Plein aire at Polly's

[DLGardner]

I did this last week at my new friend's house. She volunteered to do plein air with me and offered her home for our first outing. She has a lovely cottage overlooking the Puget Sound. I did two paintings...a sailboat and this one of her garden and front porch. My scanner of course didn't pick it all up...there is more to our right and also a little more to the left and at the top but this is pretty much the sum of it. I'd like some critique. I've been a little discouraged lately mostly because I didn't have a decent painting to put in the local juried show. I'm going to start taking Teanne's philosophy to heart now..."I do the art for myself". Even if no one else likes it I do. If I don't then I keep working at it until I do.

Fortunately my daughters like them too...in fact this week one of my daughters actually bought a little painting I did of her sister.

[Brie]

Don't be discouraged. I like this painting a lot. I also like your attitude - that you paint for yourself, and if the results don't please you then you'll keep working until they do. My only comment is that I would subdue either the plant pot, or the sunlight patterns on the porch, or the yellow-green shrubbery beside the fountain. Right now they all want attention. I didn't look at the composition since only a part of the painting is shown, but I've enjoyed the part I saw. - Brie

[DLGardner]

Thank you Brie, for looking and for your comments! I do appreciate it. I see what you mean about everything wanting attention, but you know, it was like that. Have you ever felt the sun just dancing in and out of the shadows and nearly blinding you with all sorts of shapes and colors. This porch was so pretty and so lively like that that day I wanted to grab that feeling. The fence in the background is picketed and it repeats the pattern of the swinging bench and draws the viewer's eyes up to the birdbath. So there isn't just one focal here.

The darker shadows under the porch didn't scan very well but they are subdued. I'll be getting a digital soon and will post the whole painting and you'll see what I mean.

Anyway, your critique lets me know I succeeded :angel:

[walden]

I like this very much-- I like the complexity, and I think the intensity of the red flower pot counterbalances the complexity of pattern of the rest of the painting. The only comment I can make (and I know it's hard to get accurate color on-line, especially in very light or very dark areas) is that the lightest areas on the patio floor look cool rather than warm, as I would expect of such bright sun. Nice work!

[DLGardner]

Thank you Lisa.

Actually I guess the colors under the patio are more cool than warm. Um...we don't get warm. Not yet. Not until August. Step out of that sunlight and you have to put your coat on. (I'm not making excuses I'm making a joke. ..but its true) I wouldn't want to warm anybody up here in WA lest you get the wrong idea about umbrella country.
But I will consider that when I do my next painting...hopefully it will be warmer. Seriously I am just now, thanks to you and Larry and others-beginning to see the differences in warm reds and cool reds...didn't know there was such an animal. Now that I know I can spot them right away but I never consdered it before. Thanks for the tip Lisa!

[Wayne Gaudon]

I'd like some critique

OK .. you are too charming and too ...

LOL .. Heck, I'll be hit by lightening one of these days for my sense of humor ..
Now for your painting. .. I like the piece but the one thing that I would do differently (and of course this is only my opinion) is to cut the back greenery value by at least 50% and add a little blue & purple to it to push it back. Yes, I know that it isn't all that far back but we are talking a painting and we can use artistic licence. It would bring your potted plant to the center of attention and open the piece up to allow the viewer to get inside.

I also paint what and how I want to paint (to the best of my ability), but I am open to any and all things that can help me develope my ability. I see by asking for a critique you have left that door open as well and that is a good thing.

All the best,

[DLGardner]

You are 100% right Wayne. I will tone the back down as soon as it dries a little. I knew something was a little too close in value and I agree its the background.

I'm glad you can see I can take critique like the masters!
I'm glad you see that I have a sense of humor too (lol)

Where are we going with this...???


:D

[DLGardner]

BTW Wayne,
Never be afraid to try something new.
Remember, amateurs built the ark; professionals built the Titanic

I need to use this in my email signature. May I?

[LarrySeiler]

Well first of all Dianne....you have nearly pulled off one of the most complicated arrangements compositionally of a work I've yet to see here on WC...so, congrats on that. You've tackled a mammoth of a project.

Now...let me talk like a 'teach for a second, and sound as if I know a thing or two...hee hee hahahah..... :D

For one....you have observed a basic rule of thumb for assuring a subject stands out in the midst of great competing detail. Well, nearly entirely observed.

That rule is- reserve the darkest darks, the purest colors, the brightest whites, the greatest details for your subject and downplay everything else.

you have done that with the darks and intensity of color, yet the white should naturally be tamed down a bit...and a bit of Naples Yellow would do that quite well. In fact, I often use Naples Yellow as a substitute for white and even in my mixtures.

Imagine for a moment you are wanting to respond as an artist to the amazing flight of the Ruffed Grouse....a sporting bird; exploding with frenzy in the fall surrounding leaves with a bird dog and hunter in pursuit.

The trees are greys and browns, the leaves plenty and greys and browns....and the bird has been designed to fit in as camoflage from hunting hungry predator birds....so, the bird is filled with patterns of greys and browns.

Now...how do you portray all that? There is incredible detail potential.

Well...you blur things in the background. You lower their value range and increase the birds. You downplay textural and ordinary detailing to suggest the birds to be greater, etc., etc.,
The colors are more intense, the blacks darker, etc;

So....your subject does stand out rather nice in lieu of all that competing surrounding detail.

