colourists/colourism - define and discuss?

Those *&%$$# reproductions!

I am interested to see what other definitions
we can find re: colorist....I have seen Matisse
defined as a colorist.

Turner made absolutely exquisite use of colour in some of his
almost abstract works....but was it more about space and atmospheric perspective than colour?

Of course, with a highspeed connection the interent could produce high definition reproductions. It would take an hour or more to download one with dialup (which would likely fail before one got the image). The Gallery Channel on VOOM satellite is worth the $49.95 a month alone.

I do believe Turner produced what some would call colorists paintings, or at least approaching a colorist painting, so I don't think he could be called a colorist.

Good luck on actually finding a defintion -- I've never pinned down any of my art history professors and even Janson's "History of Art" which is a university textbook does not have a description in its glossary!

The Yale Dictionary of Art and Artists also has no entry. Dream on...

Well, it's gorgeous even here, and I am sure a stopper in what ere museum it's in, for many reasons including amazing personal presence in a portrait, fairly early on.

The color is right (or I presume it is in best format, like seeing it). Is this an example of his failing at line? Maybe he was just tired of line...

No "failing at line" if you actually saw an accurate reproduction or, better yet, in person (I think it's at the Hermitage, but I'll look in that book later -- want to go to Russia?). It's actually beautifully drawn.

There were artists who were contempraries of Titian who were far more looking like colorists work, Pontormo for one -- his images are alive with color.

Although Tintoretto's murals exhibit a wide range of color, works like his "The Last Supper" are very grey in tone with any color being muted, excepting the clothing of Jesus himself, I imagine the desired effect. Veronese produced some chromatically rich canvases.

Again, I'm saying the term could be one to be avoided.

We probably will after this, but I still want to chase it around a bit for myself.
still need to reread the thread, to get the... threads.
I like Pontormo too, but then probably not, (or do I), for color related reasons. Yep, I bet I do.

Was it me who started this? I am the hapless one, was I first to mention colorist? Personally, I am curious what any definition of that is or might be. Maybe farmerman was, and I am guessing he is/was curious in the same way I am.

Portal had a def, and I think, but am not sure, that Vivien did. They are closer to school than a bunch of us, and then again, school is a mirror...

One of my friends is a professor of art history at
University of California at Irvine and I could contact him about this subject. I'm likely to come up with yet another definition other than those offered on the two threads (including one I tossed into the ring). I can't help feeling it's complicated it even further as critical biases seep into the mix. Is an artist like Pontormo more of a colorist than Titian? He's at least more consistant in using multicolor.

I would be very interested to hear his opinion
LW.....I I am sure many critics use the term colorist improperly.....
Neat to have found this gap in the terminology!!!!....

Now I would say Turner was very positively a colourist - the colours are used to enhance the subject and create luminous paintings that glow with an inner light - this is done by his use of colour. In his abstracted works there is only minimal drawing as such and everything else dissolves in light and colour.

I would think someone who underpaints in tone and then adds colour usually is simply a tonal painter. A colourist painter would work in colour from the beginning and wouldn't want monochrome colour shining through, This is the way that a lot of old masters worked as you all know. The 'colourists' of the post impressionists, Scottish colourists etc broke away from this tradition because they wanted to use colour in a more exciting way.

Georgia O'Keefe's flower paintings, though colourful, are not colourist. A colourist looks at all the subtle changes of colour across a flower, the colour of the sky in the highlights if it's outside, the reflections of nearby colours in it and the mood and feel created by the colours, transparency vs opacity etc etc

Sally Strand's pastels are a good example of a colourist - paintings of sportsman in white shirts which are pure colour, but read as white.

These are purely colourist as I feel it is defined - we'll continue to disagree

A colourist uses colour for what it does, not just to make a brightly coloured image. A tonal painter paints shadows and folds primarily or solely in darker shades of the same colour.

duplicate quote

Don't all artists, unless they have reached a monochromatic point, honestly take great care in chosing colour... even if you think it is out of the tube or just haphazard? I'll keep reading, just had to say that... even if it was monochromatic, it would be "a colour choice".

