Date: 15 Mar 2011 04:46 pm (UTC)
This almost always comes as a surprise to people who don't, themselves, paint, but most artists have limited palettes. Pigments were (are) expensive; if you had to buy the raw mineral and grind it yourself, as was done before the Industrial Revolution, and grinding pigment by hand to a uniform smoothness is also a lot of *work.* If you were born a bit later in the historical timeline, you could buy paints in convenient squeeze tubes, but those were (are) expensive, too. Usually, it's about six colors/hues, plus white and black, in an artist's palette.
(Is there a point to this, virginiadear? Well, yes.)
It *is* easier to work with the tints (hue plus white to produce a lighter, paler version) and shades (hue plus black to make a darker version) of just one color, than it is to be fiddling around with more than one, and the more of "more than one" there are, the more difficult it becomes to predict how the colors will influence each other, which they *do* do.
Of course more colors/hues are produced by blending two or more hues from the palette to a homogenous new hue, and that does happen, but because the new color was made from the existing palette it will remain congruous, harmonious, when applied to the canvas (or wood panel) with the others.

I do think you're right, though, in your observation that a limited palette is soothing, especially in cool tones with cool hues, as with your beads on the green batik fabric. There's less processing for the eyes to do. Art instructors can get on your case for "lack of visual/textural interest," but in my opinion that is nothing more than *their* opinion.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at support@dreamwidth.org

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Friday, 18 July 2025 01:16 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios