Hacker News Reader

In your essay, you implied that people were painting alla prima during the Renaissance, that Renaissance painters would start from a rough sketch directly from the canvas, and that they could repeatedly rework parts of the picture.

You can link every Dutch master you want without making your argument any less bogus.

Here's what I actually wrote:

"The allusion a sketchy, iterative style of painting that used to be called "alla prima", where you block shapes in in oil paint and then swoosh them around the composition as the painting progresses, perhaps repainting entire sections of the picture. This is the way Graham and I were taught to paint, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with painting in the fifteenth century."

If you want to refute me, show me the Renaissance master who painted directly onto a blank canvas, starting with a "blurry sketch" and iteratively refining it into a finished work, like Hals, or Manet, or Rubens, or Bob Ross, rather than working with underdrawings and thin glazes of color.

You can't, because no one painted like that then. But talking about painstaking preliminary design and a sequential, pretty rigid method would have been inconvenient for the purposes of your essay.

View on HN

It helps to have a medium that makes change easy. When oil paint replaced tempera in the fifteenth century, it helped painters to deal with difficult subjects like the human figure because, unlike tempera, oil can be blended and overpainted. (Taste for Makers) What made oil paint so exciting, when it first became popular in the fifteenth century, was that you could actually make the finished work from the prototype. You could make a preliminary drawing if you wanted to, but you weren't held to it; you could work out all the details, and even make major changes, as you finished the painting. (Design and Research)