WetCanvas March 2013 Challenge – Tulips


tulips_watercolor.jpg

The 


March WetCanvas challenge

 was tulips.  Now I find flowers really hard (see 


here


here

 and oh my word 


here

) so I’ve left it to the last minute.  I went back to the


Charles Reid

 method of careful contour drawing followed by (almost) once and done painting.  I’m actually not too disappointed with this – the leaves have good movement and the tulips aren’t a complete disaster.

Steps below :

Watercolor Tulips Wetcanvas Challenge

The first pass through where everything got covered.  The final step was to add more color to the flowers and enhance the darks in the leaves as well as add in a unifying background.

Final Art Class – in the doldrums

So last night was our final art class of this session.   Numbers were down to 4 and the atmosphere was somewhat lethargic.    Annoyingly I’d printed out some reference photos to do some bee and bluebottle paintings and left them on my desk so I had to resort to painting the cherry branches and their buds.

Nothing really to write home about which wasn’t surprising as I wasn’t very enthusiastic.  I quite like the two on the left – the tones are closer and the simplified layers give a nice effect.


After getting bored with buds I started a small landscape and tried the John Lovett approach.  It didn’t work.

This is one of the times I feel like I’m going backwards.  I know I should just push through this as it’s likely to be because I’m trying more ambitious things but it’s pretty demoralizing.  I still fancy having a crack at those bees though.   Maybe they’ll be my breakthrough.

Can you economize on paper?

The paper I’ve mostly been buying has been Arches.    This is extremely nice to use but it doesn’t come cheap even if you do what I do and paint on both sides (my art teachers have thrown up their hands in horror when I’ve done this).  I’ve been wanting to find some cheaper paper that is usable so I can do more throwaway sketches and practice exercises.   However a lot of cheap paper is just nasty (I’m looking at you Fabriano Studio!).  The surface is too shiny,  it buckles (even if it says it’s 140lb) and the paint has a tendency to dry on impact. This severely limits your ability to work wet in wet and to soften hard edges.

So I was wandering around
Blick’s

 in Central Square this lunchtime and saw these cheap Strathmore pads.  The cheapest was $4.40 for 12 sheets of 9″x12″ which is less than half the price of the equivalent Arches pad.    I grabbed 3 different ones and brought them home to see how they stood up.


The Test:

Each paper was tested by painting a sphere with cobalt and burnt sienna.   The sphere was painted to see how different pigments mixed on the paper, how well the edges could be softened and how easy it was to drop in pigment into wet paint.


First up Strathmore 300 series (which says it’s ‘better’) $4.40 :


      

This is tape bound rather than spiral bound and annoyingly has a toothed side and a smooth side.   
This one was actually pretty good.   The paint didn’t dry immediately when it touched the paper and it granulated nicely.  The edges could be softened reasonably well and I was pleased with the final effect. 3 out of 5

Next up was Strathmore 400 series (which is labelled ‘best’) at $5.75


 

I hated this – the paper had no tooth to speak of and was smooth both sides.  Smoothing out edges was almost impossible (see the water blooms) and there was no granulation.  Hated it almost as much as the Fabriano Studio.  1 out of 5


My last cheapy was this Strathmore Windpower (15 11″x15″ sheets for $8.00 which would be  $4.18 for 12 9×12 sheets) :


 

No indication of quality on this but it’s made with 100% renewable energy so you get free warm fuzzies.

Not too shabby this one.  The tooth fell in between the 300 and 400 series and it still had that nasty smooth surface on one side but this would definitely do in a pinch.  3 out of 5


Finally the gold standard – Arches (For 12 sheets a 9×12 pad is ~$10.50, block is ~$13.50)




Yes well there’s no comparison really.   This is the real McCoy.  The paint stays wet on the paper and smoothing edges is a breeze (no nasty blossoms here).   The tooth gives a nice texture (see the rough edges on the shadow) and dropping in paint wet in wet doesn’t leave hard edges.  It’s a real pleasure to use and the packaging is pretty too.
And you get pretty much the same surface on both sides (it’s not quite the same but good enough).

4 out of 5 (marked down for price)

So what’s the verdict?

