Ten Years and Counting: This Blog Has Seen It's Ups and Downs

Ten years ago today I began writing this blog. It began as a travel blog, chronicaling my way to Las Vegas in the summer of 2007. My idea was to unload all my belongings and hit the road. I was restless and needed a drastic change.

I was playing a lot of poker in those days, online and at a casino in Oklahoma just across the Red River. My goal was to move to Las Vegas and play poker and get a Nevada real estate license. I had been a broker in Texas for quite some time so why not take my act to Vegas?

As it turned out I lived in Vegas for a while then hit the road again, eventually landing in Carmel, California. Then it was back to Texas before moving for good back to California in the summer of 2012. This blog has always been there, although months would go by in silence. I was not a serious blogger in those days. I would write for while, then let it go for weeks at a time. On and off like a leaky water faucet, my blogging was not very consistent.

Here is an excerpt from my blog, ten years ago today, as I was planning my move to Vegas:

(Saturday, June 23, 2007) 

 Why am I moving? When it came down to it, I realized I could go anywhere and do anything. I have nothing to keep me here in north Texas. I can just pick up and go. So, I decided Las Vegas would be a nice change. I may not be there long. I could be there until the rest of my life. But I'll always be a Texan no matter where I live, so it really doen't matter. I chose Las Vegas for a number of reasons, not to mention: 
1. the opportunity to grow in real estate investing 
2. the weather 
3. the job market 
4. the card rooms
5. the opportunity to experience life in the world's biggest playground, with all of its evil and grace...a great place for a writer. 

 This blog will be my journey to Vegas.


What will the next ten years bring? Anyone's guess. I hope to do a better job writing about it, whatever happens.

I'm at a Starbucks in Albuquerque, NM, the summer of 2007, having left Texas for a road trip to Las Vegas.

Climbing Mountains, Taking Risks

I've been reading an early play by the great Tennessee Williams over the last few weeks. I often take a break from other books I'm reading and indulge myself in a book of Williams' plays. The first play I'm reading is "Spring Storm."


"Spring Storm"is a play written by Williams when he was twenty-six years old. He was studying as an apprentice and was attending the University of Iowa. "Spring Storm" received poor reviews and it did not receive its first production until 1995 in Berkeley, California. 

In the first act, the curtain rises to reveal a high, windy bluff over the Mississippi River. It is called Lover's Leap. Two old trees whose leafless branches have been grotesquely twisted by the winds are there, along with Heavenly and Dick, two young lovers. They are discussing their future together near the edge of a cliff. Heavenly begins to climb higher up the bluff while Dick urges caution. 

Heavenly's response to Dick is that climbing up the bluff will get her closer to Heaven, where she might even see God. Dick reminds her that people can also fall when climbing, and it might be too dangerous. When climbing up a dangerous cliff you might reach a higher plateau, or you might fall and break your neck.

So when do we take the risk? When do we choose to climb higher up the slippery slope and hope to see God? It takes courage to climb up and see something beautiful. What if we fall? 

The mountain climber Ueli Steck in his native Switzerland in 2015.

Ueli Steck, a famous mountain climber nicknamed "the Swiss Machine", died earlier this year. He was 40 year old. His rapid ascents of some of the world's most imposing peaks made him renowned as one of the world's best climbers. He died in an accident at a camp near Mount Everest on April 30.

Steck was willing to risk his life to climb the highest mountains in the world for his own private reasons. For him, the risk was worth it. Falling was always a possibility. But he climbed. For him the ascent upward was a life and death decision on a daily basis. 

For most of us, taking a risk to achieve something greater is not a life and death decision. It involves risks, no doubt. But our lives are not in danger. Want to write a book? Will you fail? So what? You won't die. Want to go back to school and get a degree? Will it be costly? Will you go in debt? So what? It won't kill you. 

Tennessee Williams set up the play "Spring Storm" in a terrific first act, with risk and danger and darkness on the horizon. Young lovers at odds over their future sets up a dynamic scene. Death, too, is present. What kind of life is it, to take no risk, to play it safe, to not ascend a mountain?



 

Writing a Memoir: How Do I Start?

Today I begin writing my memoir about attending art school in San Francisco. I'm not sure where to begin. For starters, I am collecting my journal entries into one place. Then I'll go through them day by day and try to get an idea of the source material I'll have to help me. God forbid I rely on just my memory. The main reason I journal is because my memory sucks.

I checked sources online for help in writing a memoir. So I have plenty of help. I'll be updating my progress here and at my writing blog at www.AikenWriter.com.

Using Acrylic and Oils in a Painting

The debate continues about using acrylic paints and oils in the same painting. Most of the time, an artist will use an acrylic painting first as an underpainting, then proceed to finish the work in oils. The question is: will painting with oils over acrylics hold up over time? 