Now...on the other hand, we might want to consider aesthetically and from the point of view of the art world what it is that artists do.
"Artists take that which is complex, and reduce it to simple terms so that it can be viewed, understood, and appreciated"

Secondly...many great teachers of painting have emphasized the multiple possibilities of many paintings from the same position, and warn- "Do not attempt to make every painting possible on one canvas!"

That being said, understand that the novice in plein air will attempt to paint everything seen, whereas the mature artist discriminates. You need to demand an accounting of your own senses thereby becoming even more sensitive in the process. You need to ask yourself what the "what" was that made making the painting necessary? What is the "ah-Hah!".....that one or two essential that when nailed and successfully discovered, isolated, and captured in paint expresses the spirit of beauty in all its splendor?

To arrive at that....you adopt an attitude that the canvas and all the information screaming at you is in actuality a battlefield, and that this is war. You call your senses to a state of high alert, and moves become calculated and economical. Direct. Decisive. You realize there is in this lovely scene an enemy in the camp. Friendly fire that would distract you and demand attention away from the real target- the "ah-HAH!" thus, you must remind yourself there is certain visual information that must be ignored. You must decide- WHAT NOT TO PAINT!

When you paint a plein air in the beginning years you stand humbly before nature as a student. Your work is an honest attempt to see and record what you see. To make that transition from "student" to "artist" you learn what not to see, what to instead ignore to thus emphasize to the viewer what you want THEM to see.

When I see your piece, I struggle to understand if you're artistic interests were consumed by the need to show how the light struck the background due to that intense chroma of yellow hitting the fauna/foliage there...OR, if the intense complementary contrast of the red pot isolates and makes your plant in the foreground thee "Ah-Hah!" ?????

You make that investigation as a viewer easier for me by downplaying one or the other...putting it into some order of subordination. You learn to think, "okay...I want the viewer to look first here...then his eyes to go here, back up and around over here, and then finally back to here!" You then use devices to assure eye movement and manipulation.

Here's what I would do.....

I would push that background more into shadow....making the foreground appear to be getting hit with the strong force of light. Thus, I would downplay that strong yellow. I would instead put that strong yellow on the foreground plant. Secondly, knowing that color is similar to notes played in music, I would find areas in the background to repeat some of the red in the pot, though not as intense in value or chroma so as to not draw competitive attention away. Just enough so that the pot would feel as though it fits in and is more aptly part of the scene.

So...the progression then is rightly, go ahead and paint what you see. Enjoy. Paint much, and learn. Allow a plein air to be an honest record of that experience.

Some artists never do plein airs with the intention of public display, but only for info gathering, and they use their artistic discretion indoors to put together the fine art that represents their maturity as an artist. Clyde Aspevig is one of my very favorite landscape painters. He has hundreds and hundres of plein airs that he never lets the public sees, and markets and exhibits only his studio works.

I do think though, that in time....you learn to make choices in the field that make for a better marriage so-to-speak with what aesthetically will make a better "painting." As such, you have more and more pieces that turn out and represent a fine art to be viewed publically.

You don't see red out there...well, figure out then where you can put some because the pot deserves to be painted thus, but will be out of place without support of similar color notes.

I hope this gives you some things to think about, and respond in like manner and hopefully I can explain further still.

Some do not like rules as artists. I believe that is all well and fine, yet viewers respond and do so predictably and for proven reasons.

Secondly...you know as well as I do that there are consequences in life, and just like breaking society's rules bring consequences... so does breaking rules of composition and design.

So, I encourage, smile and go right along with an artist wanting to break rules, but I do remind them that one consequence may be the public doesn't get it; doesn't want to get it; can't be forced to like it.

I know you are not seeking to break rules, etc., but I know there is always that one or two reading along that like at some point to jump in and assert their freedom due to their disdain for my apparent enslaving dogma.

peace,

Larry

[Wayne Gaudon]

Certainly, My wife found it in some paper and decided I should have it around so I would have a little more faith in myself. I don't know where it originated or the author but it is quite profound.

Later,

[DLGardner]

What a wonderful critique Larry. I will have to study it more. I already learned from you about using Naples yellow to mix my colors and I love it with red because then I don't end up with pink when I lighten it! I suppose if I have to tone the white down to carry the eye to my focal point than I shall. And I do know I can't paint all the paintings I want to on one canvas...but can't I try just once? (just kidding). Sigh.
I did leave out the tulips, the wrought iron chairs and table, the other potted plant, the assorted herbs in the bed, the road behind the fence and the trees, quite a number of bricks on the walk way...all those things I left out of this picture. SO it might not look like I'm learning but I am progressing really.

The aha Larry were the shadows. I just love them. I love the contrast and the shapes. I search them out. I run outside when the sun finally shines and look at the shadows that the trees cast on the grass. I love shadows made by trees and that's all I want to paint. In this particular painting there was a tree to the right casting all those scrumptous shadows.

I'm painting an old barn that has tons of tree shadows on it. I'm crazy about them.

I put some more of the painting together for you to see. It takes me forever to "stitch" it all in photoshop and I don't do a very good job at it as it is. Its still missing the bottom and some of the lines are off center because of my digital disabilities.

