DERIVED FROM THE OLD MASTERS

Noah Buchanan shares his own method of indirect painting based on years of study

When I started my studies at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts in 1994, I was taught a tradition of painting referred to as indirect painting. The process was introduced to me by Renee Foulks, professor of painting and drawing at PAFA, and I studied the techniques further with Martha Mayer Erlebacher (1937-2013) at the New York Academy of Art from 2000 to 2002. The term is broad in how it is interpreted today, but it refers to all systems of painting which involve an underpainting; usually some kind of monochromatic earth tone map of the painting. In all methods of indirect painting, the painter works over the underpainting with subsequent layers of color. Very often these layers are not fully opaque, and sometimes overtly transparent.

Over time, I learned multiple systems of indirect painting, but each shared one major trait: they promoted oil paint’s ability to function in both transparent and opaque modalities within the same painting. This dichotomy can be used to create convincing illusions of light and/or shadow on form, as well as fleshy behaviors and appearances in the paint.

WHAT DRAWS PAINTERS TOWARD INDIRECT PAINTING METHODS:

• Strong illusion of form.

• Luminosity, or “glowing” light.

• Each stage of these processes yield beautiful, aesthetic results, and creates a feeling of stability in the morale of the painter.

Close observation of master paintings around the world reveals that the principal mode of painting used from the Renaissance through the 17 th century was indirect painting. In particular, paintings by Rubens, Van Dyck, Velàzquez and Rembrandt all exhibit hallmark behaviors of indirect painting in the paint itself. Perhaps, most poignant of all—unfinished paintings by Caravaggio clearly show that these methods were at use in the creation of his work.