PDA

View Full Version : Yet more tree experiments C&C please


cliff.kachinske
03-04-2015, 02:48 PM
Thank you for looking and any comments you would like to share.

These two paintings expand on the earlier knife play. This time it's a tree in a setting.

This is a tree catching sunlight against in February. Painted with a knife only, 9X12 in. Again the objective is to capture the energy of the tree.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/04-Mar-2015/1965263-tree-knife.jpg

Next up, same tree, same setting but this time using silicone tools. There's a lot of texture in the tree but I don't think the photo conveys it.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/04-Mar-2015/1965263-tree-sil.jpg

EnPassant
03-04-2015, 03:45 PM
Yes, you are certainly succeeding in showing the energy of the tree. Next step is tonal values as well?

Bertoni
03-04-2015, 03:50 PM
I like the way the colors are working in the first one!

cliff.kachinske
03-04-2015, 10:29 PM
I like the way the colors are working in the first one!

Thank you. I think the first one is a better painting. Part of this experiment is to find out where I can use a knife and where I can use silicone tools. The first painting is all knife.

Next step is tonal values as well?

That is a very good question.:thumbsup: If you don't mind it would help me if we had a little dialog. If you view the paintings as abstracts, are the yellow objects boring?

Part of the experiment is to see if the broken colors in the tree help to convey the roundness of the trunk and limbs. It seems the answer is "no" but that's an easy thing to fix.

In the scene that inspired these experiments, the light is coming in from just behind the viewer's left ear. So the tree gets flattened and any shadows on the tree are going to be extreme. The harder thing, IMO, is to explain how the tree is so brightly illuminated in an otherwise dark scene.

It may look different to others, but to my eye the tonal values in both paintings express foreground, middle ground and far background. Agree?

EnPassant
03-05-2015, 11:53 AM
No, nothing is boring. I see what you are trying to say re. tonal values and yes, they are working in terms of giving the paintings depth. I don't think it needs to be 'explained' why the trees are illuminated - artistic licence. The roundness of the branches is not something that needs to be defined, unless you want a more naturalistic look, but defining them, in terms of tonal values, could give you another device to further your cause(?)
It might be an idea to study Van Gogh's paintings of trees.

LavenderFrost
03-05-2015, 12:26 PM
I have to admit that at first glance this kind of thing doesn't get my attention but if I look longer it gets more interesting. I do like the first one better, there is more colour variation in the tree and more interesting surroundings.

cliff.kachinske
03-05-2015, 12:54 PM
No, nothing is boring. I see what you are trying to say re. tonal values and yes, they are working in terms of giving the paintings depth. I don't think it needs to be 'explained' why the trees are illuminated - artistic licence. The roundness of the branches is not something that needs to be defined, unless you want a more naturalistic look, but defining them, in terms of tonal values, could give you another device to further your cause(?)
It might be an idea to study Van Gogh's paintings of trees.

EnPassant, thank you. I agree with everything you say.

ColinS
03-05-2015, 09:24 PM
I also find the first one a more interesting painting. There's more depth and variation giving mre interest to the painting. I like the ground in both, but again to me the first is more interesting on that count as well.

Some helpful advice from En Passant too.

cliff.kachinske
03-06-2015, 07:59 AM
MIchelle, Colin, thank you.

I have to admit that at first glance this kind of thing doesn't get my attention but if I look longer it gets more interesting. I do like the first one better, there is more colour variation in the tree and more interesting surroundings.

I agree the first one is the better painting. I count the second one a success, though, because I learned some things not to do. :lol:

I also find the first one a more interesting painting. There's more depth and variation giving mre interest to the painting. I like the ground in both, but again to me the first is more interesting on that count as well.

Looking for differences between the first and second, most obvious is the tool set, steel knives vs. silicone. Second is messiness of the palette.

EnPassant
03-06-2015, 12:33 PM
Also the first has a cooler sky and this will recede more. And the perspective of the bushes/trees in the bkground is more well defined.

~JMW~
03-06-2015, 02:18 PM
It seems like some darks on the trees are missing that will give more roundness/shape/shadowing.
The actual tree form, more so on the lower piece, looks squished to fit on the canvas, you can make smaller/ thinner trunks (trunk to branch ratio) or let the upper branches go off canvas.
I know this was knife play/practice , but perhaps place trees a bit off center from a compositional standpoint.

dceska93
03-07-2015, 12:04 PM
I like both but like the first one a bit better. It seems to have a bit more color to it with the green in the foreground leading up to the trees. And a bit more variation in the various tones in the tree.