I love your critique. I think you are 100% right about the consequences of breaking rules and I think that's my plight. I'm a born rebel and I'm trying so hard to conform but it is such a challenge. I've spent my whole life like this. ugh.

We had a funny thing happen on Sunday. We have a blackboard at the firehall where we have our feed. My daughter cooks with me and sometimes her children come. Little David, he's 3, likes to go up to the blackboard and draw. Well, Sunday there was already a message written on the blackboard and my daughter didn't want her son to disturb it so she drew a big box and said, ok David, you can draw in this box. He said "ok". Then as she left the first thing he did was erase the box.

Runs in the family.

:p

[DLGardner]

Here is some more of the painting.

[Brie]

Dianne - If the shadows are the "Aha" for you, would it be possible to make something compositionally of the way the porch light/shadow patterns lead up to the fountain?

If studio paintings are our finished statements, then plein aire studies could be viewed as "notes"; so let me phrase these further comments in the context of what might work for a subsequent studio painting.

Also, I would not advise you to rework this painting to any significant degree. Better to do a new painting, and find out what's different next time around.

If the play of shadows/light is the main statement you want to make, then have you considered downplaying other aspects of the painting so they do not detract from that statement?

If you compose a painting to concentrate on the light/shadow pattern, you may face a decision whether to emphasize the sunlight striking the porch floor, or the sunlight on the fountain. Whichever one is emphasized, it might be well to subdue the other.

It's good to make one short, simple statement and make it clearly. Then the viewer doesn't have to wonder where to look. If there are many statements to be made about a particular scene, that could add up to many paintings - and as my father says, that's a high-class problem to have!

All this may be more discussion than was called for or expected. So, please feel free to ignore it - and thanks for another look at the painting. What a beautiful day it must have been! - Brie

[walden]

Well, I debated whether or not to weigh in here, and decided to go ahead. I don't disdain the rules of composition or consider an emphasis on the "AHA" to be dogmatic-- I'm just still trying to figure it out. Example: I went to Clyde Aspevig's website-- I've looked at his work before and I love it. About 50% of the time, I can't identify his focal point. I went to Kevin Macpherson's site-- about the same ratio. I flipped through Richard Schmid's book, and if I exclude all of the portraits and landscapes with figures, I have the same problem. Sometimes I can tell what the focal point is, and sometimes I can't. Now, maybe the problem is just me, and everyone else instantly knows what the focal point is and their eye is drawn there-- I don't know. But it does seem to me as though excellent artists often understate the focal point-- does their work succeed because of that or in spite of it? I don't know. Of course, these artists are so good that if they painted wallpaper I would stand there and raptly study it. :)

When I am standing at the far end of a gallery or museum (or looking at a page of thumbnails on-line), what draws me to one rather than another is an overall interesting value statement. If the statement is so broken up that it won't read as an interesting abstract light/dark pattern from across the room, then that's a problem for me. Once I am looking at a painting from a proper viewing distance, I am often not aware of focal point at all. What keeps me looking is almost always overall color harmony and light effect-- a canvas that is interesting all over.

And this is why I struggle with composition. In my workshop, my instructor was trying to help me, and asked me what drew me to the scene, why I wanted to paint it. My answer was "the color and light and shapes of the mountain and clouds." Bad answer. That was about 3/4 of the surface of my canvas. But it was true, and it's often true of my paintings. The house in the valley with the sun shining on it that was perfectly located for a focal point, and so I used it that way-- well, in my view it was just another house, not very interesting. As I look around at my best work, I can see my focal points, and I can see how necessary they are to the painting, but less than half the time was the focal point the reason I painted the painting. And I struggle on with how strongly to state my focal point, and how to lead the eye through the painting, getting the viewer to see my real "AHA".

[LarrySeiler]

This is one of the joys of art and art making, as well as art viewing. Paintings are a dialogue with the viewer...and the "focal" point you are looking for is not necessarily the same "ah-Hah!" for each artist. The focal point is the "why" of the painting being done. The emotional attachment and reason the artist felt s/he had to paint the scene.

It is arguably a subjective thing....and though you might not have seen a specific focal point in an Aspevig or Schmid...there is an atmosphere or unity to the piece which makes a unity. It might be the effect "this place" that has an emotional thing with an artist. It might be a specific area where light is hitting.

One person might prefer light and insist in a critique that an artist burst in some light. On the other hand, the artist may have a thing for subtleties, neutrals, and overcast skies.

Looking at a painting tells us about the artist.

That each artist will respond differently to what defines beauty, the moment or the "ah-Hah!" of a scene is especially poignant when you have about six artists painting the same general scene. You will get six very different paintings. Some will respond to the shadows, some the light (or values), some the intensity of color.

All...once identifying THEIR "AH-HAH!" are thereafter burdened to set principles in motion so that the focus wins out and distractions are put aside.

I would wager that an ah-hah does not have to be "item specific in say an Aspevig and that sometimes there is a sublime presence in a scene that creates an emotional response. Yet, I will guarantee you that what you are not seeing in that painting are all those choices the artist made to exclude what threatened to interfere with that which he wanted to capture. There yet resounded in them a sense of what THEY were focusing on.

I know it all sounds confusing.

