As we all know as artist, we are always learning. Sometimes a little tidbit and sometimes a huge Aha! Yesterday was somewhere in between. A few years back I came across the idea of compressing values into value groups so as to strengthen one's composition. I remember the example given was about viewing a Sargent painting from a distance and how one could see three, no more than four value groups. Only upon closer inspection can one see the subtle value changes within the value groups. Then this pass year at the national Oil Painters of America exhibition, Quang Ho shared his idea of the different intentions in painting with "Local Tone" being one of them. Essentially, local tone is value compressing. I think you get the idea.
Having said that, I read this week on Stapleton Kearn's blog post about his students not using the full value range in their paintings. Now I was confused. Which was best and which of the two ways of seeing should I teach my students. I'm attaching the original blog post first and only the first point he makes. For the entire post check out his blog on my Blog List. Mr. Kearns writes:
There seem to be
common problems that many students have, and recently I have been aware
of how most of the students have the same things to learn. I get a broad
range of students in terms of ability and experience, from beginners to semi-professional, so some of them don't have these shortcomings. Most
of them do. Remember, I am not talking about you, or anyone you know, I
am talking about those "other" people who are far away. The common
problems are these: (let me chamber a few bullets here)
- Failure to express the full range of values in the scene before them.
Most of the students seem to paint in a few middle tones. I always seem
to be telling them, "when you look out there, you see a dark and paint
it a dark value. When I look out there, I see a dark and ask myself,
which dark is it? I have several to choose from." The students use a
single generic dark and a single generic middle tone, etc. They command
too few values to explain that at which they are looking. I have been
telling them this ;:" Did you learn to read from the Dick and Jane
books? " (for you younger readers, Dick and Jane were drab children who
said things like "look Jane! see Spot run! Run,run run. See Dick run!!"
Spot was a dog. Dick was once a common male name. Jane was a girl's name
then, much like Krystle or Brittney might be today). he teacher went
up to the blackboard and wrote a list of about ten words on the board
before she even handed out the book. You had to know about ten words to
read even this simple story. The authors of this sorry tome couldn't
tell even its banal story without at least ten words. They couldn't
write the book with only say... five words, they needed at least ten. If
you imagine your value scale to be words you will need about 10 or at
least six or seven anyway, to tell the story that is in front of you in
the landscape. You students don't have enough words (i.e. values) to
tell the story of the landscape in front of you. I suspect that the best
cure for this problem would be cast drawing under the eye of a master,
but that is atelier training and most people just can't leave their real
life behind and do that. I am trying to come up with a systematic
approach to curing this problem, I do have an idea. I will get back to
you on that.
So I asked the question in the comment section and he responded yesterday and his words were very insightful. Mr Kearns states my question and responds this way:
A reader on the comments page recently asked me:
Please help my confusion on values. I have read and been taught to not
use the full spectrum of values because it weakens the painting. Their
instruction has been to narrow your values to three no more than four
value groups by compressing the values together. By doing this you make
a stronger pattern of shapes that holds together, especially from a
distance. Please clarify. Looking forward to your response.
This is a big question and I may need more than a single post to answer it.
1) There is the appearance of nature in light as it sits before you. I
think I can readily discern and express about ten different values
outside. Before the cast, as an atelier student I was taught with ten
values. In practice I use maybe one or two less than that if I am trying
to the the look of nature. When I teach, I generally try to point out
the difference between nature and the students work. Most of the
students I meet in workshops are struggling to get the image
successfully and halfway accurately onto the canvas. That is the first
skill that a student needs, transcription. This is not necessarily art,
it is a skill and anyone can acquire it with some hard work.
Until a student has this ability it seems important to me, to help them
"see" nature more clearly. I talk a lot about design, arrangement, color
etc. but if I neglect to steer students closer to the look of nature I
run the risk of teaching them "how I do things" rather than broader
skills they can use themselves. So when I teach I would only suggest to
the most advanced students that they paint their values any differently
than they see them.
That artists who work in reduced numbers of values agree there are more
values than they use seems clear, as they speak of compressing or
limiting their values.
2) It is possible, perhaps desirable, to reduce the values in a design
to get more unity of effect, a broader look and a clearer assembly of
shapes. Usually the effect is one of a stronger, simpler arrangement.
But, this is a lens through which painter looks at nature, and not the
appearance of nature itself. Compressing values, means to change them to
something else, hopefully more desirable artistically.
This is a design method, and as such, a convention, a personal choice.
That's OK, it is art after all, and the art lies in the choices we make
about how the painting will look more than in cold transcription. Below
is a sphere with the parts of the light labeled on it.
The sphere above has five separate lights. A tree in light or a head or
figure will generally need five separate values to explain itself. Where
these five different values come from on the value scale, whatever size
(but ten for the sake of this explanation) can be chosen and they could
be derived from the middle of the scale or one end or even spread
across its length from Stygian darkness to unalloyed white. I find it
difficult to work effectively with fewer than five values. I sometimes
will design pictures using three premixed values, but when I make that
into a picture I feel the need to add a few more values here and there.
Even this five value system precludes the representation of halftones.
Each halftone (modeling in the lights) would add a separate value to the
list. I don't present all of this to discourage the practice of
suppressing or compressing values. This topic arose out of my listing
problems that plague workshop students. I would suggest that the artist
should first be able to render in a full and not a truncated panoply
of values before reducing their number.
4) I didn't hear the idea of compressing values until perhaps fifteen
years ago, no doubt because of the enormous and beneficial influence of
Richard Schmid. I learned something similar in the Gammell Studios
though. It was called the "BIG LOOK". The idea was this....Not to cut
up your big shapes with lots of varying values or details within them.
One was to keep their shapes big, or uncluttered. Shapes of similar
value would be conjoined and darks or lights deliberately linked. All
of these plus suppression of detail gave a broader simpler look.
Gammell often derided what he called "looking into the shadows" that is
allowing yourself to refocus your vision and examine separately from
the lights the value changes and detail within the shadows. That is
the shadows would be mistakenly painted as they appeared when examined
individually and not as seen in relationship to the entire scene
including the lights. This was seen as the enemy of the big look.
From the comments that followed this post, it appears that his explanation was very valuable and I hope that it will help you. As a teacher, I have to remember not to teach what I do personally but to teach them to transcribe first in full values. Later they can choose their own artistic interpretation.
Thanks Stapleton. Don't forget to check out his blog.