Some critics of this practice point to evidence that suggests the oil layer will eventually peel away from the acrylic layer underneath. Acrylics, they say, is still relatively new to the market place and there is no long term history to back up the belief that its okay to use as a layer beneath oils. Others believe it is okay, just as long as the acrylic layer comes first. Painting acrylic over oil is a guaranteed disaster. However, the consensus is still out on whether painting oil over acrylic is advisable. 

Much of the thinking goes like this: we use "acrylic gesso" as an undercoat, so why not also use acrylic paint to get us started? It dries so quickly, it allows the artist to lay down a quick drawing or underpainting and begin work with oils the same day. However, "acrylic gesso" and "acrylic paint" are not the same thing. Acrylic gesso contains additives to increase absorption and provide tooth. Acrylic paint dries to a relatively smooth surface and is not as absorbent. Is it best to stick with oils throughout the process and avoid using acrylic paint AND gesso? Some would say the best ground for an oil painting is lead white.

Staffers at Golden Paints have seen paintings with oil over acrylic layers that have lasted 20+ years without any apparent peeling or damage. However, a more conservative view that errs on the side of caution would promote using acrylic gesso and/or paint in layers as thin and matte as possible. They point out that acrylic paints, in general, are porous enough to provide adhesion with an oil layer. However, George O' Hanlon at Natural Pigments writes "I tend to err on on the conservative side. There is not enough information yet about this practice to make it a 'best practice.'"

As for my own work, I began using acrylic gesso and thinly applied acrylic paints for underpainting. Acrylics are generally cheaper than oils, and they dried so quickly it was easy to get started with oils within an hour. Having said that, it has been suggested that a layer of acrylic needs to be fully dry and free of any moisture prior to applying oils. So I was most likely painting my oil layers too quickly over acrylic. If I do it right, how much time do I really save?

I have changed my approach. I don't want to take any chances. I have switched to an oil-based gesso, like Gamblin's oil ground. I then use lead white and raw umber for underpainting and drawing. They dry quickly and I can avoid using acrylics. 

Crispening: Light, Value and the Background

(from Anthony Waichulis, at AnthonyWaichulis.com)

Often I have seen students work very diligently on a “tonal” subject---only to have an arbitrarily added background or surround adversely affect the vast majority of value relationships throughout. Well---before you throw any ol’ value around your subject you should consider two related perceptual effects that could significantly affect everything that you have done.

In the 1960s, Hiroshi Takasaki from the University of Shizuoka, Japan and the Carl C. Semmelroth from the National Institute of Standards and Technology discovered and studied a lightness contrast effect that they dubbed “crispening.”  This effect was described as an enhanced perceptual difference between samples as their lightness approached that of their background.  In other words, perceived contrast between two similar values may appear greater if they share a background that is also similar.  Let’s look at the graphic to better understand this: If you look at the numbers placed over the 3 strips of value---you will notice that the numbers that near the missing number (the number that matches its background) seem to have a greater disparity (perceived higher contrast) than those that are more distant. For example, the values of the numbers 7, 8, and 9 against the black surround here seem to differ more in value than the 7, 8, and 9 against the middle gray or white.

Later (around 1967), C. J. Bartleson and E. J. Breneman of the Eastman Kodak Company Research Laboratories also documented an effect involving perceived contrast variation observed among areas of different value within an image when the image is viewed against a light or dark valued background. As you might suspect, they dubbed this phenomenon, the Bartleson-Breneman Effect (B-B).

Generally speaking, as a subject's background becomes darker, the  values of that subject appear lighter, darker values are “compressed,” and the grays appear more similar (less contrast). When a background skews lighter, values may appear darker, darker values still tend to compress, and grays may appear to be less similar (more contrast). If you look at the grid of value patches at the center of the graphic, you will notice how the values and their relationships appear different (as described) as the background changes.

​​

Eric Fischl: Notes From a Critique

I recently came by a video of Eric Fischl giving a critique to second year students at the New York Academy of Art. About twenty students had their paintings displayed around the room and Fischl walked among them and did his best to give some advice.

Here are some notes I took from his talk:

1. "What makes a masterpiece?"  Fischl began the discussion with this question. He told the students he saw one masterpiece in the room. I'm sure the students began to squirm, "Is it mine?" Turns out it was this painting, "Auntie", by Aleah Chapin. Chapin's work won the BP Portrait Award in 2012. So, I guess Fischl was right. 

Fiscal told the students his definition of a masterpiece:  when "intention and execution happen simultaneously on the canvas." He mentioned the scientific term "elegant solution." An elegant solution seeks to explain complexity in the simplest terms. For an artwork to have any chance of being a masterpiece it must be simple. The message it conveys may be very complex, but it must reveal its complexity in the simplest way possible. 