One problem that tends to happen is...we may connect with an artist and their vision. In asking them how they go about doing their work...they may speak in generalizations but remember they are all about THEIR work. If you want to know how "I" do something....that's one thing.

One burden in critiquing the work of others is trying to set your own vision and what is more EGO aside...to try and hear what the artist is saying.

There ARE some basic design and compositional principles. There are also principles that kick in gear designed for personal vision.

If shadows are your thing...there are things you want to avoid that would take away from the impact of the shadows in a painting. If color is your thing, there are principles that kick in to assure success for you, etc;

When I first learned to play guitar...I found myself hearing something cool another guitarist was doing...and I would figure out his licks. I'd play them to death. In time, I had licks down from a couple dozen guitarists. Somewhere along the way though...the note became more than a note. It suddenly had a nature to it that was like a voice. Somehow and mysteriously along the way I had shifted from the rote novice position...to finding my own voice. Part of that voice no doubt influenced by those I liked has found their way into my own voice....yet, my guitar voicing is now so uniquely mine.

It comes by the thing becoming part of your very being. Your soul. You no longer are thinking technique.

Quite honestly...when I paint, I am so captivated and in tune with the scene and spirit present that I only think of technique when I'm taking digitals for a possible demo.

It has to eventually becoming like riding a bicycle. Imagine delivering a pizza in the hilly roads and sidewalks of San Francisco. You had better not be thinking about the mechanics of riding a bike! Your full attention has to be on the masses walking, skate boarders...impatient drivers of cars & trucks. In fact, something has developed in this deliverer where he has come to know something about the nature of man and has an instinctual capacity to anticipate possible danger. He senses a bit of a shadow in an alley, and may visualize that someone in a hurry is cutting thru an alley in a speeding vehicle. His full attention, focus, his being being part of the experience reacts. He automatically calculates risk and appropriate action on his part.

It gets like that with painting.

In time...you don't have to focus on focus. You learn instead after many many paintings behind you to trust yourself, respect yourself, expect great things from yourself. You're there to have a great time, and something benevolent in you knows you intend to share something (a gift) with others. You want to bless others...and celebrate the moment.

What is fun for me sometimes is sitting back and reading others comment on my work. They can see an order of things that came together...and will point out what I did. I look, and go..."hhmm...yep, you're right! Good observation!"

Its not that I didn't do what they thought and pointed out. Its just that my mind and spirit was focusing on touching the moment, reaching out beyond the canvas to interact and respond.

Watch some of the NBA players do their acrobatic twists and amazing moves that somehow mystically magically weave a ball between countering arms and bodies to find its way plunging thru the strings of the net. Pure poetry.

The player WAS NOT THINKING about the move when he did it. The move could not have been done and carried out if the player had thought the move thru. He was thinking one thing..."got to get this into the basket!"

His body responded to the challenges and adversity.

Chances are, he'll watch the game video later in the locker room, and laugh along with everyone else...scratch his head, and for a moment be amazed himself! "Wow....hahaha...that was pretty good, wasn't it!"

Initially, we are all about figuring a thing out. Eventually...there is less figuring and more interacting.

sorry...rambling here...
later,

larry

[walden]

Larry, your post shows me how even with the best will in the world, people often fail to communicate. I thought that I was always looking for a specific, small area of the canvas that was the focal point-- now I see that your "AHA" may be that or it may be something else. I GET IT!!! :D

[LarrySeiler]

*whew!

You can't believe it Lisa....but I woke up this morning about 30 minutes earlier than usual...and all this stuff was going thru my head.

I'm wondering if I did a disservice to people learning, made things more confusing....so, what a relief to see your last post. :rolleyes: :cool: :D :clap:

I was thinking, you know...to have completed that basketball analogy right, I should have reminded everyone that the NBA pro at one time very young in life had to focus on essentials of the game- squaring up to the basket for proper shooting; how to hold the ball; dribbling drills, and where the eyes should be; etc., but eventually...all that falls behind and that itself has become an ART FORM. Isn't that an interesting thought? You yourself have become "art!"

In the beginning here...we are trying to get young painters to learn the essentials. In time though...the painting alone is not the only art going on. Get this now.....and quote me on it, but in time "the very manner by which the artist works comes to reach a level where that itself is an art form!"

I did lay there in bed though this morning feeling awfully curious though. I wish I had more of an Aspevig in mind to see that represented what you thought had little focal point. Because I'm sure I could connect (nearly a spiritual thing) with the "why" and the "what" that drew him to feel he had to paint the scene.

Design is used to manipulate the eye and move about the scene but you tend to work the viewer's eye back to where you want. If you don't do that to some degree you risk the viewer's eye leaving the image entirely....get bored, and move on.

There is a "what" that causes you to set up and paint. You become sensitive to that "what" and that the "what" can evolve and change over time so that paintings develop different emphasis's. At anyrate, as you drive around and you look to paint a painting, eventually that "what" nearly grabs you by the shirt collar and pulls you right out of that driver's seat. Getting at the essence of that "what" is your point...and transferring that feeling and message to the viewer your purpose.

