Whenever Linda Fisler interviews me for an Art Chat, she sets out the direction of the interview and the questions. I usually write down my answers and information I consider important. But since the interview process is more free-form and reactive, there is often material that doesn't get used. Since I just came across this file on my computer, I'm going to share a more extended version of my answer to one of Linda's questions.
Linda Fisler: Would you agree that an area where there is a lot of growth is in color and color relationships? Do we have a tendency to get comfortable mixing the same colors and sort of do this mindlessly?
We absolutely get caught up in repetitive behaviors that do us no favors. Whether it is color, or values, or even the process of painting and not paying enough attention to what it is we are doing, we run the risk of rendering visual information in predictable and boring ways.
We can depend on the idea that painting what we think we see will be good enough - all we have to do is be reasonably accurate with our colors and values. And sometimes that works. But the problem is that we don't see everything without doing the work to see more information. We need to work on the seeing part, just like we work on the painting part. And keep in mind that the more we look, the more we see and then we need to edit.
Creating a value pattern and interacting with the space of the canvas are probably the most important things we can start with. Seeing light and dark is a basic component of visual processing and value is easier to recognize than color, or edges for that matter. Color creates another level of complexity that is often confusing. In theory, color is simple. Newton discovered 300 years ago that there is only so much of the light spectrum that is visible to the human eyes as color. But the simplicity begins and ends there. The way people perceive and interpret color is another language all its own.
So we identify the light, the light and shadow pattern created by the light, and also, hopefully, a general idea of the pattern of warmer-cooler colors created by the light. Now we have a basic map of information. We can use this basic information to emphasize or exaggerate if we want, but we still have a reference to return to. This reference information is important if you want to allow yourself some room to play with the colors and values in a more painterly or interesting way. Many painters fear getting lost in the process, and use methods like outline drawing to control the information. That forces one into seeing separate things instead of the pattern of the whole. Choose relationships instead of things.
Mixing color on the palette presents even more variables since the science of light and color is additive, meaning if we add all the colors of light together we get white light. Our paints are subtractive color (and of course we don't end up with white when we mix them all together). So the most important lesson to take away from this is to accept that we cannot match what we are seeing, but we can create the illusion of the color we see or, better yet, interpret it in a more interesting way.
Exaggerating color doesn't always have to be done across the entire range of the painting. If a color is looking dull or nondescript, sometimes using a complementary color near it will easily work to modify how the original color looks. But don't underestimate the power of an understated painting using minimal color - think Anders Zorn. We don't always have to go brighter and louder to make a point.
