Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Q: I have many troubles seeing values, what would you recommend for me
to strengthen this capacity.
A: Perceiving value is essentially a perceptual tool of the brain, it is a mechanism
that needs to be nourished and trained in order for that part of the brain to function
properly. For this you need to do many exercises in order to switch that part on.
Artists practice by sketching or doing monochromatic studies of subject matter not
from photos, in order to eliminate the distraction and confusion of color in the brain.
This way the artist can train the brain to perceive this tool; this can take a long time.
For this reason Johannes has been referring to only thinking and visualizing three
distinct values to make this process easier.
Q: How does Carlson’s idea of the sky being the lightest, the flat planes the
second lightest and the upright the darkest?
A: It will be easier to understand if you get this in a nutshell. In normal
circumstances whatever is horizontal is usually lighter then whatever is some
vertical. An example would be that unless the sun is quite low on the horizon, the
grass planes will receive more light than the vertical trees. With the exception of
sunlit dry golden grass or rocks in direct highlight, the sky is usually the lightest
source. It is good to understand that whatever lines up at a 90° angle from the
sunlight will receive 100% of its light and as the angle opens more him on of light
decreases. Understanding this to a portrait the slanted nose lines up closer to a 90°
angle to the light is usually lighter in value then the forehead which may be 140°
angle. Because it is unusual for trees to line up at a 90° angle to the sunlight but not
unusual for the grass to line up at that angle or close to it, that is why the grass
areas received more light. This is what Carlson is basically referring to.
Q: Can you explain how we can get attention without darks and lights in the
painting? I thought the eye is attracted to light, and so how can we move
the eye there without darks?
A: The old idea that light is achieved through value contrasts is a paradox, because
though we get more light by putting more dark next to the light, we also by
definition have more darks, and therefore less light in the painting, because of so
much dark! With value, we cannot have light without putting in darks, but what
about the luminosity of the painting? This is why the eye. We are aiming (in things
regarding natural light, like landscape) for luminosity, through color. In this way light
can be rendered even more successfully. Take into account that that pigment chroma
also creates the illusion of light. While it is true light-dark contrasts does draw the
eye, it also stops the eye from exploring and visually moving about the painting,
wherein here lies the paradox. I have gotten out of the emphasis of light-dark
contrasts only using this in extreme cases.
When I create a focal area in my landscapes I tend to keep it subtle. A value 7
against a value 4 is sufficient if I want contrast I want the viewer to look for it and
then get the reward when he finds it. Another good argument is that when we gaze
at a landscape does it have a focal point? Or do we just allow the eye to move
around as it contemplates the diverse landscape subjects. In defense of the idea that
not every landscape painting needs a focal point these things can be considered.
Take into account that we are referring to landscapes here. When it comes to still
lifes, that’s another issue. If we depict a landscape subject to be a value eight, it will
be too dark and unnatural to the way things look in nature. This contradicts the way
the eye sees reality. Because the sun is so strong that even though the shadow side
of a tree is dark it will still receive enough skylight and reflected light to bring it to
about a value seven. In still lifes we don’t have the sunlight so there would be areas
that would be as dark as a value eight.