Unfortunately...this becomes more clearer to a more mature artist as he looks at the more novice work of others because s/he finds the question of wonder rising as to what it was that motivated this artist to paint. The novice easily loses focus. The shadows may have first drawn the young artist's attention, but as s/he's painting along they see that lovely tree they did not first notice and put that in. That lovely rock bluff...etc; until they suddenly forget what it was they wanted to paint from the very beginning.

So, I maintain that it is important to resolve that everywhere you get pulled over by the impulse to paint there are perhaps a half-dozen paintings to be painted there. At least in the beginning, make a point to stand there...take it in for just a moment, ask yourself what your "what" is? Squint your eyes so you do not respond to interferring visual information that does not pertain to your "what" ...then like a mad person talk to yourself. Mutter. "Got to stay focused....got to stay focused...not going to paint "stuff" but gonna nail that "what! I'm going to nail that ah-Hah!"
:D

I know...I know....I'm nuts! Let history and the records show it!

peace,

Larry

[LarrySeiler]

Originally posted by walden
now I see that your "AHA" may be that or it may be something else. I GET IT!!! :D

The "ah-Hah!" is that moment of epiphany, when you discover the most necessary barest visual essentials to lay down in paint that have captured the elusive marks of beauty. Like fingerprints left at the scene of a crime, beauty or why beauty has its effect on you becomes un unrepressable curiosity, and you hunt its evidence down. It will teach you something about yourself in the process and over time.

If guys could work beyond their most base hormonal fleshly instincts, they would discover more interesting things that compose the beauty of a woman, and what leaves her mark upon them such that as she walks away one can only stand speechless, mouth open, slightly shaking the head and later mutter nonsense! hahahaha....... :D

True romance discovers such depths in a woman, and as a landscape painter your will discover the "romance" that takes place. That romance heightens for those that believe they are dealing with the handiwork of an even Greater Artist!

Larry

[brendahofreiter]

Hi Guys,

I was just reading along with this thread, noting the comments and just like Larry said, disagreeing and agreeing with what was said and done in the painting. Your last comments or ramblings Larry were some of the best explainations I have heard about the process of painting. My early instructors just shook their head in dismay at me because, like Diane, I am a born rebel. The rules of painting just don't stick in my head when I am painting. As a matter of fact, painting is such an intuitive thing that I almost don't think at all while I am painting. Sometimes, I just start a wordless song in my head so that my mind is quiet and I can respond in paint to what is in front of me. I don't know why, but I guard that intuition fiercely, like a child, from all the adultisms like rules. It is the reason that I paint. To get to that true, unselfconscious voice that I have inside that needs to speak through painting. I am not saying that I don't study the rules of painting in order to produce better work. It's just that while I am painting, the surest way to kill a painting is to think. It just stops being a painting and starts being a dead thing. Anyway... more rambling, but I just wanted to share that.

Brenda

[walden]

Here's a link to the Aspevig's:

http://www.clydeaspevig.com/originals/index.htm

On that page, "Slide Lake" was one where I couldn't find a specific small area of the canvas to call a focal point-- now I think that the AHA is the majesty of that center peak. As I look more at this painting, I notice especially the simplicity and serenity of the colors-- simple especially in the sky & clouds, maybe so they wouldn't compete with the peak? I was also unsure of "Autumn Snow in Paradise", but now I think it's the overall color effect-- cool on the mountains, warm in the valley. In "Autumn Evening", the highlighted tree just left of center seemed to be that small area of the canvas I was seeking, but since it wasn't what kept my attention in the painting, I was unsure-- what interests me here is the beautiful light effect-- that wonderful sky and the kind of light it puts into the valley. In "Aspen Grove", the distant small gold aspen against the dark evergreens seemed to be that small area, but it's not all that interesting-- the overall pattern effect of the foreground trees, a value and color effect keeps me interested in the painting.

Oh yeah, by the way, we're ALL nuts. :D What the heck am I doing here? I'm forty years old, and every day I'm beating my head against the wall trying to learn something that regularly makes me feel just dumber than a box of rocks! LOL! I thought after college I wouldn't DO THAT ANYMORE.

[LarrySeiler]

Certainly appreciate what you said here Brenda.

Its strange though, and I guess why it is necessary for the artist to make some self-examination on this...because as I often say you come to learn to trust yourself.

Of course, trust has to be well spent, because when someone or something hurts you...you lose further ability to trust. You become guarded.

Trust builds upon respect, and respect is earned.

While the NBA player can have fun, play the game and has this sense of self-respect and trust, it was for the most part built on many years of younger foundation/skills building. Some artists want to simply jump in and begin with the trust, but have no cause to trust themselves. You will definitely know in time that you can trust your instincts...and when you get there, what a wonderful productive time that is.

A train has to be worked onto the tracks, which seem so restrictive for an engine that wants to fly...but, flying down those tracks it can forget about the mechanics that protect and make such a journey possible.

Larry

[walden]

Brenda, I would LOVE to have that sort of intuitive thing you're talking about, but I just don't have it. Maybe I'll develop it, maybe not, but we all just work with what we've got. I know what you mean, though, in terms of basic orientation-- I'm fairly analytical, one of my daughters is the same, while my other daughter is more intuitive-- it's that thinking/feeling dichotomy (which is not to say that thinkers don't feel and feelers don't think-- it's just that one mode is more instinctive & natural to us than the other). I don't think we can really change our basic orientation, although I'm positive we can develop ourselves to encompass more of those things that don't come as naturally to us.