I hope that doesn't sound dumb after all the art speak I am out of the habit of speaking / writing these days. Definately a talent you need to continue or you lose it.

I had a chance to speak to my art history professor friend and he defined it as an artist who is courages and skillful in using a multitude of colors. He was aware of the general defintion of someone who merely colors in line as in animation. Whether a critic finds it successful and stimulating is another story. Y'all know how I feel about artists playing critic -- it's a fruitless endeavor IMHO. I'm not confined as to what art I love just like I am not confined as to what music I love. Styles and techniques all interest me but naturally I give favor to one over another even within a genre.

We have artists playing critic, which gets tricky as artists get m.a's, thus to teach and write, and - conversely, I presume most critics of repute have played around with paints.
And then there are painters, and artists of many other sorts, being either indulgent or truly exploring their being, or some mix of those.

There are also people who just care, of whatever background, I suppose I am mostly aligned with this group.

Truly, gwl, I think there are a few sets of confluence going on here, and that we could all step back and apprehend where we are, just folks talking.

Although I think I'm just as qualified as most people handing out art judgements, that's not what I was doing. There are plenty of art critics out there who are trendsters with GED's. Then again, I have tremendous respect for some. It just depends on the critic.

I wasn't saying anything about the quality of Matisse's work, I just wouldn't call him a colorist. Having halphazard color isn't a bad thing if the paintings work that way (which they do.)

Almost all artists have certain features that they play up over others, out of necessity (some attributes being opposite objectives), laziness/lack of skill, or just priority.

Monet's series of paintings of the Rouen Cathedral or the haystacks could easily be called the work of a colorist and there is no "haphazard" chroma in any Monet that I know of. The point of the discussion seems to be that one has a choice whether to lable an artist a colorist. The academic definition may not please each individual. I leave the final analysis up to the professionals. If one has created a lot of work and sold a lot of work, I suppose they could take time out and offer opinions of other artists, even the great artists determined by art critics, museums, serious art collectors and historians, and we would all have to assume it wasn't sour grapes.

There seems to be a divide between the commercial/graphic art definition of colourist and that of the fine arts....

In the graphic arts, for example, a cartoon colourist may take black and white art work (possibly done by another artist) and use his or her expertise to colour it. An animator draws and create motion in the characters from frame to frame. In film, a digital colourist is responsible for manipulating the colour on the frames of a movie.

As I understand it, Venetian painters used a toned ground, then a monochromatic underpainting to establish value and model the figure for example. Multiple colour glazes would then be applied to the figure....Titian himself said up to 30 or 40 glazes! Finally details would be enhanced by applying white paint and additional glazes.

However! It appears that the colourist tradition, as Vivien's definition reads, is the priority of colour and light over other elements in the painting. This started with the Venetians, particularly in the experimental work of Titian and led to other explorations of colour as opposed to the more graphic neo-classicism for example.

What is interesting to me is that much of Picasso's coloured graphic type of work ( such as "Girl Before A Mirror") would probably be considered colourist in a graphic arts type definition, but not in the fine arts since it seems to rely rather heavily on black lines surrounding the forms....

Portal I do think Monet was a colourist - as LW said - to see his series on Rouen cathedral or haystacks all in line with the beautifully seen colours as the time changes - incredible - repros just don't do them justice.


I think though that we've argued this one round the houses! we all agree on some of the basic points for definition and then it falls apart and we see things differently - never the twain shall meet I feel

new subject????

OOPS. I meant Matisse.
Freudian slip.

Actually, I would define Monet as a colorist. I'll fix my post.

LightW, Leo Steinberg is one of my favorite critics, and I would sooner shoot myself in the foot that call myself on par with him. However, there are plenty of unknowlegabe politico-trendy snipes out there writing reviews and I am convinced I could do a better job.

Well, I've learned something. Thanks to all.