Talk:Sfumato

message: I know that this is only a summary description but sfumato isn't really layers of transparent paint.  More accurately the darks are transparent (e.g., asphaltum) and the lights are opaque.  It's a little bit of a challenge to make lights transparent anyway; they're usually opaque (I'm not counting zinc white as suitable for sfumato).  The darks are laid on and then the lights next to them.  Then they're gradually blended together with a soft natural fiber brush.  This operation can be repeated as many times as necessary to establish the darks and the required lights, continually blending with a soft brush.  Working this way provides a great deal of control and do remember to use some sticky medium - it makes blending more tractable.
Bob Consoli
I should have mentioned that when sfumato is done properly that even the brightest lights will take on something of the coloration of the dark you're using.  E.g., a golden hue for those using asphaltum and be sure to try the Gamblin transparent reds, oranges, and yellows for this purpose (I have no connection to Gamblin).
Bob Consoli
:Hi Bob - thanks for that. I would encourage you to put this information into the article. The article doesn't have to be a summary description. As it gets more comprehensive and accurate, we can rework it so that the opening paragraph gives a quick overview summary before moving on to more detailed discussions of technique, history etc.
:An article on zinc white and other pigments would also be very welcome. Since zinc white was invented in the 18th century, I'm guessing that Leonardo only had lead white available. -- Solipsist 17:40, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

message: Could someone who speaks Italian please give the IPA pronunciation of the word "sfumato"? Thanks. Runningfridgesrule (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: I understand that the idea of the four canonical modes of the Renaissance was proposed by Marcia Hall, but I don't believe that it has been established that such modes actually existed. The distinction is arbitrary and it would be best if not presented as established fact.Amadeus webern (talk) 02:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four canonical modes 

message: In the "In thinking" section, Michael Gelb’s definition is completely unrelated to da Vinci’s visual, artistic technique. A person who comes to this article for information about the painting method will be completely misled by the passage regarding Gelb’s idiosyncratic discursive speculation. 
The sentence "Fumo literally means 'gone up in smoke' derived for the Italian meaning" sounds illiterate. "Fumo" means "smoke," not "gone up in smoke." The words "derived for" should be "derived from."
Also, how could Michael Gelb know anything about da Vinci’s inner thoughts? All we can know is what we see when we look at da Vinci’s artistic products, that is, the external expressions of his brain activity.Lestrade (talk) 04:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Adjusted, though I wouldn't mind losing the section altogether. Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Article's weaknesses

message: I don’t want to disparage Michael J. Gelb, but his extension of the application of the term "sfumato" may result in harmful confusion. Many academics employ this procedure of extension in order to seem to be innovative and profound. The result, however, is ambiguity which leads to misunderstanding and perplexity. One word, or term, is wrongfully used to designate more than one concept. Gelb, however, seems to laud and advocate this very procedure by claiming that it results in open-mindedness by the holding of different perspectives at the same time. This is obviously impossible because only one perspective can be had at any one time. The most that could be achieved would be the rapid alternation of individual, differing perspectives. Ambiguity, therefore, to Gelb, is a positive condition that "opens up new dimensions for problem-solving, inspiration seeking, and seeing new patterns." Supposedly, the ability to think in a smokey, "sfumato" manner allows one to overcome ambiguity, paradoxes, and "systems thinking." To me, this is a harmful use of the word "sfumato," a word that already has an accepted definition and has been used metaphorically to signify the concept of "indistinct edges" or "blended outlines." A painter eliminates distinct edges and outlines by the use of many small brushstrokes, resulting in the effect of seeing an object through a smoky or hazy atmosphere. This has nothing to do with holding "two paradoxical ideas in one's mind without difficulty." Gelb claimed to know the contents of the brain of da Vinci, a man who died almost 500 years ago, and that da Vinci’s brain contained ambiguous, vague, fuzzy thoughts which Gelb freely called "sfumato" thoughts. Lestrade (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well take it out then. Johnbod (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Forgive the anonymity, it's been a considerable while since I felt like logging in. I must say, however, that I was unpleasantly shocked to see this section of the article. I don't know what sort of tripe Mr. Gelb chooses to sell in his books, but I can find no reason why it should be herein included. 69.178.62.52 (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "In thinking" section

message: Leonardo da Vinci, master draftsman, 2003, is the MET's exhibition catalog that  explain briefly the sfumato technique. WideAngleEyes (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: MET link