I see it again and again, that when it comes to the art of watercolour, "value" is the key, and it almost doesn't matter how poor your drawing skills are, as long as your values are right, you can paint like the best of the best! Now, I really do love Andy Evansen and his watercolours, but he's one of the really experienced and seasoned watercolourists who preaches this, but honestly, I don't quite buy that idea. Of course, it depends on what you're painting, abstract or figurative, but for the sake of figurative landscapes, I can't see that value will ever triumph the skill of depicting a landscape correctly in drawing, in terms of perspective, scale etc.? If you paint a watercolour based on a child-like drawing, your values will never save it. When Evansen demonstrate how important values are, he does that with a very accurately painted value study, which are lovely, but they're a result of years and years of practising drawing. And frankly, I think those demonstrations are useless for beginners in watercolour painting, unless they're already skilled draughtsmen.

Not going after Andy Evansen here, as I see him as one of the best watercolourists out there, but I just question this emphasis on values vs the drawing. Would love to hear anyone else's thoughts!

(I should add that I also don't think a detailed drawing is key, because there are a lot of examples where you don't need a detailed, crafted drawing to make a great painting, but I find that maybe composition and pigment choices are more important than value in itself.)

But what's my point, exactly? Just that I think an understanding of the landscape, both in observation, and in translating this somewhat accurately to paper in some way, either through a drawing or directly through paint, is more important than learning the craft via tricks and/or treats, I guess.