Completed Critique Bolshevik 1919 (version 2)

[Christos]

Very good painting Kaz!

 

[Captain Lol]

Impressive work Sir

 

[brian]

Kaz,

I am going to go against the grain here (as usual!) and say that I prefer your first version to the second. There are several reasons for this. But before I explain my reasoning, I think it is important to address a subject which I have never really seen mentioned by anybody else - trends and fashions in painting style.

There is little doubt that in recent years the "new wave" of Korean painters, such as Young Song, Sang Eon Lee and Man Jin Kim have created a new trend in figure painting. The most noticeable change is the use of complimentary colors in shading (green coloring on a generally "orange" face for example). This is taken right out of the lesson book of traditional techniques in oil painting (on canvas).

It is an "artistic" fashion, as opposed to a trend in model making as exemplified by so many figure painting fashions of the past. I believe a similar revolutionary trend took place some 25 years ago when "the California boys" took Euro Militaire by storm. The immediate response back then was that fashions in figure painting techniques became much tighter and showing more contrast. This simply made for "sharper" looking models. While the former trend (tighter technique) improved the "art" immensely, I have mixed feelings about the latter (extreme contrast).

Certainly the use of greater contrast made for figures that "read" better from a distance. Indeed, a figure held at arms length could really show extremes of "form" without squinting at the subject. I think the main reason that extreme contrast became a popular fad in figure painting is that it showed off the painter's abilities and painting chops in a more dramatic way. Nobody can deny the great painting chops of a Mike Blank or Diego Ruina, for instance. For me, that style works great in two dimensions (on canvas), but not so much on a 3-dimensional model.

The practical problems with a model are that the "form" of the object is already established because the object is 3-dimensional. The form doesn't actually need so much "help" because the object is three dimensional and light falling on it will naturally establish shapes without resort to exaggerated effects by the painter.

Since the light falling on a model is, in most situations, out of the control of the painter the use of extreme contrast can often go contrary to the ambient lighting that is the figure's natural environment. In those cases, you end up with a confused vision where paint shading and ambient lighting are at odds and the overall effect is more confusing or exaggerated than "realistic". This is further compromised by the fact that when extremes of contrast are employed willy-nilly, it soon becomes difficult to tell what colors are being depicted. You cannot have such extremes of contrast and still maintain the "dark blue" or "white" look of a piece of clothing or what have you. When pushing these colors to the outer limits of the painter's ability to blend extremes, the net effect is that everything takes on a kind of overall "grayness" that is the natural result of utilizing extreme darks and bright highlights - everything just becomes really nicely painted variations of gray.

Of course, this tendency applies to face painting as well. When the cheeks of a figure become dark brown, you are no longer painting subtle variations of a flesh tone - you are trying to paint in extremes of "lighting". It takes a very harsh directly over-head light to produce dark shadows in the hollows of the cheek. This is just a fact. If the ambient lighting in a room does not correspond well with this extreme exaggeration, then the paint is in conflict with reality. The model is fighting the fact of its miniaturization in an arbitrary lighting environment that is more likely to be diffuse and random than harsh over-head. In other words, the modeler has moved away from a balanced realism into a kind of "forced" extremism. (Gee, kinda sounds like politics......!)

I, on the other hand, have always seen miniatures as a "modeling" problem rather than an academically obtuse "artistic" one. When I put a model on the display table, I want there to be no question which garments are which relative color - and no extreme conflicts between the lighting in the room and that depicted on the model. So, for me, the face is painted with a more "generalized" shading that takes into account the fact that i cannot control the lighting. This means the shading is both omni-directional and not pushed to extremes on vertical surfaces (such as cheeks, for instance). This means that the figure will look balanced and realistic in any number of different lighting conditions.

However, this is all theory and such ideation often gets trampled under by the lumbering juggernaut of fad or fashion trends in technique. My understated painting is no longer in fashion. I now get silver medals because I am unwilling to undertake the extremes of exaggerated contrasts that are currently fashionable. If you think that a person's cheeks look "chocolate brown" under normal lighting conditions, then these are the days of wine and roses! However, I do not share in the deifying of this conceptual oddity. It kinda looks over-done and out of control to me. Go ahead, give me silver medals for my lack of conformity. I don't care. That is because i believe the object of a model is for it to be a realistic representation of an object in space, not an oddly 3-dimensional canvas for extreme 2-dimensional lighting effects.

The example of your figure shown here indicate that the face painting shows much more extreme contrast than the hat or clothing. The two elements of face and clothing are somewhat at odds with each other. In fact, if you were to combine the clothing of your latest paint with the face of your first, the result would be more balanced because you have not carried the extreme contrast of the face painting into the clothing. And, in my opinion, the face of the first figure does a much better job of achieving the generalization of the kind of diffuse lighting that the figure is most likel to appear under in most circumstances.