2.  In art there is always a dialectic. Dialectics refer to logical arguments. Art needs to make sense. It must have a logical base as a foundation. He pointed to one student's work and said it was unclear, ambivalent. The student failed to make a decision on which way to go. He talked about the difference between ambivalence and ambiguity: ambivalence is uncertainty, an inability to make a choice; ambiguity is a good thing if it intentionally makes the viewer think, reexamine or redefine their assumptions. An artist decides to be ambiguous. A decision is made, an intention is defined. 

3. Modern, contemporary society is a collage, a reality that is fragmented. We are constantly being bombarded by multiple images, especially on social media. An artist decides how to handle these collages:  either by fusing the images together and hiding the fragmentation, or revealing the fragmentation and emphasizing the deconstruction. Many artists, for example, use Photoshop to compose their imagery and reference material. Do they fuse these images into a new reality, or do they expose the fakery, the fragmentation? Do we hide our technique or reveal it?

4.  Fischl encouraged the class by stating "I see a lot of sincerity here." He noted there was not much cynicism. Most of the students seemed to care about what they were painting. No one seemed to have the attitude, "I don't give a damn." 

5. A discussion about sentiment also took place. Fischl defined sentimentality as "unearned emotion." A sentimental painting is "fake" in the sense that it reveals something already known. The highest ambition of art is to "reexamine, undermine, redefine" what is known. A student brought up Thomas Kinkade, who died in 2012, the year this video was taken. Kinkade's work is sentimental, reinforcing what is already known, failing to undermine or redefine beauty in landscapes. 

6. "How do you know when you are finished" with a painting? "I stop being a painter, and become a viewer," says Fischl. At some point in the painting process he stops painting and starts looking, just takes in what he has done and becomes like anyone else who views a work of art. At that point he knows he is close to the end. 

7. Things to consider: balance in the work among the elements, a unifying of the space. Do all the elements make sense, do they seem to logically fit in the same space. Pay attention to artifice and observed reality, and how they relate to one another in the piece. He pointed to a painting of a nude woman with a huge bird sitting on her torso, with its claws digging into the skin. The way the bird and the woman were rendered made them appear as if they belonged in different paintings. The bird was artificially inserted into the space and looked as if it didn't belong there.

Defining Some Terms in Color Theory

RGB: The combination of red, green, and blue light that forms a color. This is also called additive color (when you add more light, you get closer to white) and is what you'll see for digital cameras, televisions, monitors, and anything that emits light in general instead of needing an external light source to illuminate it.

CMYK: The combination of Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, and black ink or paint that will reflect a certain color. This is also called subtractive color (when you add more ink, you get closer to black) and is what you'll see for printers or anything else that uses ink, pigments, or paint. Theoretically Cyan, Magenta, and Yellow components would be enough to make all colors, but it's cheaper and faster to use dedicated black ink for dark colors and shades of gray.

HSL: A way to express a color in terms of its:
• Hue: is it red or blue or anything in between? If you consider spectrum of visible light, hue determines on which point of the spectrum the color roughly is.
• Saturation: Is the color purely, say, red, or is it muted down with some combination of gray? Totally saturated is red, totally unsaturated is gray (or white or black, depending on the…)
• Lightness: Is it closer to white, or closer to black?
You can play with an HSL color picker at MothereffingHSL.
In Photoshop and elsewhere you'll see HSB (for Brightness which is in practice the same as HSV for Value) and HSI, which are both similar but not identical to HSL.

Lab: This is a way to plot a color based on its Lightness, amount of green or magenta (a), and amount of blue or yellow (b), a model that closely approximates human vision. With Lab, you can plot every single color that's possible in RGB and CMYK, so it's useful as an intermediate step in converting digital graphics for print.

Tint: for a given color, make it lighter (basically, add pure white) and you'll have a tint of that original color.

Shade: for a given color, make it darker (basically, add pure black) and you'll have a shade of that original color.

Tones: I see "tones" used to describe ranges of discrete brightness/lightness/luminescence levels in images. You'll also see it used to describe combination of colors. Mariam-Webster gives the example of "gray walls of a greenish tone".

Chroma: Generally this is another term for saturation or a combination of saturation and hue. The Wikipedia article on colorfulness groups chroma, saturation, and colorfulness together as loosely similar, but chroma does have a specific definition in some color spaces.

Intensity: Could refer to the brightness of a color or the saturation (or a combination). Like a soda can could be described as intensely red, or a white point of light would be intensely bright. One quirk of human vision is the Helmholtz–Kohlrausch effect, which describes how we perceive highly saturated colors as appearing lighter.

*It should be noted that "Tone" generally refers to the quality of color, gradients, shading, etc. It also refers to the range of discrete luminance levels present in an image. It is not really another term for tints and shades. Chroma, or Chromaticity, refers to the color "vector", which would be its angle around the color wheel, and its distance from the center of the wheel towards the edge. Intensity generally refers to brightness, and has more to do with the luminance axis (remember, color is three dimensional) than anything.