PDA

View Full Version : Capturing your mind's eye!


nnelson1
10-04-2004, 01:25 PM
Have you found yourself in a position where you are able to capture on paper what you see with your minds eye?
Do find that your painting looks just as you imagined it would?
Do you, instead, begin the process and just let it become what it will become?
Does your mind capture your reference and use that? Or do you study the image and let your mind create what you wish it to be? Does it appear for you on your paper?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Cheers,
Nick

jaytee
10-04-2004, 01:29 PM
What an interesting thread to start................will come back to it later when I can unjumble thoughts............ :wink2:

madmum
10-04-2004, 02:49 PM
A very difficult question!

Sometimes I have an idea, and by some miracle the painting looks how I planned (rare).

Other times, I let the paint do its' thing and enjoy the excitement but not necessarily the result.

Sure you'll get lots of interesting answers!

Ruth

Roun2it
10-04-2004, 03:38 PM
No. ( :evil: )

nailbender
10-04-2004, 06:44 PM
Most of the time I have a good idea of what I want it to look like. But I let the paint help me make up my mind on the finish product.
Sometimes I just start with some water and some paint and see what will happen.(most of the time these make good fire starter, after they have dryed out lol).

Bob

Pars
10-04-2004, 09:09 PM
I don't think I've ever captured what was in my "mind's eye" except once and that was a spontaneous outpouring. In fact it is this failure (oh, that word again :evil: ) that put me off painting for 30-odd years.

Now I feel gratified if I can capture a reasonable facsimile and keep going, many times repeating and repeating until I find some personal satisfaction with the outcome.

nnelson1
10-05-2004, 08:03 AM
Well, since I started this thing, I suppose I'd better jump inwith my 2 cents worth!

I find that I often have a "mind's eye" picture of how I want the painting to turn out. However, as I go along in the process, my mind's eye gets fuzzy and unfocused and the painting becomes what it becomes. Very odd. . .

I sometimes wonder, if one is able to paint exactly what they have in mind, does this take the joy of creativity out of the process? Does this make us simply craftsmen completing a job? Or does it free us to let our creativity flow as the brush and paper are no longer an obstacle but a connection to our vision?

The things you think of when you haven't had enough sleep! :D

Cheers,
Nick

FriendCarol
10-05-2004, 09:48 AM
My actual vision IRL is pretty poor, has been since I was a child, and no one caught it until I was about 10 or 11. Probably as a result, my mind's eye also seems to have very fuzzy vision. :)

Example: Right now I want to do a series of 4 half-sheet paintings very loosely based on a WDE I intended to do a couple months ago: The original reference photo is looking down from a hillside (strawish grass in foreground) over some attractive pastelish houses and one very large hanger-like building in the background. In the lower right is a couple trees and a small patch of sunlight.

But what I wanted to paint, in the original WDE, was roughly the same physical set up of factory (?) looming over houses sitting every which way, but those in a state of dilapidation; add children playing in that patch of sunlight. My original idea was called "Playground."

It didn't work when I attempted the WDE because the format of the picture is very different from the format of my paper, and my initial attempt to draw it failed... I lost that huddled-houses feeling because my paper was too wide.

So now I've captured the reference photo (that only took about 4 hours last week :rolleyes: ). This week I intend to transfer to my offline PC and (roughly) draw something in Visio that will both match the paper format and have a huddled-houses feeling. Then I'll copy (scaling up?) that drawing four times, using my watercolor pencils, onto watercolor paper.

The first in the series will be what I originally intended, the next will have a seated figure in sillhouette at the top of the foreground hill, looking down at the children. The next will have that figure standing. I'm not sure what the last will show... the first three will tell me, I suppose, if that figure is a menacing or protective adult, or a lonely child hoping to join the others.

Instead of being accurately seen in my "mind's eye," this is rather obviously a verbal conception. It seems to me that usually what I "see" in my "mind's eye" is similarly a verbal portrait, instead of an actual image. The best I can do for visual imagination is just one small patch of an image at a time, and even this (intended image-piece) is usually overridden by the need to 'match' whatever is already on the paper when I'm actually painting it.

Don't know if this "explanation" is enlightening to anyone or just confusing to all!

Uschi
10-05-2004, 06:12 PM
I'm chuckling here because my mind's eye must surely be the laziest eye in the world. Translation - I have zero imagination :o

But then I see real tomatoes, sparkling on my sunlit windowsill, and I can barely contain myself with excitement, and that, exactly that, is what I want to paint and will paint with great joy.

Even conjuring up an interesting still life is a real hardship, that is why most of my still lifes are fruit in my everyday plates etc. because that is where they happen to be when the excitement grabs me.

I react to external stimuli - period!!! :eek: :rolleyes: :confused: :D
Uschi

ktrayn78
10-05-2004, 07:03 PM
My actual vision IRL is pretty poor, has been since I was a child, and no one caught it until I was about 10 or 11. Probably as a result, my mind's eye also seems to have very fuzzy vision. :)



Instead of being accurately seen in my "mind's eye," this is rather obviously a verbal conception. It seems to me that usually what I "see" in my "mind's eye" is similarly a verbal portrait, instead of an actual image. The best I can do for visual imagination is just one small patch of an image at a time, and even this (intended image-piece) is usually overridden by the need to 'match' whatever is already on the paper when I'm actually painting it.

Don't know if this "explanation" is enlightening to anyone or just confusing to all!

Hi Carol, I know exactly what you mean! I've also had very bad eyesight for most of my life and am not at all a visual thinker. Everything is words and stories. When I was a kid I had to make up stories about each number so that I could remember which was which. 4 and 5 were a husband and wife like Kermit and Miss Piggy. I was able to remember that 5 was bigger than 4 because Piggy is in charge of little Kermit.

I can never plan a painting in my head, I have to sit down with a pencil and paper and start putting the pieces together just like you described. I'm mystified as to why I've ended up a painter when I'm the least visual person I know. Have you found that your eyesight effects the subjects you enjoy? I'm nearsighted and enjoy painting still lifes much more than sweeping vistas.

Interesting thread!

baba
10-07-2004, 06:51 AM
How very interesting! I have always wondered how some people seem to invent abstracts (and realistic paintings) from the top of their head...
I usually take very real scenes/objects and try to paint them after a rather vague idea of how they should look. I have patterns, colours and textures in my head, but I need something to, well, attach them ideas to. Plus it doesn't always work out.... And I must admit that my ideas aren't really crystal-clear.

pampe
10-07-2004, 10:38 AM
Have you found yourself in a position where you are able to capture on paper what you see with your minds eye?
Do find that your painting looks just as you imagined it would?
Do you, instead, begin the process and just let it become what it will become?
Does your mind capture your reference and use that? Or do you study the image and let your mind create what you wish it to be? Does it appear for you on your paper?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Cheers,
Nick


Strange as it seems, I am NOT a visual person....very kinesthetic instead

When I start a painting, I have very little idea of how it will look...to me it is organistic and develops on it's own as I go....somewhere in the middle...I see where it is going

nnelson1
10-07-2004, 11:43 AM
Great replies thus far!
Keep it up. This is fascinating getting an idea of the different ways we all "see".

Excelsior!
Nick

FriendCarol
10-07-2004, 12:57 PM
... Have you found that your eyesight effects the subjects you enjoy? I'm nearsighted and enjoy painting still lifes much more than sweeping vistas.

Oddly enough, despite my rather extreme myopia, landscapes have been my first love (apart from just playing with color, which of course ends up taking some form or other; although more often lines than shapes). I think it's because, since I don't see trees, grass, etc. in any great detail, they are relativey easy to paint! Most still life setups would have too much visible detail for me to want to tackle them.

One author (on abstract watercolor) insists that 'nature' doesn't display lines, but only shapes. Of course, this is nonsense to me, since I "see" mathematical forms (almost always lines -- curves, that is!) in my mind's eye, far more readily than I see actual physical shapes. So, is nature merely the ultimate visual manifestation of particular leaves on branches in a particular light? Or is the specific angle at which that species of tree issues its branches and leaves closer to what is meant by "nature?" :D

It's so much fun having such very different people here -- must be why God made so many of us! (Don't mind me; I've just finished Neal Stephenson's _The System of the World_, third in his baroque trilogy, and I'm quite "blown away.")
;)

juneto
10-13-2004, 02:59 PM
I always know exactly how I want something to look in my mind's eye but I am generally disappointed with my vision at the end, .
I conclude that my skill level is not yet where it should be and that I need to work at it more.

juneto
10-24-2004, 03:20 AM
Interesting Thread ! I also wore glasses from the time I was 12 . When I studued Art in College I was told I was Haptic, I painted what I felt ,not what I saw, only one in the class. I have worked against that all my life . I thought I was immature and too inexperienced at 17 to have a name put on me.