Cadmium free and loving it.

[Marvin Mattelson]

Hi Sharon,

I love the Michael Harding oil paints. They are denser than the Blockx which are too thin for my liking. The are heavily pigmented and can always be softened by the addition of a little oil. I mix my own grays.

Paxton's flesh colors are beyond compare and the understated nature of his application is, for me, evidence that he doubled as a zen master. He would use Vermillion when it was called for. I saw a painting last year in which he used a hue progression of Venetion Red to Indian Red to Alizarin to paint a red cloth next to a nude figure. Those colors just resonated in juxtaposition to the neutrals surrounding the figure and drapery.

Personally, I find that the experience of looking at intensely colored paintings becomes a jarring one, after a period of time. I believe that subtle colors are more appealing in the long run. I look to Paxton, Bouguereau and Monstead (a landscape painter who studied with Bouguereau) as great examples of this.

It's very hard to have the figure come forward against a full tilt boogie cadmium red background. A successful painting is one where all elements maintain their proper relationships. The Paxton painting I described is a wonderful demonstration of this. Many painters through history successfully employed red backgrounds without grabbing for those cadmiums. Van Dyke is a great example.

On another note I'll be in Boston this weekend at the portrait conference. As I don't get up to Boston often, I want to see as many Paxtons as possible. Can you let me know where I should look. I've got my sites set on the Museum of Fine Arts (The Necklace) and now, thanks to you, the Voce Gallery.

[Allan Rahbek]

Thank you for continuing this topic. I have finally read it now, but wish that I had done it earlier. I see things clearer now.

And about Marvin

[Marvin Mattelson]

Where do I find the Paxton Palette?

I assume you mean the exact colors and not the actual piece of wood?

I've heard numerous variations but I got the skinny from James Childs who studied with Ives Gammel a student of Paxton's.

Flake White, Ivory Black, Raw Umber, Light Red (varies by brand), Indian Red, Alizarin Crimson, Yellow Ochre, Ultramarine Blue, Viridian, Burnt Sienna, Naples Yellow Light, Vermilian and Cerulean Blue.

The reason I use Flake is because Paxton used it. I assume he used it for the following reasons: it allows for the creation of more luminous skin tones because of it's translucency; the lead content makes a far superior paint film; it doesn't cause hue shifts like the more bluish whites and it makes for faster drying times.

[Marvin Mattelson]

Hi Sharon,

Long time!?!

Anyway, I'm glad you and Claude are back together. Especially for Claude's sake. The English Red goes by many names. Each manufacturer has different names for the same color and different colors for the same name. Michael Harding makes Venetian Red, which is what I use. Everything I use is Michael Harding colors, including Ultramarine with the exception of Blockx Crimson Lake which I use instead of Alizarin, for reasons of permanence. I am currently seeing if the poor permanency rating of Alizarin is flawed, based on a bad example tested. Stay tuned.

I don't use Raw Sienna for two reasons. Paxton didn't and it's redundant based on what the other color mixes can give you.

[Marvin Mattelson]

I feel that I am perfectly able to create any color effect I desire using about ten colors. On the odd chance I need to make a particular color outside the range of my palette I will add the appropriate color. This hasn't happened in the last four years since I've devoted myself to portrait painting. I certainly haven't had the desire to reach for Cadmium anything.

A good chef uses less ingredients not more.

I try to create timeless and tasteful paintings. I myself am not attracted to gaudy, loud or overstated artworks. Why would I want to create something against my very nature? My palette serves me very well and my clients seem quite happy.

In terms of my participation here, I believe I have a valid point of view to express based on my thirty plus years as a professional artist and teacher. I enjoy participating in a forum environment and hope that my insights could potentially be useful to others.

I think that expressing an opposing opinion for the purpose of clarification is healthy. I would never just jump into the middle of things for the sake of merely bandying my name about or trying to give myself exposure. Almost every post I have contributed here contains solid information.

I don't understand how the number of paintings I do has relevance in this discussion. I hope the quality of the work I produce speaks for itself.

[Celeste McCall]

Dear Marvin,

Your paintings speak loudly and clearly.

Your work is unparalleled for its unity, beauty, realism, etc..

[Marvin Mattelson]

Thank you Celeste. You are too kind. I'm very touched by your heartfelt praise and I really appreciate it.

[Celeste McCall]

Dear Chris,

These should be deleted anyway in my opinion as personal attacks are very offensive to those of us who read this. Decorum is always the victor in any debate.

[Timothy C. Tyler]

Celeste, contradictions are offensive too. Yet, this is a sharing and learning site. Through fair exchange and conversation we artist can work through the many styles, forms and methods employed. Truth is good, knowledge is good. If I attend a lecture by an expert, I'd expect to see his credentials.

[Marvin Mattelson]

The opinions I express are those of my own. I'm entitled to have them and express them. The thing that is both wonderful and baffling about painting is that there are multitude of approaches and paths to follow.

In my thirty plus years as a teacher I have developed a method of working and teaching that has allowed both myself and others to feel they have reached levels of competence that at some point seemed inconceivable. That's a pretty exciting thing, as far as I'm concerned.

Generally my students are very loyal and appreciative based on their appreciation for the knowledge they've received from me and the growth it has spurred.

My methods may run counter to the theories and philosophies of other very successful and talented artists. It is my theory that its the tremendous innate talent of most successful artists which allows them to succeed in spite of their technical and theoretical approaches.

More importantly, I see the vast majority of artists struggle, to a large degree, because they use too many and too powerful pigments on their palettes. So I have devised a teaching strategy based on giving the greatest number of people a the best chance to succeed.

There are obviously other aspects of painting that come into play so what I've tried to do is break down every area involved in painting into what I call an "idiot proof" approach.

I really don't care if I am perceived as someone marching to the tune of a my own drummer. Many of the truths I've found have come as a direct result of seeing what most people do and then looking the opposite direction for a better answer. I see that a great number of what artists do today fly in the face of what previous master artists seemed to do. I take nothing for granted in my quest for the best answers. I also don't care to play the gallery game and be in who's who or anything else. I let my work speak for itself. I'm only interested in being the best artist and teacher I can be.

Just a side note, this past summer Steve Assael, one of the most respected realistic gallery artists in America (Forum Gallery) sent his son to my workshop to "get him started on the right track."

I do, however, enter portrait competitions because it gives me status in the portrait community and most importantly, with clients. I am, after all, a portrait painter first and foremost, which is why I participate on this forum. Even though I have been one of the top award winning portrait artists in the last four years it doesn't make my paintings one drop better or worse. At the end of the day my work is what it is.