From what I've seen of your work, though, I would say that whatever you're doing is working great, so stick with it! :)

[impressionist2]

Brenda wrote: "Sometimes, I just start a wordless song in my head so that my mind is quiet and I can respond in paint to what is in front of me. I don't know why, but I guard that intuition fiercely, like a child, from all the adultisms like rules. It is the reason that I paint. To get to that true, unselfconscious voice that I have inside that needs to speak through painting. I am not saying that I don't study the rules of painting in order to produce better work. It's just that while I am painting, the surest way to kill a painting is to think. It just stops being a painting and starts being a dead thing. "

Brenda, It works very well for you, as evidenced by your paintings, especially the Blue Heron ones.

I find this kind of zen approach works especially well outside anyway. There you are in the midst of nature. It's tough not to be touched and moved by the spirituality of the surroundings.

I meditate each morning. Quietness, stillness. A respite from the world for a few moments. It gets me in touch with my inner voice.

The necessary rules are for the "study" moments, not for the "painting" moments.

Speaking of books Larry, you Really should write one. You have a successful way of teaching that sinks in and stays with me. I will, from now on, be asking myself "What" is it about this scene that made me stop here and paint it? I know that moment of being "pulled out of the driver's seat", and it's a great find when that happens.



Renee

[LarrySeiler]

Originally posted by impressionist2

Speaking of books Larry, you Really should write one. You have a successful way of teaching that sinks in and stays with me.

Renee

thanks Renee...

My wife hammers this as nearly an imperative! She reminds me of the time I spend on this computer when one of the reasons I bought the thing was to advance my earning potential, etc., tax write offs, books...art marketing, etc; so...I guess someday I have to pull myself away from WC and just appear to have gone in hiding for about 3-6 months or longer.

:rolleyes: :cool:

Larry

[DLGardner]

Well, being as I started all this :angel:
I do want to say one thing..besides KEEP ON RAMBLING
Please bear in mind Larry that there is another dynamic playing in this field. I am not a young artist. I have been painting in oils since I was somewhere around 12 and I am now 53. I have paintings on display all over US and have some of my art published in Russia. I have studied with accomplished artists such as Master Sculptor John Henry Waddell and others. Not to toot my horn at all, but I want you to realize I've learned composition and believe I have a feel for it and that I am well at the stage of playing with it.
However...
I am new to two things.

1. The subject. Landscape painting. That's probably why my plein aires look so amatuer. But what I am doing is not starting from the beginning but rather changing in mid course. I've worked mostly with the human figure and here is the clux. When doing people, the body becomes the landscape. The focal point is obvious. Inside the focal point all sorts of weavings and tapestries take place to draw the eye to but when you step away from the painting you see the person and its really obvious what you are looking at.

2. The method. My paintings have always taken months to finish because this method of painting is different. Never would I have thought to try and finish a piece in 2 hours. That would have been absurd with my former method. In fact, I would have considered that amatuer. Patience has always been a number one ingredient in a good painting. Undercoats, waiting to dry, more color, more waiting. You don't even get to what you are actually painting for days. You mix your colors by layers. I love this method but I love the plein aire idea too.

Its easier to learn when you know nothing. And I think its probably easier to teach the student who knows nothing than to teach the student who has been trained for years another way.

I know what I am unhappy with in my paintings.

A lot of it is color. Because I'm not used to using one coat, the color I come up with isn't the complicated variation of shades that I am used to through layering and I have to learn how to get what I want right from the palette. I also have to learn to get clean color without the wait. This is my major challange. Its not that I don't know how to use oils. I've been using them near all my life. I am struggling with using oils in an immediate situation.

I do get overwhelmed by what I see and what I want to put down on canvas. Like I said, when you are painting a person you have a focal point. With landscape you have to find one. This requires a different way of seeing and I'm just beginning to train my eye.

But with my experience, and my rebellious attitude, I don't want to just paint a flower pot. I want to move the viewer through and in and around my canvas and challenge him to think. So I paint a flower pot that could be the center of interest...but the sunlight pulls you away as soon as you see it to the open garden with a bird bath. and then you follow the vine and you're back at the flower pot again.

If artists weren't rebellious we'd still be doing icons and no one would be doing impressionism.

Does this sound like I'm fighting the critique? I hope not. I am hearing everything you all are telling me and I do appreciate it. I will use your knowledge to better my paintings. I welcome the critique! More more!

[DLGardner]

For instance...
In this painting of a baby you can see all the subtle color work in the face. This is done with almost a month of layering colors. If I would do this in 2 hours how would I get this mix? I don't think I could. If I want to be successful with plein air I have to rethink color and value and mixing and probably things I am not even acquainted with. Or maybe I should consider not doing plein aire...maybe it isn't my cup of tea...? now that I'm hooked.:confused:

[Brie]

Dianne - I checked your website. The "Cornfields" painting is beautiful. Since landscape is the topic of discussion here, I'll stick to it, but congratulations for having your figurative work used on the CD cover. ;) I hope we'll have an opportunity to hear more about your other work in other discussions.

A few random thoughts before I print out this thread to read carefully and with pleasure. I'd been hoping Larry would weigh in, and I've enjoyed Lisa's comments greatly also. Much to think about, as always!

First: Clearly there are qualitative differences about plein aire paintings, or viewers would not be able to pick them out. In plein aire, I don't believe one should try for the subtleties and depth of color that one achieves in multiple layers of studio work. I'm no authority on the subject, but seems to me that plein aire work is not "about" that. It's "about" simple, direct, bold statements made under the pressure of time. So one's goal would seem to be hitting the color right, putting it down and moving on. You brought up all these points yourself, also, and I believe we are in complete agreement. Just thinking out loud here. But, as you've also noted, hitting the color right in one coat will still not give the same effect as layered studio work.

Second: I can relate to your comments about color because that's why I am concentrating on plein aire work lately. I want to hit the color right on the first try every time, and plein aire (or painting in studio under self-imposed plein aire conditions) seems to be an excellent discipline for developing that skill. Also, I want to force myself to use paint more liberally and put it on more thickly, and again, plein aire work is a good way to do that.

Third: I would, if I were inclined to debate, pose a philosophical question to you about "challenging the viewer to think," and would contend that one should express oneself as clearly as possible and stop there - but thank goodness, we have room for all kinds of approaches to painting in this world. At any rate, I believe you have narrowed down the "Aha" in your description of wanting to lead the viewer's eye to the flower pot, then the patches of sunlight, then the bird bath, then the vine and back to the flower pot. So the only question is how to achieve that. I have a feeling it boils down to slight value and chroma adjustments to all of the above areas. But I'd hate to encourage reworking of a lively, bold, fresh plein aire piece. If it were my piece (and this is presumptuous, since it's not), I'd simply conclude that now I've realized what it is I want to say about this scene, and would use that knowledge to begin a studio painting.

One final note. It's hard to tell much from a small digital reproduction anyway; it's possible that the values and saturation appear more vivid on my monitor than they do on the piece itself. - Brie

[DLGardner]

First: I'm no authority on the subject, but seems to me that plein aire work is not "about" that. It's "about" simple, direct, bold statements made under the pressure of time. So one's goal would seem to be hitting the color right, putting it down and moving on.

Agreed. That's what I'm saying. If I'm to do plein aire I have to somehow restrain my mind from trying to get this effect like I do from layering, but rather see past it and stay simple. Larry's right in his critique. I just want it to be known that the source of my exasperation is not from lack of knowledge or experience, but rather from a different kind of knowledge and experience. Being aware of this will help him to teach me better I'm sure. I know he can relate. Its a mind thing that I'm struggling with.

I would, if I were inclined to debate, pose a philosophical question to you about "challenging the viewer to think," and would contend that one should express oneself as clearly as possible and stop there - but thank goodness, we have room for all kinds of approaches to painting in this world.

Yes, we could probably take this to the debate forum and have a hundred other artists join in here. I would just like to comment that I like a painting that I can study and think about and I trust that there are others out there who do also. I love the subtle. It makes me want to come back again and again to that piece of art and each time find something new...a fresh approach to understand what the artist is saying about his subject and possibly why.

One final note. It's hard to tell much from a small digital reproduction anyway; it's possible that the values and saturation appear more vivid on my monitor than they do on the piece itself. - Brie

Yes. None of these jpegs are accurate and especially the last one I had to make 4 different jpgs and "stitch" them in photoshop to show more of the painting and I still didn't get the whole thing. Worse, I had to use photostudio to blend in where the seams were and bascially redo the painting so its not at all accurate. The colors didn't come out good at all either in the scan. Thanks for considering this.

I appreciate your comments Brie and enjoy reading your posts. Thanks for sharing and thank you very much for looking at my work. I'm always excited when people take the time to let me know what they think about my art.

I'm looking forward to seeing yours! Welcome to WC!

[LarrySeiler]

I'm still at school...and will be heading home in a minute...eat something, then come back to school to get some stuff ready for our conference hosted student art show.

At any rate, I wanted to fire something off while I have the chance.

I have this real nasty habit...that is, I always think that in a community online such as Wetcanvas where there are about 500,000 surfers perusing each month and not all members...and that there are more than 8,000 members now that when I speak to something, I tend to generalize as though I were speaking to a large group.

I realize we are talking about your work in this instance Dianne, but I tend to ramble imagining someone clicking on the thread for the first time and that it might apply to them...a beginner. Perhaps that is the consumate art instructor in me too...who knows?

With that being said, please understand it certainly wasn't my intent to infer novice status to you or your work. Your very first plein air posting with the road and sign was evidence enough of that anyway for anyone who knows something about plein air.

AS for trying something new...I'm going to be honest and say I'm less sympathetic than I should be. With 20 years of being enslaved to the taskmaster of wildlife art competitions, I yet have come upon any contemporary genre of painting that is as demanding. Publishers, galleries, competitions and the media. It took eventually getting sick and tired of being sick and tired of the pressure, and of how no one seems to understand art to yet be art if it isn't photo realistic in that field...so, I gave myself permission to try plein air.

I guess what I'm saying is...if I can learn to loosen up after 20 years of such competitions and marketing commercial machinery than perhaps just about anyone can. Think of me therefore as a cheerleader standing on the sidelines who shouts, "see that basket, see that rim...come on Dianne...put it in. Sink it!"

loose painterliness isn't my target anyway. Its capturing the life of the scene in the limited time allotment that nature is going to provide. It just turns out that painterliness and the look of spontaneity is as close to being photo realistic I can be under the duress and challenge. I have learned though to appreciate that a few strokes of right color, right value, applied in a good skillful manner can at some minimal distance strike that same realistic believability that a realistic painting can. Its all about distance.

Twenty feet away and a large painterly piece appears realistic. A photo realistic work may yet appear realistic from two feet away. Yet...get four inches from the work and it reveals some small spontaneity of its own.

If painting a photo realistic image takes 200 hours, and a painterly piece takes 3 hours...and a similar sense of realism can be had but it all boils down to one thing- where the viewer is going to stand....THEN it really hit me up side the head one day. "Why am I beating myself silly putting 200 hours into a work to impress someone that stands 2-3 feet from my painting, when all I need do is change some of the viewing habits of patrons. Get them to stand 3-4 paces back....and now I can paint 15-20 paintings in that same given amount of time!"

AS for the skill to capture flesh tones and realism, again a lot of that comes down to where one stands.

I saw a Frans Hals piece once at the Chicago Art Institute....a dutch man toasting with a glass of wine, his big broad hat tipped back and a big smile on his face. Frans Hals was our first master alla prim'ist portraitist during the Baroque period. What amazed me from about 20 feet away as I approached the work was how wonderful and masterful the hand was painted resting upon a half door top. Anatomically, hands are one of the most difficult, and this was one of the most exquisite! The color. The rendering. Surely he must have dissected hands and have done a gazillion sketch studies. Indeed a master's work.

When I got about 3 feet from the painting however, I was horror struck. Because I saw thick impasto butter-like paint applied in about 12 very obvious and direct brushstrokes. My mouth dropped, and I shook my head. Stammering..."no bloody way can that be done!"

I backed up about 20 feet away again...and there popped that perfect hand that no one could have painted better. I walked forward until again it was more a spontaneous effort...near sloppy.

I must have backed up and gone forward, backed up again and again for about 15-20 minutes.

At that time...I painted only wildlife work with much detail. I knew nothing about plein air, so the possibility of having such control on limited brushwork totally escaped me. It was nothing more than a mystery and a sorcerer's trick! hahahaha......

I was fully aware of glazing methods at the time. Anyone can dispute with me if they want...but, such works by masters have shown me to be able to capture even the most delicate complexion of woman sitters...John Singer Sargent being one of them.

Sargent would stand 20 feet back from a lifesized canvas set vertical next to his model sitter. He'd stand squinting his eyes motionless for 5 minutes or more...then lunge forward like a mad man making 2-3 bold direct strokes. Then he'd back up, squint his eyes...strike his pose...and repeat this.

My goal is to learn such control of a brush, and be able to make whatever might prove to be the least number of strokes necessary with just the right color and value...and I no longer worry that someone might have to stand a couple more feet away from my work to see it happen and come together.

whooopsss...gotta run and eat. Later!!!!

Larry

[DLGardner]

AS for trying something new...I'm going to be honest and say I'm less sympathetic than I should be.

You know I'm not asking for sympathy!:cool:


Think of me therefore as a cheerleader standing on the sidelines who shouts, "see that basket, see that rim...come on Dianne...put it in. Sink it!"

Yeah ok man. Gottcha. man.

If painting a photo realistic image takes 200 hours, and a painterly piece takes 3 hours...and a similar sense of realism can be had but it all boils down to one thing- where the viewer is going to stand....THEN it really hit me up side the head one day. "Why am I beating myself silly putting 200 hours into a work to impress someone that stands 2-3 feet from my painting, when all I need do is change some of the viewing habits of patrons. Get them to stand 3-4 paces back....and now I can paint 15-20 paintings in that same given amount of time!"

Yep.
I asked myself yesterday as I was looking at my month long masterpieces (italics mine) I thought...you know you should really just keep painting like this...and then I thought..why? Its not appreciated really. When you put it side by side with a plein aire painting the latter will probably be sold. The normal human being can't afford to buy the other painting anyway. So, like you say Larry...why spend the extra hours if we are painting to sell? I like to have a studio piece on my easel to work on occasionally. But I think my majority of time should be spent producing prolific so that I do have something to show and sell. Right now I have a large studio piece I'm working on and its good I've been doing all this plein aire because its given that piece plenty of time to dry and plenty of time for me to think about what to do next. In the meantime I have something for my show in June...smaller paintings that the general public can afford.
Its capturing the life of the scene in the limited time allotment that nature is going to provide. It just turns out that painterliness and the look of spontaneity is as close to being photo realistic I can be under the duress and challenge.

I've never been successful with photo realistic. People who are amaze me. But its never really been my desire. I do want to be able to paint something and not have my family come up to me and say, "what is it?" That's my goal.

smile

I like your example about the hands. I've seen work like that. Sometimes its happened in my work. Its one of those things where the painting kind of paints itself. I've had that happen and it blows me away. In fact, I have found oils to be notorious for adding little details and life to a painting without any intent by the artist. I love the description you wrote of Sargent's painting.

I wonder what I look like when I paint.