Yes, just my opinion. But as you can see, it was not an opinion that I came to casually. That is just my silver medal winning two cents. But, at least I can say I am not a slavish follower of fashion.....

Mike ,you've just made my day.You've put into words exactly what i've been thinking regards the "new style" of painting seems to be taking over from the more realistic style which i'm in favour of and is the style i paint in.
There's a question i've often asked myself regarding judging.I judged at Euro many moons ago but i would find it extremely difficult to do so now because as a judge you shouldn't be biased, but how can you not be biased since the advent of the extreme style versus the more realistic style especially if there's exactly the same figure for instance,painted in the different styles but are equally of a high standard of painting.I'm glad you brought this subject up Mike.I'm with you on this one unlike many other painters.I'm not a dedicated follower of fashion unlike the Kinks.
P.S. My personal opinion is that the advent of acrylics has led to this extreme style of painting.
Brian

 

[Carlos69]

The flesh tones in your latest piece wins it for me, but they are both exellent paint jobs ! I prefer the sharper look also in the higher contrast painting ...

Carlos

 

[kaz6120]

Thanks everybody, both pros and cons on my work.

The reason of Green on the cheek is simply because I use the green for the stubble effect.
Sometimes I put strong green to exaggerate. I can reduce it if everybody have something on it.

And...Thanks a lot for your great advice and comment, Mike. I really appreciate this kind of straightforward opinion. I prefer this kind of critiques a lot to just pushing "Like" buttons on Facebook.

I understood what you mean by trend, problems of exaggerated shading and highlighting on 3-D. In some ways I agree with you, and in other ways I disagree with you.

I have questions to everybody,

Question 1: "What is the real, anyway?" and "What is the natural skin tone?".
Question 2: Is my 2nd version here "extreme style" and the 1st version "realistic style"? I don't know which style my style belongs to.

I want to hear everybody's opinions.

---

My idea of painting is based on the idea of "Lights define the colors". No lights, no colors. Where lights exist, there always shades, so at the same time, No shades, no colors.

For example, in the extremely dark room with no lights, human skin look totally black. Without lights we cannot recognize any colors. When lights comes into the room and then we recognize it is "Fresh" color. When we put skin colors on figure's face means just putting pigments which look like "skin tone" on the natural sunlight color. So painting skin color is already "painting lightened color". We are already unnatural from the beginning.

I used exactly the same colors on the version 1 and 2, but I changed the recipes and how I use them. Put more highlights on the 2nd version to make it look more appearing when I put it on the dark lighting room.
This idea came from my experience attending Euro this year and other shows in Japan.


P.S. Just to make sure...even if everybody think I'm in the same fashion, I'm not a obsessed follower of Korean painters nor wanna-be. Of course I admire them, they are my friends, and they inspire me all the time, but I want to find my own one and only style.

 

[Gaudin]

And...Thanks a lot for your great advice and comment, Mike. I really appreciate this kind of straightforward opinion. I prefer this kind of critiques a lot to just pushing "Like" buttons on Facebook.

I understood what you mean by trend, problems of exaggerated shading and highlighting on 3-D. In some ways I agree with you, and in other ways I disagree with you.

There! For everyone to see - this is how artist takes feedback and chooses what to do with it.

Kaz, beautifully said .
Thank you and sorry to flood, there was enough of argument about it in last week alone

 

[Ron Tamburrini]

Mike ,you've just made my day.You've put into words exactly what i've been thinking regards the "new style" of painting seems to be taking over from the more realistic style which i'm in favour of and is the style i paint in.
There's a question i've often asked myself regarding judging.I judged at Euro many moons ago but i would find it extremely difficult to do so now because as a judge you shouldn't be biased, but how can you not be biased since the advent of the extreme style versus the more realistic style especially if there's exactly the same figure for instance,painted in the different styles but are equally of a high standard of painting.I'm glad you brought this subject up Mike.I'm with you on this one unlike many other painters.I'm not a dedicated follower of fashion unlike the Kinks.
P.S. My personal opinion is that the advent of acrylics has led to this extreme style of painting.
Brian

Goodness me has someone actually had the balls to Tell the King he has no clothes on.

Ron

PS still a fantastic paint Job

 

[brian]

I really like your version of the Bolshevik Kaz and i like your style which i would say is in the realism category which i prefer.Like you say it's best to find your own style of painting .I stick to mine but i'm always looking for fine tuning it.
Brian

 

[Joe55]

Kind of reminds me of one occasion when I visited a high end stereo shop. A customer was enjoying different units and speakers being demonstrated to her, and on one set up she commented, 'Oh ya, that's better'. The sales guy says, 'No, not necessarily better, just different'.

Joe

 

[bonehead]

Thanks everybody, both pros and cons on my work.

The reason of Green on the cheek is simply because I use the green for the stubble effect.
Sometimes I put strong green to exaggerate. I can reduce it if everybody have something on it.

And...Thanks a lot for your great advice and comment, Mike. I really appreciate this kind of straightforward opinion. I prefer this kind of critiques a lot to just pushing "Like" buttons on Facebook.

I understood what you mean by trend, problems of exaggerated shading and highlighting on 3-D. In some ways I agree with you, and in other ways I disagree with you.

I have questions to everybody,

Question 1: "What is the real, anyway?" and "What is the natural skin tone?".
Question 2: Is my 2nd version here "extreme style" and the 1st version "realistic style"? I don't know which style my style belongs to.

Thanks Kaz! Okay, now that I have had a day away from this, I have to say first, that my first reaction was definitely an overstatement of the facts as shown by the photos of your bust. I am liking the second version a lot more now. I think what i first responded to was that the extreme contrast on the face is not matched by the contrast on the clothing. The deep folds on the clothing do not appear as dark as the deep folds on his face. Yet, the color of the clothing is clearly darker than the skin tone. This is a mis-match. You have used two differing styles on the clothing and face. The first face, to my eye, still matches the second bust's clothing better.

If I had to guess why, I would think that the face was approached with something more aggressive in mind, then the clothing was painted in a less aggressive style. What I really do like about the second face, that i perhaps did not pick up on yesterday, is that you have not allowed the dark shading to encroach on the major areas of the skin tone. So the face "reads" flesh - even with extreme darks present. This means they have been modulated well. Good job! And, in this case, the extreme darkness of the cheekbones is less objectionable because of the large flaps on the hat that render the cheeks as shadow areas anyway. On a more exposed face, I think the dark cheek shading would be too much.

As for terms "realistic" and "extreme", of course such terms are relative. To put this in perspective, I was a model builder long before I ever played around with figures. To me, the object with a model is to create paint finishes that best reflect the physical "look" of an actual real object. On the outside this means having proper surface textures: Matte clothing, egg-shell skin tones, subtle sheen to leather, bright reflective surfaces for metal (when appropriate).

Obviously, ANY shading and highlighting is an artistic abstraction in the sense of a "realistic" model. But shading and highlighting is the accepted norm with model figures. And I use similar techniques on models in order to accentuate detail. That is hardly "realistic". But it does give a heightened visual impact to the model or figure. This is a good thing.

"Extreme style", would be the kind of overpainting I talk about in my previous posting. Typical of this is the soldier with an exposed face whose cheeks are dark brown. A cheek "hollow" - on most figures - is generally speaking a VERTICAL surface. In other words, if we use the "stop-sign" shading method proposed by Shep Paine, the cheeks are a vertical surface and should read as a MEDIUM tone - not shadow. Painting this as a dark shadow, instead, is an exaggeration that fails to correspond to what one would see in "reality" - thus "realism". Yes, THAT is an abstraction from any perceived reality, but that is what I mean by the term.

Looking at your second bust now, I do not think you have carried your shading to that extreme, even though the shadows are nearly black in the deepest folds. This is because you have limited the use of those extreme shadow colors to only a very few small spots on the model. You have modulated very well to obtain such a full range of tones without making the skin appear too dark or too light from a distance. I would also like to say that pushing the highlights further on the second bust was good move. This gives more tonal modulation to the brighter areas of the face and works better visually. I think the first bust could be greatly improved by adding a couple of more highlight tones as you did to the second....

My idea of painting is based on the idea of "Lights define the colors". No lights, no colors. Where lights exist, there always shades, so at the same time, No shades, no colors.

For example, in the extremely dark room with no lights, human skin look totally black. Without lights we cannot recognize any colors. When lights comes into the room and then we recognize it is "Fresh" color. When we put skin colors on figure's face means just putting pigments which look like "skin tone" on the natural sunlight color. So painting skin color is already "painting lightened color". We are already unnatural from the beginning.

I used exactly the same colors on the version 1 and 2, but I changed the recipes and how I use them. Put more highlights on the 2nd version to make it look more appearing when I put it on the dark lighting room.
This idea came from my experience attending Euro this year and other shows in Japan.


P.S. Just to make sure...even if everybody think I'm in the same fashion, I'm not a obsessed follower of Korean painters nor wanna-be. Of course I admire them, they are my friends, and they inspire me all the time, but I want to find my own one and only style.

I do not think you imitate the Korean style of painting. I only mentioned this because it does seem to be an up and coming "fashion" in figure painting- and somebody had mentioned the use of "green" in the shadows. This use of complimentary colors is typical of the work of Sang Eon Lee, Calvin Tan (NOT Korean!) and Young Song as well.

Keep up the good work!

