar with the by-the-book approach they can more easily try breaking the rules in a successful manner.

I hate going against both Fred and Spooge here (ack, is that satan outside my window?!) but I think it's probably not a good idea to so quickly dismiss all these "rules" - they -do- work and by keeping them in mind you can often find a quick and simple way to get a nicer result.

You say that nature doesn't follow these rules, and that may be, but they really do tap into the way humans see things, if not the way nature lays itself out.

A good example of what I'm refering to is those big threads on "composition" from last month - nature doesn't know anything about composition and yet good composition produces more pleasing results to our brain. Why does our brain like to have the focus of a painting situated on one of the 'thirds' rather than smack bang in the center? It's weird but it does seem to be true.

I'm not really sure I see any difference between all those "rules of composition" and the "rules of color theory" that you dismiss above. They simply give artists shortcuts to producing pleasing results, but in both cases it's possible to completely break the rules and still get a nice image.

I'll accept that composition rules are stronger, or more important, than the color rules but otherwise they're very similar and probably worth keeping in mind until you've reached a certain level of artistic ability.

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Sumaleth

[Francis]

Loki, nice repaint. I don't mind this sort of thing at all, particularly in this thread. In fact, I will post the line art later in case anyone else wants to take a crack at it.

------------------
Francis Tsai
TeamGT Studios

[Danny]

Right...
normally I stay clear from such 'emotional' debates such as this for the reason that everybody has an entirely personal take on the matter. However this thread is too interesting to let it sink down the forum. Some cool things were said by a number of people. I agree with a few things here and there. However it's unfair to grant winners in this debate as I feel that is simply not applicable to a world so varied and personal as art is.
As far as I've come to understand over the years, the words Rules and Art have a similar relationship as water and fire. So much is possible within the discription Art that rules seem to be flooded out entirely. Ironically that is the main reason for me to dislike the word and what it stands for. Anything goes.. Nothing is defined. That feels to much like creative anarchy to me. I'm sure others will feel diffirent about this. That's fine by me..
Having said that I must say that Sumaleth made some excellent points. Information is passed on from Master to apprentice on and on. Now one indivual may entitle this information as rules and feel the need to live and die by them. What Suma pointed out and I agree with is that it's probably better to see that passed on information as *guidelines* rather than to dismiss rules in from the word go by stating that nature is too varied to be discribed by rules. Sure nature is indeed to complex to be boxed in like that, however our simple brains need such broken down and sorted groups of information from time to time. Up to a certain point, the reference could be made to the numerical system. It's fractional, no matter how infinite it is. It'll never line up perfectly to match universal reality. But we need it to make some sense of it. Anyway.. I'm drifting off with these little ramblings..
The point is that in order to gain some level of understanding and feeling of how nature visualizes itself, rules can lend a helping hand wether they are close to universal accuracy or not. You can break away from nature's perfect recipe and see what you'll end up with or labour to conform as much as possible. It's dependant on whatever the goal of the artist is.
I think flexibility is the key word here.

phew... starting to feel like Fred-typewriter-FlickStones here...

Danny



------------------
[email protected]

Trust in Trance

[Fred Flick Stone]

Sumaleth-I agree with what your saying, hell I have to, I teach the "rules" of art. But, the rules are not really rules, they are tools for which an artist has to work with. Without these tools of understanding, we become lost sheep, no guidence, no direction. For some, this may be what they want, I can't. I need to kno what there is available, then choose which order of importance I put them in. Do I think that propre color is more important than attention to detail? Am I more concerned with the composition than the representation of? etc. Once I chooe one of these, and there are many others to choose from, each of these choices has a set of choices within their own facet, and so on down the line. If you are not privy to this info about each step of the way in the painting or drawing process, you will naively create problems in the image maybe, and more than likely. I look back at what I though were really good images that I created and of artists I asmired at the time, and I can honestly say I don't like what I see now. I know more, and I see what are considered mistakes of "rules". Are these culturally thrown out there, thus I view these imgaes this way? More likely, yes...When I listen to Japanese artists talk, their set of"rules" is similar, but at the same time, very, very different. They aren't as concerned with the same rules we adhere to.
I could never understand why certain things were done over and over again within certain artists images, when I saw these as errors, can't give a specific example right off the top of my head. But when I found that that is the way these artists were taught, I started appreciating all art. I think that is why I like helping everyone, and not just specializing on the pro level. I believe everyone has their own ways of seeing things, and I like to help mature the eye, assist with some rules, do not apply others. Then, when these rules are used repeatedly, and to some success, hopefully they and I together will see that they don't necessarily need to be used in all instances.

I fell into this trap early on, got stuck in a corner again and again, tried to fudge my way, then let go and just did. The result then, was more what I wanted than any of the "academic" approaches.

Eventually you don't need the tools as rules anymore. That comes with lots and lots of mies under the belt. I believe that they do need to be known first, but I do not believe in them ultimately,as the end all be of rightness...

But, as everyone on this forum is learning on a day to day basis, they also need to see that art is a big contradiction. Do this but don't do it...what does that mean? Well, learn the rules then break them...
Art is not law, and you will not go to jail for breaking the rules. Most people get so wound up when someone critiques their work and tells them they "need" to do this, when that artist felt he didn't because it doesn't really matter, it doesn't apply to this image, or whatever. If they knew what they didn't do in the first place, and still chose to not do it for the sake of the image, then they wouldn't get so wound up over the crit. I like the artists here onthis forum because they seem to take critisism very well, and use it to their advantage. They listen to what could be done, and they themselves choose whether or not to do it, without kicking and hollaring along the way. If they can handle the crits, I believe they, you guys can handle the contradictions too, and need to know they exist now, so you can prepare for them when they happen, and you never know when that will be...

have a great day.

Loki, that repaint is fantastic...

[sfr]

Speaking of how art is always bound to culture, and the importance of passing guidelines from master to apprentice...

Anyone here read "On Painting" by Leon Battista Alberti? He was an early renaissance painter and architect (more the latter, I think) and whatnot, basically your average renaissance genius. The book is intended to be a collection of important rules and guidelines for aspiring painters. 600 years later, it serves to give you an interesting insight into a phase of history that has defined so much of Western art as we know it, and how these men were thinking at a time when pretty much everything about painting was an undiscovered country.

If I recall correctly, he suggests always using a grid-like device for drawing, because "no one is able to get goodlooking proportions simply by looking and drawing what the eye sees"... Heh, I wonder at which point that art school rule was abandoned

(He also suggests painting testicles tiny and hairless, to please women. Anyone got a problem with that rule? Let's have an argument )

Saffron / Sunflower

[above]

time for a change of pace: colors are pretty

[WacoMonkey]

Being lucky enough to be able to look over Francis' shoulder while he works, I noticed that his painting holds up quite well with the lineart layer (beautiful as it is) turned off. In fact, lack of detail notwithstanding, I prefer it that way. It has a real solidity that you can only get with values next to each other defining form and not separated with linework. To me, 'colored' lineart tends to look two-dimensional, no matter how well you render it.

I've been trying to convince him to complete the painting with the linework turned of (scary as that is, I know!) So I figured I'd just put him on the spot by suggesting it out in the open. I'm sure others would like to see too. What do you think? (Sorry Francis, I'm sure you'll get me back somehow...)

[Francis]

Thanks Phil. A lot.

I will try to finish this out as a painting and lose the linework.

Sumaleth, that sounds like a pretty interesting procedure. I pretty much tried the underpainting thing without a very good understanding of why or how it should be done. Still got a long way to go, obviously.

Anyway, for Loki or whoever else is interested, I put up a large version of just the lineart in case someone else wants to have a go at this painting exercise. Unfortunately I didn't really finish out the environment to a great degree - I was depending on the color/paint stage to really finish it out.

http://www.geocities.com/francis001_2000/shipline.jpg

------------------
Francis Tsai
TeamGT Studios

[Frost]

Hey Suma! Very interesting thoughts.

I just wanted to point out that I would like to see people understand (for instance) why shadows are "blue" during a sunny day instead of just going on saying "shadows are always blue(ish) no matter what", and standing by that statement without thought or analysis of what it actually is.

I do agree that these guidelines really help out a lot (they help me out a lot as well!!), but I don't think anyone should just read it and accept it as God's words and ultimate flawless wisdom. Of course, everyone's entitled to believe what they want and especially DO as they want in their art as they see fit -- I just don't like debating (as I've done a bit in the past) with someone who hasn't given thought to it and argues with simple 'guidelines' because it comes from above.

Oh, my point was?... erm... yeah.
=)

[GoldenBoy]

Great Francis, I'll try my best with that one if I got time. Let us see the finished picture soon! (or couple of later stages) Loki:nice rework.

[spooge demon]

I am interested in the question of the universality of the "rules." If we can find a rule that seems consistent through thousands of years and many cultures, then I think it would be safe to conclude that the human brain "likes" what the rule produces. It must be quite powerful to physiologically stimulate the brain.

I will go out on limb here and say there is precious little that all of art history has in common.

This leads me to believe that art rules are culturally based, like a lot of things people would swear �are just right, dammit!� . I have grown to love �Elvis on velvet� paintings; just like I came to love beer after hating it for so long.

So if you want some rules that will never fail you, good luck. A couple come to mind- the eye likes contrast, when they�re not tired, and bright colors. Like babies! If this is your audience, you are in luck. If your audiences are pretentious art school geeks, it�s a different set of rules. But remember, the rules are still ultimately arbitrary! Pick your target and submit, learn the rules, then change them. I said in another thread that I like posting here cause I can see what people react to. I have found that my own tastes are very strange.

[AliasMoze]

Hmm. This is all interesting.
I, too, was taught the "rules" for color theory. But I've seen them broken so many times since. Still, it's important to get some structure first.

Same is true of figure drawing. Lots of rules. None of them stick. But you still harp on people about them.

An analogy I would make would be in script writing. I know lots of people who ask me about writing screenplays. I always tell them about the structure first, how the story is built, the things that sound cliche. IMHO, know the rules before you break them, at least as far as story is concerned. I guess after any skill is mastered, the rules become more guidelines than rules.

But they are important to at least learn and practice at first, no?

Another one, related to painting, is dialing down values. Another great painter has been teaching me that, in shade, values right next to each other get darker at the same rate. Slightly contrary to that, Spooge suggested to do this, but that it's not always accurate. But, hey, it gives me --the learner-- a jumping off point, right?

[This message has been edited by AliasMoze (edited August 09, 2000).]

[waylon]

Very good point there, Frost. I agree, rules become 23981236 times more useful when you understand the reasoning behind them. Like your example, "Paint shadows blue". I remember a specific painting I saw on display back at school... it was a landscape on a grey cloudy day, with blue shadows under all the trees. If the artist had realized that the blue comes from the ambient light in the sky in a scene like that, it would have looked a lot more convincing.

I guess I usually think of these "rules" as something more akin to "tricks", to pick and choose from as the situation demands. You don't want to use every trick in the book in every single painting you do. Just the ones that work. And there's nothing wrong with making up new tricks as you go along.

[spooge demon]

No textured ground, no line drawing. The wrong things are being emphasized.

I am glad there is stuff around like this to practice on. If not, I would paint a whole series of the plumbing around my house.

How is yours coming Francis?

The imperial docking bay matte shots are pretty neat. Very high contrast. If you look at some of the stuff in the BG it is pretty stiff. The rebel bays are really nicely painted. I think those were Pangrazio.

[micke]

Whoah! It looks even better with high
contrasts. I guess you mean the painting
of the rebel and imperial docking bay from return of the jedi.They are really awesome.
Good job, spooge and very inspiring to look at.
-Micke


------------------
-Mikael Noguchi-

http://www.katode.org/noguchi/

[Frost]

Very nice Spooge. Again, looks like a shot right out of a movie. Very nice. =)

[el tigre]

Spooge, that looks sooo tight, but isn't.

Monumentally sweet, Man!

------------------
Does anyone know the secret formula? :�

[Danny]

Hey Spooge.. you really are loosing interest in polishing aren't you? You're going rougher as time goes by..(with the pond/lily image being the pinnacle so far).. Would love to see you doing some more detailed stuff again along the lines of Industrial Trench.. Klingon Reactor etc.. Certain forum members will probably want to shoot me for saying such things but what the heck.. I'm a detail freak, there's only so much roughness I can take.. Nevertheless I *think* I understand the reasoning behind your motives.

Danny



------------------
[email protected]

Trust in Trance