  Surprisingly the worst of the cheapies was the most expensive (the 400 series) and I wouldn’t even feed this to my dog.   Of the other two it was close but the 300 series won out by a nose as the paint really did granulate well.    
  The real choice is whether it’s advantageous to skimp on quality to save money.     When you paint on a certain paper for a length of time you get used to its idiosyncrasies.   You get a feel for how much the pigment sinks into the paper,  how long it stays wet when it’s on there and how much pigments bleed into each other.    Painting on the cheapies is a very different experience.  You have to move fast and use more water.  You can’t rely on colors blending into each other by themselves on the paper and getting texture by using the paper tooth is almost impossible.    
  But going from cheap to expensive also has its challenges.  When I first graduated onto Arches from the Fabriano Studio it was like working with blotting paper – I couldn’t believe how long the paper stayed wet and all my edges went fuzzy.  It felt like a flaw at the time and it took a while to make the best use of it.

  So the question I think I should be asking is whether the different techniques needed for different paper qualities make you into a better painter.   Does the experience of cheap paper round out your skills and enhance your abilities when you sit down in front of the proper stuff?

  I have a nasty feeling the answer is no.  

  I mean yes you do get more sensitive to changing your technique to handle different papers.  But this is time that could have been spent enhancing your skill with a single paper type.   Lets be frank – nobody who isn’t a painter cares whether you can handle different paper types if the end result is substandard.  No one comes along and says ‘That’s fantastic how you can paint skies/boats/flowers/whatever on such cheap paper that almost look ok!’ Nobody cares.

  And the price differential is what – just over 10 bucks vs just under 5 – a factor of 2.    If we were talking 100s of dollars per painting here it would be worth it but we’re talking 83 cents per sheet for the good stuff.  In fact just 42 cents if we use both sides.    I spend more than that on lunch.

  But in my heart I really want to be able to say the cheap stuff works.   There’s something about watercolor painting that appeals to the minimalist inside us.   It’s portable,  you don’t need fancy, smelly solvents.  You don’t need to lug easels around and special boxes to transport wet canvases.  You don’t need canvases for God’s sake!  Just a pad,  a brush and a small tin with paint in that can be slipped in a pocket.   Look around the web – people take this to an
art form

.

Well I’ve written all these words and still haven’t come to a good conclusion.   What to do, what to do.  Of course buying paper in pads is not the most economical way.   Buying it in rolls or packs of large sheets is cheaper but I like the convenience/portability of pads and blocks.

Hmm – making your own pads!!  I feel a followup post will be coming along shortly.

Sunday Painting – House


I’m still on a building kick.  After the disappointing
Central Square painting

I tried again with this photo of a hotel near Lake Garda.   It’s too soon to tell whether I like this or not – but I definitely detest that wretched little tree in the foreground.
Edit (3/20/13):   Apart from the WLT (wretched little tree) I like this more and more.  It is one of the few paintings that looks much better in real life than on the screen.    I tried hard to simplify and suggest with flat washes which worked well on the shutters and windows.   There are still problems to overcome with the darks and foreground but all in all this is progress. 
Intermediate stages below :

The initial washes.  I tried to use the 1 inch bristle brush (that I’d trimmed to be even more ragged) to do the trees but it didn’t really work.  The wall and roof washes I  was pretty happy with.


Some detail around the windows and foreground grass.  I was pretty happy with the shutters – they were put in quickly with a 1 inch flat and had extra colour dropped in for variety.  To get the lighter areas I left some regions blank and pulled colour into them using a 1/4 inch flat.
It’s not obvious here but I’ve tried to fade out the windows on the right hand side so as to have the uppermost window as the focal point.  The colours are cooler and the range of values is much smaller.


More detail in here.   I’ve darkened the windows, addd some roof detail and put the roof shadows in.


Washed in a light coblat sky, tidied up the left hand trees reasonably well and darkened the foreground grass.  Also put that wretched foreground tree in that sticks out like a sore thumb.


Finished (for now anyway).   Some line detail around the windows and roof and softened the horrible tree.

Wednesday Art Class – Lake Garda (Unfinished)


This was taken from a photo and is still unfinished.  I’m not happy with it at all.  The greens are dull, the buildings are garish and it just doesn’t hang together.   I want to do another couple of versions to see whether I can improve various areas.
Intermediate steps are shown below:

After the drawing, initial washes and the start of the strong darks.  I like this version the best.  


Further along – more detail in the buildings and starting to build up the greens.  Still not too bad.


Ugh.   Too fussy in the darks and I need to tone the jetty thing down a bit.