David Dibble OPA

Over the past several years I have written posts for OPA about different painting fundamentals. I would like to continue with a few thoughts on light. 

As a representational painter, much of my technical work boils down to understanding how light behaves in the natural environment.  Theoretical knowledge of how light works, plus observation of how these principles play out in real life, combine to provide the basis used to communicate a story, emotion, or idea (along with other design principles of course, such as composition, etc.).  This concept is often put more simply as “we paint both what we see and what we know”.  

Since most of us deal with the concept of light in our paintings, I’m sure these ideas are neither new to you nor novel. And it’s perfectly okay if you think about light in a completely different way (that can be fascinating).  But sometimes hearing a familiar idea stated in a new way can expand our understanding.

With all of this in mind, I would like to share a few perceptions of how I think about light as a painter:

PRIMARY LIGHT SOURCE AND SECONDARY LIGHT SOURCE 

The interplay (push-and-pull, tug-of-war, etc.) between these two forces is nearly always at play in nature.  Understanding how the two interact within a scene is the key to understanding the color theme or ‘thrust’ of a piece. Typically, the sun is the primary light source and the sky is the secondary source, but that can be different depending on other factors (for example indirect light, moonlight, car lights, etc.). Multiple secondary sources can definitely exist simultaneously (such as street lights, house lights, moon, etc.), but I find that these usually need to be simplified to a dominant secondary light source (i.e. choose one).  One of the only places where there is no secondary light source influence is in outer space (though sci-fi artists usually cheat and add one anyway). Thus, even in small and subtle ways, most things in nature have a gradient of value and color as they get either further away from, or closer to, the primary light source and consequently more or less influenced by the secondary source. That’s a heady way to say that, on a sunny day, the surface of an object is either being hit by sunlight, or it’s being influenced by whatever else is in the sky. 

WHEN THERE IS A PLANE CHANGE THERE IS ALSO A CHANGE IN VALUE AND TEMPERATURE

This seems obvious, but it can be both tricky to observe and easy to overstate. Sometimes the value change in a plane is so subtle that forms can be turned simply by changing color temperature.  The idea is that if a plane can be observed, then it’s because it’s being affected by light and thus has a value and temperature based on either a primary or secondary light source.  If that plane is less influenced by the primary light source, then it is by necessity being more influenced by the secondary light source (and vice versa).  A good visual to understand this relationship was created by Joseph Buenning:

TYPICALLY, OBJECTS LOOK BETTER WHEN THERE IS UNEQUAL PROPORTION OF LIGHTING

Even if beautifully rendered, having equal amounts of light and dark in a painting is typically less dynamic and engaging then having one side of the value spectrum, or the other, dominate. (Granted, this may be more about composition, but it is important so I am including it in our discussion.)  For example, when I’m walking around a tree deciding what angle to paint, I usually avoid painting the tree with the shadow right down the middle. It’s about making a choice as to what is most engaging and committing to it. My students often hear me say this boiled-down version: “Mostly light with a little bit of dark, or mostly dark with a little bit of light”.  

LIGHT AND TEXTURE ARE INTRINSICALLY LINKED

How light affects the appearance of an object generally depends on the material and texture of that object.  Generally, the smaller and more varied the planes of the object, the more light becomes fragmented as it bounces off, creating a matte appearance.  For example, a patch of dry grass is composed of many little parts which fragment the light, giving the grass a matte appearance. The opposite is true for a flat pane of glass, which has very little surface variation, and thus appears shiny.

SATURATING UP THE EDGES OF A LIGHT AREA 

Doing this allows one to pull back the saturation within a light area while still maintaining a feeling of vividness.  This is especially helpful in areas that get really light, and due to the limitations of our paints, a choice between value and saturation must be made.

ALTERNATING OF TEMPERATURE 

This can give a painting rhythm and pleasing color.

ORANGE IS THE WARMEST COLOR, AND BLUE IS THE COOLEST  

The idea is that on the color wheel, either way that you shift away from Orange it cools down, and either way you go from Blue, it warms up.  The same is not true for any other color. (Special thanks to William Maughan for explaining this to me once). 

COLOR AND TEMPERATURE ARE RELATIVE AND BASED ON CONTEXT 

Thus, “warm light, cool shadows” doesn’t mean orange and blue, it means “warmer than” and “cooler than” what they are next to.  Understanding this key principle, was for me, the beginning of painting believable local color, the ability to differentiate of time-of-day, and subtle color harmony. It is the difference between having a rock that looks like it’s painted orange, and a rock that is being hit with warm light. 

THE MORE INTENSE THE LIGHT SOURCE, THE MORE INFLUENCE IT HAS OVER WHAT IT TOUCHES 

This is true until it eventually overwhelms a scene entirely. For example, an intense sunset is going to put a stronger wash of warmth and unifying temperature over everything than a mid-afternoon sun.

Well, there you have it. As I mentioned before, there are as many ways to think about light as there are people, and I love it when I see paintings which have approached light very differently than I have explained above (more emotionally, for example). As with most things, there is Truth, but also infinite variety and so many ways to create beauty. I wish you the best in this coming season of work, may the joy of Light fill your life!

-David Dibble OPA

Over the past two years I have done several posts on a progression of principles dealing with:

1. Drawing
2. Value
3. Color
4. Edges

For the final post in this four-part series, I will deal with the subject of Edges, which is really a discussion about paint application. You may have heard me or others talk before about “hard vs. soft skills”, and I would include edges in the ‘soft skill’ category along with other surface-quality related things like brushwork, texture, etc.  I include it in that category because it’s generally a secondary concern to the deeper issues of composition, value, and drawing that affect visual communication.  It’s kind of like the icing, not the cake.  (But oh, how icing can make or break a cake, right?!)  I would also go so far as to say that nowhere in a painting is the personality and temperament of an artist more visible than in their edge work and paint application.

People usually get really excited about edges because, like cake vs icing, edges are such an immediately visible part of a painting.  They are also one of easiest parts of a painting to imitate, and thus are often the first part of another artist’s style that will be internalized (often not consciously) as a developing artist searches for his or her style/voice.  If you look at the early work of any artist you will usually see that their paint application and edge work will more strongly reflect their influencers (or teachers) and then will diverge into a more unique style once they mature and decide who they are.

So that should be the first major caveat here: Edge treatment really comes down to preference, personality, and stylistic choice.

Edge treatment is also an important tool for emotional communication. If I were to describe a painting’s surface with words like: “Exciting” “Bold” “Aggressive” or “Intense” we would all have different ideas than if I were to say things such as “Calm” “Peaceful” or “Restful”.  There’s not one right way; I suppose I’m just saying: Match the delivery to the message.  Be purposeful.  And be true to yourself. 

Categories of Edge Handlers

There are a few major categories of edge handlers that I have observed (there are probably others, but we’ll just use these for now). I have chosen to use examples of four current artists employing these techniques:

• Focal-Pointers: This style usually tries to create a focal point by an awareness of how we see naturally.  If you hold your arm out in front of you and make a fist, that fist-sized area is about the visible space that is in our focus at any given moment.  Of course, our mind fills in the blurry parts with information and our eyes dart around to constantly see other focused areas, so most of the time we’re not aware of the lack of clarity.  But as artists, we are constantly seeking to direct someone’s eye to an area in a painting that we want them to look.  So putting the focal point in sharp focus and then getting more vague/suggestive in detail and focus as we move away from that area can be a powerful way to create importance and dominance in a scene.  Photography has pushed this idea into more extreme places, but it can be seen far back into art history and is generally associated with naturalism in painting. 

• De-Constructors:  Lots of variations on this, but it’s basically what the name suggests: Breaking down edges from their natural hard-edged state to create more interest.  Some use this technique to also create focal point, others to increase the feeling of light bouncing off an object, and some just love the way it livens up the subject/surface and is a means of communicating the emotional intent of a piece.  It is almost always seen as more contemporary.  Artists today employ it on every level from subtle pulled edges to intensive abstraction.

• Lost-and-Founders: This can look a bit similar to deconstruction, but is different in that it is just a loosing of an edge into soft focus or similar value/color rather than actually breaking the form. 

