Tuesday, June 3, 2008

DEBATE: COLOR VS. VALUE


One of the things I keep hearing is that if one is a realist painter then representing 3 dimensions requires value as the dominant element. The modern painters flattened space. Colorists fall into the last group. One needs to choose either color or value, but as Topher Schink described it, if one uses both it sets one's teeth on edge. I refuse to choose. I like both color and value. I resist flattening out the shapes and eliminating the detail. I find the detail interesting to work with. Here is my latest effort to combine color and value. Since color has value, if you get the value right, you can use any hue you desire and achieve three- dimentionality.

This painting is on Yupo. It started with random color intermingling. When dry, I sprayed it with an acrylic spray so it would't lift. The rest was painted with acrylic.

8 comments:

Nava said...

WOW! I'm with you - I don't agree you need to choose between the two. My teeth are fine after seeing this - in fact, this is gloriously done!!!

(I see you've reached a cease-fire with your computer, as managed to upload an image on your own. Congratulations!! :-)

Kathy M said...

Thanks Myrna. The quote about
value and color being incompatible
has been rattling my brain for a few days. I think you have represented
the opposing view beautifully. Thanks
for helping out all fellow color lovers.

Magdalena Bogart said...

This is a very powerful portrait,
moody, brooding, aggressive
in your face so to speak.
You inspire me to try color
and value. Thanks.

Lena Bogart

RHCarpenter said...

WOW is right! This is what they really mean when they say "It's awesome!"

David Lobenberg said...

Exactly right. If you are doing representational art like your portrait here, get the values right and you can play with all sorts of colors.

Margaret Stermer-Cox said...

I am intrigued by your post and this discussion. I've been thinking about it for two days. Could it be that you and Mr. Schink are both right? In reading your posting, I was wondering if this is a semantics issue -- the word color and hue being used interchangeably. I understand that you can design with color value, hue or intensity being dominant. If one tries to have value, hue and intensity all being dominant, then it would be like shouting. So, intuitively or by planning, one of the attributes of color is dominant. To me, in your painting and in the case you explained color value dominates rather than color hue or intensity. You achieve unity within shapes by keeping the color value similar. However, you create visual interest by varying the hue. I apologize if I'm too long winded; I am most interested in this discussion. Thank you and regards.

David Lobenberg said...

Mryna: I have a good, good friend who looks like the man in this painting. I'm going to email you a photo of him. He is a very good drawer and is becoming a damn good painter. He use to work for many years as a fork lift driver in a food distribution warehouse.

Holly Van Hart said...

this 'latest effort' is amazingly expressive, and the use of color gives it a huge 'wow' factor. to me it looks like value dominates, with a glorious use of color that makes the whole portrait sing. bravo!

Related Posts with Thumbnails