 

[Ron Tamburrini]

Realistically I think both versions a well above average painting it is just a matter of taste ,regards Euro ! my recollections are that you done very well to come away with a gong so can't be much wrong with your painting and you do have an individual style which I am sure you will further develop, wouldn't get to hung up on the light and shade thing.

Ron

 

[kaz6120]

Thanks everybody, I love this kind of discussion a lot.

I think what i first responded to was that the extreme contrast on the face is not matched by the contrast on the clothing. The deep folds on the clothing do not appear as dark as the deep folds on his face. Yet, the color of the clothing is clearly darker than the skin tone. This is a mis-match. You have used two differing styles on the clothing and face. The first face, to my eye, still matches the second bust's clothing better.

If I had to guess why, I would think that the face was approached with something more aggressive in mind, then the clothing was painted in a less aggressive style. What I really do like about the second face, that i perhaps did not pick up on yesterday, is that you have not allowed the dark shading to encroach on the major areas of the skin tone. So the face "reads" flesh - even with extreme darks present. This means they have been modulated well. Good job! And, in this case, the extreme darkness of the cheekbones is less objectionable because of the large flaps on the hat that render the cheeks as shadow areas anyway. On a more exposed face, I think the dark cheek shading would be too much.

---

Looking at your second bust now, I do not think you have carried your shading to that extreme, even though the shadows are nearly black in the deepest folds. This is because you have limited the use of those extreme shadow colors to only a very few small spots on the model. You have modulated very well to obtain such a full range of tones without making the skin appear too dark or too light from a distance. I would also like to say that pushing the highlights further on the second bust was good move. This gives more tonal modulation to the brighter areas of the face and works better visually. I think the first bust could be greatly improved by adding a couple of more highlight tones as you did to the second....

I've never had such a long and detailed comments and critiques on my work. Thanks a lot for your advice, Mike!
Yes now I see what you mean by mis-match, I agree with it. These are great hints to improve my work better, and great hints to everybody.

(And...I maybe misunderstood the word 'extreme style' a bit. )

I do not think you imitate the Korean style of painting. I only mentioned this because it does seem to be an up and coming "fashion" in figure painting- and somebody had mentioned the use of "green" in the shadows. This use of complimentary colors is typical of the work of Sang Eon Lee, Calvin Tan (NOT Korean!) and Young Song as well.

Keep up the good work!

I use green in the shadows and complimentary colors, I learnt that techniques from their works, I admit. But I will keep trying to be different.

Again, Thanks a lot for your great advice, Mike. Maybe I didn't reply and answer to all of your advices here now but I read all of your comments and I will keep that in mind.

 

[John Bowery]

Kaz,
Very nicely done and great face.
Cheers
John

 

[Sturm Grenadier]

Hello Kaz, Sorry to use your thread to comment. I find this discussion on techniques and styles very interesting and, a little puzzling? I think we, as figure/bust painters, all strive for one common goal: To make our subject matter as realistic as possible, regardless of the way, or techniques, used to achieve it. All of the painters mentioned during this discussion, have all shared there tips, color choices, step by step demonstrations, to help or offer us suggestions, to improve our skills. It is up to us to use them or not. If I were asked: What method or style do you prefer? I would have to say all. I have learned many things about painting figures from the members on this site, regardless of there way of expressing it, to which I am very grateful. So, don't worry, be happy, and just paint. Regards, SG

 

[HIKARU_REMOVED]

Kaz san,
Here, it is a long time.
This bust is excellent so that everybody may say.
This version is more wonderful although the first version was also beautiful.
I would also like to paint well like you.
I congratulate you on your completion.

HIKARU

 

[kaz6120]

Thanks John, Sturm.

Hello Kaz, Sorry to use your thread to comment. I find this discussion on techniques and styles very interesting and, a little puzzling? I think we, as figure/bust painters, all strive for one common goal: To make our subject matter as realistic as possible, regardless of the way, or techniques, used to achieve it. All of the painters mentioned during this discussion, have all shared there tips, color choices, step by step demonstrations, to help or offer us suggestions, to improve our skills. It is up to us to use them or not. If I were asked: What method or style do you prefer? I would have to say all.

Thanks a lot Sturm, and no worries about using my thread. I love this kind of discussion!

Kaz san,
Here, it is a long time.
This bust is excellent so that everybody may say.
This version is more wonderful although the first version was also beautiful.
I would also like to paint well like you.
I congratulate you on your completion.

Hi HIKARU, first of all...I'm glad you're back!! I think everybody here welcomes you too.
I think ( at least I believe) I have an aptitude for painting busts, rather than smaller scales. I'm not good at detailing up the small stuffs, AFVs, but I love painting them. I still not satisfied with my painting skill. I think my best is yet to come. Let's keep on painting!