• Hard-Edgers:  Once again, the name is obvious, and this is basically about creating hard edges and graphic shapes.  This has been done for centuries in situations requiring more graphic solutions such as mosaics and iconography, but it is a relative newcomer to gallery painting.  This style also has modernist roots, as many artists were seeking ways to separate from past naturalistic styles as well as reacting to the harshness of industrialization. Not all were that way, however, as many of the early Southwest artists used this style as means of reacting to the intensively graphic shapes of the Western landscape.

Once again, there isn’t one right way, nor are these techniques mutually exclusive.  Most artists, including myself, incorporate elements of all four into their work to varying degrees.  But being conscious of what you’re doing and why is an important step to deeper visual communication.

A few final ideas/takeaways:

• Edges can help create focal point, but only in a supporting role.  Composition and contrast of value, shape, and saturation/color generally carry more weight in determining focal point.

• Understand focal area and use it to your advantage.  Don’t just flip the brush around willy-nilly because it feels fun and artistic.  Generally soft focus recedes and sharp focus advances.

• Often a good place to soften an edge is at the bulge of a shape.  Pull it tighter where edges come together because that is where things get anchored and carry a lot of visual weight/information. 

• Experiment.  Every once in awhile try a piece that is just for you in which you experiment with a completely different edge style.  Use different tools than you would normally use and get outside your comfort zone.

• Master copies: If you want to really grow in your ability to get more dynamic surface quality in your work, do some master copies of artists who you like.  Do multiple copies of different artists so that you don’t just end up being known as “that artist who looks like so-and-so”.

• Generally, my own rule on how much to work an edge comes into play when I step back and look at my piece.  If something is calling my attention that I don’t want to do so, then I lessen that attention, either by value, color, or softening the edge.

• Remember the old animation adage: “If it feels right, then it is right!”  This is to say that an edge treatment may not make complete sense logically but if it communicates the correct feeling or idea then it is justifiable.  Animation does this all the time with color and stylization.

• My general feeling about edges (and paint application in general) is that they should support the theme but not overtake it.  If gimmicky paint application is the first thing a viewer is bombarded with it can hinder the visual communication.

Hopefully something here is helpful! 

To be sound, a painting must be built on a compositional foundation in this order:

1. Drawing
2. Value
3. Color
4. Edges

If these get addressed in any other order, problems generally ensue.
Recently, the artist Jeremy Lipking was asked what advice he would give to painters, and he said:
“Draw more, that’s basically it. A lot of people feel like they know how to draw good enough already, but don’t trust yourself. Learn to draw better.”
With the fewest words and most pictures possible, I would like to briefly address the issue of drawing. In the following visual example, I have shown how fundamentally a piece can change when just the drawing is ignored. The values and color are the same in both pieces. The point is obvious:

Too often we divorce drawing from painting, and we do it to our own detriment. Drawing isn’t something we do in school once and then move on to the weightier matters of art; it is always the foundation. It’s also hard to do because it takes sustained and focused practice, which is why students usually, at least initially, copy the stroke quality and edges of other artists, because those things are more easily observed and imitated.
Another mistake we often make is to exclusively think of drawing as line-based. Line can certainly be a useful tool when drawing, because the instruments employed tend to create thinner marks, but really, drawing is about principles, not marks. Thus, I would like to address two principles of drawing: Proportion and Simplification of Form.

1. PROPORTION

There is a lot one could talk about here, but basically, it comes down to creating an unequal distribution of space in a piece. This is also the same for unequal proportions of value, color, and edges.

2. BASIC SHAPES

When I was young I saw how-to-draw books that broke things down into basic shapes and I thought they were lame. The drawings in those books didn’t seem to match the highly rendered pieces that I responded to and used as an aspirational goal. So, as most of us, I focused on rendering and shading and learned how to do it well. That was drawing to me.
But the more I learned post-high school, I started to see the pattern of truth re-emerge: Basic shapes REALLY ARE the way to draw. And it starts with training our eyes and minds to simplify down what we see to the most basic elements: