Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

You can send an email to [email protected] if you have questions about how to use this forum.

Paul Foxton - Daffodil Value Study

edited February 26 in General Discussion
Just a video of the stream he did of his process some might find useful.
I found the stream very informative and very relaxing, something about Paul's voice is very calming  :)


MichaelD

Comments

  • @Intothevoid,

    Yes I have enjoyed the few videos I have watched of his.

    I am just not at all keen on the Munsell colour system.
  • @MichaelD
    Yes that is how I originally came across his videos. I flirted with the Munsell theory for a little while but it just seemed like a very convoluted way to achieve results and also the outrageous expense of the materials were unjustified.
    I'm sure it works well for the people who swear by it but I'd rather use my cheaper intuition.
    Still doesn't take way the fact that Mr Foxton is great to watch and listen to. 
    MichaelDtassieguy
  • edited February 26
    @Intothevoid

    Yes I too dipped my toe in the world of Munsell colour. Several years back I bought the student book, the colour tabs that came with were so poorly made that when you peeled them off, as you had to for using them, part of or much of the colour on the tab was torn off too. I was not the only one experiencing that problem. I sent it back.
    Also the coded numbers/letters assigned to them was far too confusing for me. It only served to remind me of my struggle with mathematics at school. When they threw algebra at us I thought, I am struggling enough with numbers, now you bring letters into the equation.  :)

    Yes I am finding getting by on intuition is working ok.

    I totally agree, non of this detracts from his wonderful videos and pleasant teaching style and manner.

     :) 
    tassieguy
  • GTOGTO -
    edited February 26
    I like Paul Foxton’s approach though I don’t think I will ever take it up.  He does get you to think clearly about value, chroma and hue.  I believe with patience and keen observation you can achieve as good or even more realistic results just by using Mark’s  instructions.
    tassieguy
  • I agree, @Intothevoid, @MichaelD and @GTO. Foxton is great but the simplest and best method I've found for achieving realistic value/colour is Mark's. With practice, Marks colour matching method becomes second nature and you can do it almost without thinking and without worrying about colour chips, codes, colour wheels etc. It's just, see it, mix it. And if Mark's paintings are not realistic in terms of value/colour then no one's are. Once you learn his method there's no need for all the other complicated and sometimes expensive paraphernalia. Colour theory is all very interesting but as in other artistic endeavors (playing piano for example) all the theory in the world is not going to get you mixing realistic value/colour or giving a good rendition of a Chopin ballad.  These things take practice, and, IMHO, the best, most straight forward way to practice colour mixing is the way Mark teaches.  :)
    GTOSecondSarahMichaelD
  • Munsell is not theory it’s industrial color. Think of it probably the first system to help in mass producing infinite color variation. Very handy for painters who like that kind of stuff. Not bad to learn a bit. But to practice it’s too mechanical.  Too complex. 
    I worked in a big digital news business. One of my jobs was the help the MIT grads understand  the simplicity of CMYK.  They showed me all the systems they used to realize color. Immediately I thought I was on another planet. I was. 
    When you start with R, B and Y. You have every color in nature available to you. Some industrial colors not so much. There are tubes of color for that. 
  • @KingstonFineArt

    'The way you visually match color today is the result of Albert H. Munsell’s work nearly a century ago. In fact, modern day color theory and mathematical color system is based on Munsell’s theory of color'

    https://munsell.com/about-munsell-color/
  • @Intothevoid
    You are wrong. The way we mix color was introduced to us by M. E. Chevreul in his seminal work The Principles of Harmony and Contrast of Colors and Their Applications to the Arts 1839. He was revered by the impressionist and realist alike. His work led to the 4 color process, CMYK, used in color printing. The the concepts used by the pointillist painters. The concepts that brought us Monet's exuberant expression of color. Mr Monet used the primaries to make his palette

    I Learned how to mix color from the 12 color spectrum color wheel in the large format Grumbacher 'How to Paint' books my father gave me. We have that spectrum thanks to Mr Newton. Sherwin Williams owes more to him than I do.

    Josef Albers modernized Chevreul's theories in the fifties and sixties. That is to say he stole them. That is the color theory I was taught in art school in the 1960s. It is still the core of color theory used in graphic design today.

    My 12 color spectrum palette is made from Red, Blue and Yellow. Thank you Mr. Chevreul.
  • @KingstonFineArt
      
    I'm not the one you should be arguing with whether the term is right or wrong. My post was a simple quote from the actual Munsell website linked above, maybe you should contact them and put the world right?

    I originally called it 'The Munsell theory' in my post earlier in the thread because as you can see it came straight from the horses mouth so to speak, that is what they call it there.

    I don't really care whether it is termed a theory, a method or strawberry cheesecake, I have better things to do than dance around with semantics.
    tassieguySecondSarah
  • edited March 2
    Yes, @Intothevoid, I agree. It's silly semantics and none of it matters. Who cares about 1960s art school theory or graphic design? We want to be fine art painters in the 2020s.

    If we just follow Mark's method of colour checking/mixing, (which I guess folks here generally want to do because it works) then all this talk of Munsell, Albers, Chevreul, colour theory, 12 colour pallets, colour wheels etc is a pointless diversion and a waste of time. Who cares about these "theorists"? You won't paint any better for knowing all that stuff, just as you won't play piano better for knowing who invented sonata form. Using Mark's method, I can mix what I see and, quite often, I don't even know the name of the colour I just mixed, let alone the Munsell code for it. But that doesn't matter - it's the right colour. If we just trust our eyes and practice mixing using Mark's pallet and colour checking method then we can't go wrong. But it takes long practice to perfect. No amount of theory will get you to that colour you see and need to mix in order to produce that realist masterpiece. Sure, go read Albers et al so you can impress DMP newbies with your erudition. In the meantime the rest of us will get on with learning to paint by drawing, mixing and painting. :) 
    SecondSarahIntothevoid
  • I learned to mix paint as an apprentice house painter. We would paint the walls with shop mixed latex picked out by the customer from a chip card. Then we added pigment to white oil paint to match the wall paint for application on the trim. In the sixties most all trim was alkyd matched to the wall color. My point here is that I knew nothing of academic theory. I was given minimal guided by the journeyman and learned mostly by trial and error.
    MichaelDtassieguy
Sign In or Register to comment.