PDA

View Full Version : 'Lazy Summer Haze' 20x24 w/PA study


Marc Hanson
11-18-2005, 09:24 AM
Worked up a study that I didn't have a lot of faith in. The large painting became very layered with little strokes of broken color, impressionistic in style. Doesn't really show in the jpeg, but I enjoyed letting the paint set a day, then coming back in with un-thinned tints that I'd just lightly drag across the underlayers. Gives it a jewel like appearance up close. The reason I chose this way of working is that the values and colors in the scene are all so closely related that I didn't want the painting to look monochromatic on close inspection. With quick 'alla prima' way of working on this one, I think I would have at least too analagous a color scheme, if not monochromatic. This way I could pull in lot's of reds, siennas, warm and cool greens, violets, blues, warm and cool yellows, and ochres...all just slightly set apart from each other.

I used only Cad Lemon Yellow, Perm Red Medium, Ultramarine blue and Tit white...no medium. On AE 350DP stretched canvas.

It's funny, the only reason I chose this particular study to do is that I need a painting to go into a warm toned silver leaf frame! Is that decorating or what?

1-"Lifting Haze" 9x12, study from life, same limited palette.
2-"Lazy Summer Haze" 20x24, studio ptg, 5 days? or so. The layering meant letting it set up at times which took longer.
3-detail
4-detail

midcoast
11-18-2005, 12:07 PM
Both are gorgeous, Marc! You've definitely carried over the feel of the PA into the studio piece...that's not always easy to do :)

I have one question...what was your reasoning behind leaving out the middleground snags from the left side of the PA? Just curious ;)

Nancy

Marc Hanson
11-18-2005, 12:23 PM
Both are gorgeous, Marc! You've definitely carried over the feel of the PA into the studio piece...that's not always easy to do :)

I have one question...what was your reasoning behind leaving out the middleground snags from the left side of the PA? Just curious ;)

Nancy
Nancy- Thanks. This one is a different painting than the PA piece for sure. I changed the hill shape, and left those snags out because they tend to draw so much attention because they are so different to all else. Having said that, I may add a few in, I'm just not settled on them being there yet. Need 'looking' time to decide..."very perceptive my dear!!!" :D

I was just looking at the original and there are some in there that aren't showing up on the screen here. Really subtle, but obvious in the painting IRL.

designergigi
11-18-2005, 01:22 PM
Oooh, this is lovely, Marc. I have to chuckle about your reason for painting this. What a nice result.



It's looking good for me to be in Mpls to take a look at your show. I really want to see it before it ends.




note to self...take very large, 20 x 24 purse on the excursion :evil:

Wes Hyde
11-18-2005, 05:34 PM
Marc, in the plein air peice my eyes can't seem to get past the foreground foliage. But that same foliage in the studio peice, though awesome, doesn't distract. The light in the background of the studio peice is spectacular! and the whole peice comes together.

Wes

Wes Hyde
11-18-2005, 05:47 PM
Double post...

Marc Hanson
11-18-2005, 06:54 PM
Oooh, this is lovely, Marc. I have to chuckle about your reason for painting this. What a nice result.



It's looking good for me to be in Mpls to take a look at your show. I really want to see it before it ends.




note to self...take very large, 20 x 24 purse on the excursion :evil:
I'm going to call the school and tell them to be on the look out for 20x24 inch purses!!! Funny, but smart Gloria.

I know, I hope it works in the frame. It's a replacement for a frame that had a painting in it in a gallery, and that painting now has a new frame.

Thanks. ;)

Marc Hanson
11-18-2005, 06:57 PM
Marc, in the plein air peice my eyes can't seem to get past the foreground foliage. But that same foliage in the studio peice, though awesome, doesn't distract. The light in the background of the studio peice is spectacular! and the whole peice comes together.

Wes
Hi Wes,
I'm glad you picked up on that. My reason for being reluctant to paint this thing. That stuff is called arrowhead and is nearly unpaintable because it has such an identifiable look of it's own. You either have to paint it verbatum, or fake it real well. I'm not into verbatum, so I'm left with trying to fake it, and to keep the 'fakery' subtle.

Thanks for commenting.

antgeek
11-19-2005, 03:34 AM
ahhh, marc, you are a 'painter's painter'. this p/a translated beautifully to a larger piece; you were bold and creative. i admire your work very much.

JamieWG
11-19-2005, 08:34 AM
Marc, you subtle fakery of the arrowhead worked well, cause I knew exactly what it was immediately! My oh my, is that ever well done!

The hill in the background looks so much better being moved to the side as you did, and having a gentler shape and slope.

The feeling of dry paint dragging over dry paint is one of the things I love about being able to work more than a day on a painting. *drooling* I adore that effect. There always seems to be some amount of color mingling when painting wet over wet as the oils merge before drying.

Jamie

Linarty
11-22-2005, 01:33 AM
Marc

I am an utter novice, but I have a question. The detail in the foreground confuses me. There seems to be two conflicting 'rules' in play here. One says the foreground should be more detailed...in 'the closer to the viewer, the more detail'....but the other is that the focal point should be the most detailed in the painting. Can you please comment on this?

Thanks
Linda

Marc Hanson
11-22-2005, 09:44 AM
Marc

I am an utter novice, but I have a question. The detail in the foreground confuses me. There seems to be two conflicting 'rules' in play here. One says the foreground should be more detailed...in 'the closer to the viewer, the more detail'....but the other is that the focal point should be the most detailed in the painting. Can you please comment on this?

Thanks
Linda
Hi Linda,

You don't know my philosophy, I 'm not being sarcastic, I'm serious with this comment.

Marc's Rule..."There are no rules." :D There are only more successful and less successful ways to 'direct' the viewer of a painting in the way that 'you' want to using color, edges, design, and value. The one time I implement a rule (with myself or students) is when if claiming to be a representational painter, the drawing is off...not representational. Drawing is either right or wrong in this case. That doesn't mean it can't be changed, like the hill in this painting, but when working with subject matter that has a specific structure, drawing should be correct.

A lot of people don't understand this, but after a lot of painting you come to realize that the so called 'rules' are like having an odometer on the car. You can follow the numbers, or not and have more fun, be more safe and more legal or not. It's up to you. If you take on that responsibility then it's on your shoulders when it goes wrong. I frequently break the 'rules' so I don't mind explaining why I make the choices I do. That is what I tell people who study with me. "Break the rules, but know why you're doing it and be able to explain it verbally. Otherwise you're just treading into territory that you aren't ready to tread in."

The other point you make that always gives me a headache is that there has to be 'A' focal point. There can be several focal points, or focal areas, or thematic focal areas. The goal is to use all of your available tools to control the stage, make viewers see the scene the way you want them to. If you want the viewer to stare at one spot on the painting, then by all means direct all the guns at that spot.

In this painting I could have 'fuzzied' all of the foreground up making it less distinguishable. It is less 'drawn' than it was in reality, but it's a very specific and unique plant. If I take that too far then that part of my painting that is geared towards 'realism' in what I'm painting would be destroyed. Or I'd have to change the particular vegetation to one that allows me to be less specific. That may have also been a good choice.

You can't see it in this jpeg of the painting, but in the middle ground and even in the sky, there are textural paint applications, and color that doesn't show up. Those subtle items take your eye back through the middle ground, up the background hill into the sky where the sky dumps the eye back into the middle ground. My intention was to pull you into the middle ground by first using the foreground detail to do so. The little 'cut' or water passage that comes in from the left is intended to pull you around that, and as it dissapears, allow you to wander into the middle ground and so on.

I don't know if it shows here, but I enhanced the detail right where the water enters the picture. The most detail is right where the arrowhead meets the water, that edge. As I moved to the right I let the detail diminish, the same as I moved to the left in the painting. The most detail, color, light, texture and so on are on a path that moves up through the center of the horizontal plane into the gap in the middle ground trees. That is designed to pull you in to the path I described above.

Why all of this? Because there is no center of interest in the painting. The 'theme' (which I consider to be more important to consider, without that there is no painting, no story) of this painting is soft subtle color all very close in value with just slightly shifting hue. But enough shift to make the surface interesting to look at, not a monochromatic color scheme. The props to play with this theme are the swamp, trees, hills and sky. That's all they are is props, not the 'thing' I'm painting.

The foreground is the only balance to all of the softness of the rest of the painting. To me it was needed so that the entire painting wasn't all 'soft and fuzzy'. That would not have interested me enough to paint. Without this foreground I'm afraid the painting would be all the middle ground and hill. I could have made it a very skinny painting because the foreground would have been wasted canvas.

This is a good question Linda, one with insight. I don't know if I'm successful with this attempt. My only defense besides what I've written, is that there is a lot of information in the painting that supports the idea but that isn't seen here. The foreground does not seem as harsh, dark and 'wall-like' as it does in the posted jpeg.

coh
11-22-2005, 11:44 AM
Thanks for posting your comments, Marc (and thanks to Linda for asking). I
know you've stated these thoughts in previous discussions on this forum,
but it's good to see them again as a reminder. So many people become
fixated on the "focal point" idea that it just completely dominates their
painting process. I used to occassionally paint with someone who, without
fail, would look at a painting and before saying anything else would ask
"where is the focal point?" It was very annoying. When you actually get it
into your head that a painting doesn't have to have a single focal point - that
it can have multiple focal points, or none at all (and just be about the
atmosphere or colors or whatever), it's very liberating.


I don't know if it shows here, but I enhanced the detail right where the water enters the picture. The most detail is right where the arrowhead meets the water, that edge. As I moved to the right I let the detail diminish, the same as I moved to the left in the painting. The most detail, color, light, texture and so on are on a path that moves up through the center of the horizontal plane into the gap in the middle ground trees. That is designed to pull you in to the path I described above.
It definitely does show up in the jpeg. Nicely done, by the way!

Jamie wrote:
Marc, you subtle fakery of the arrowhead worked well, cause I knew exactly what it was immediately! My oh my, is that ever well done!

Yeah, if you look carefully at the close-up it appears that about 5 or 6 key
strokes really define what all those plants are. Right at the left-most edge
where the arrowhead meets the water, there are about 5 leaves that are
obviously triangle-shaped...with those so well defined they immediately
tell you how to interpret the remaining area of less-defined strokes. Very
instructive.

norsky
08-11-2006, 02:30 AM
I live in a wonderful land of farms and I see this site quite often. Nice representation of the corn and the hazy morning:clap:

Bill Wray
08-14-2006, 12:09 AM
Nice you really brought it into focus.