Session 1- Composition for the Painter...discussion, assignment

[LarrySeiler]

Originally Posted by seagrape

Ok got the image to load. Painting is in oils. To me this composition flows from the center to the left upper mango and the to the lower right. The balance seems good but topheavy. What are your thoughts........ Joyce from Belize

where so much of the canvas is taken up by similar shapes, subject matter, color...I like to see more variation. It may be more a personal thing, but also I believe greater intrigue that captures the viewer's eye.

Something like casting surrounding areas into shadow...and more drama- (done with shoddy speed digitally, but I think you can get the gist of what I'm saying...)

[sugarbear]

My analysis will appear as soon as I tackle some computer problems.

[pastelmimigt]

Originally Posted by LarrySeiler

where so much of the canvas is taken up by similar shapes, subject matter, color...I like to see more variation. It may be more a personal thing, but also I believe greater intrigue that captures the viewer's eye.

Something like casting surrounding areas into shadow...and more drama- (done with shoddy speed digitally, but I think you can get the gist of what I'm saying...)

Thanks for the great tip!!

Michele

[sugarbear]

Need your comments on this painting:

This Monet first attracted me by the strong 's' movements through the painting accomplished by the clouds and curve in the coastline, location of tallest white sailing ship--mostly done by light values. The value drawing shows pretty flat to me because of very little darks, although there are some.

Balance: seems to be balanced, left vs right. The gorgeous turquoise seems to make the mid and foreground advance so that the horizon line being very close to the middle of the canvas is not boring??

Rule of 3's: ?? The focal interests seem to work (group of people on bank, white sails, and white clouds) but do not seem to be at the intersections on the grid. They are, however, doing their job by attracting the eye and are a part of the eye movement through painting.

[Lynn Quinn]

Hi all, I'm pretty late with last weekend's homework, but here goes.
Just realized I forgot to put in the rule-of-thirds grid lines, but I think we can all figure out where they go.

First the painting - J.S. Sargent, Home fields, 1885:



Sargent does some interesting (and odd) things compositionally - for a good discussion of these, you can go to http://thomaskitts.blogspot.com/2010/11/home



Hmmm, in the sketch, I made the shed roof too dark, and some of the other darks too light. Also, I didn't shade in the lightest tones in the grass, which are actually midtones. So the lightest values are the sky, the fence and the shed. This is (to me) a complex enough image that I'm having some difficulty determining ratios of light to mid to dark tones. Maybe something like half light, 3/16 midtones, and 5/16 darks ...???



Sorry I couldn't find a red marker - had to make do with a red ballpoint pen, to indicate how I'm guessing the eye travels through the painting (never been good at this - not sure my eyes do what everyone else's do!). Anyway, I think my eye follows the fence line up to the shed (which is very oddly placed on the extreme right edge. Then it follows the strong horizontal line of trees/horizon/distant buildings, etc., over to the slightly more curvy tree on the left, and down to the shadow Sargent has apparently painted of himself!

Speaking of shadows, the tree shadows are diagonals converging (roughly) 1/3 of the way in from the left, of the tree line (also 1/3 of the way down from the top). The diagonals of the fence, and of its shadow go the other direction, to lead you over to the shed, which, of course, is on the horiz line, 1/3 of the way down from the top.

[LarrySeiler]

Originally Posted by sugarbear

Need your comments on this painting:

This Monet first attracted me by the strong 's' movements through the painting accomplished by the clouds and curve in the coastline, location of tallest white sailing ship--mostly done by light values. The value drawing shows pretty flat to me because of very little darks, although there are some.

Balance: seems to be balanced, left vs right. The gorgeous turquoise seems to make the mid and foreground advance so that the horizon line being very close to the middle of the canvas is not boring??

Rule of 3's: ?? The focal interests seem to work (group of people on bank, white sails, and white clouds) but do not seem to be at the intersections on the grid. They are, however, doing their job by attracting the eye and are a part of the eye movement through painting.

its interesting how much Monet enjoys spreading his elements out wide and far, and yet pulls it all together. Good one..

curious if you have an image editing program, where you can flatten layers, or save as a "jpeg"..?? Then you can easily enough upload so folks can see images right here in the forum...

[LarrySeiler]

Originally Posted by Lynn Quinn

First the painting - J.S. Sargent, Home fields, 1885:

we could have a smorgasbord with this painting alone...! Love this Sargent piece, so rich in color and value...and your leading line in well noted...hooking us left, while directing us right...great piece...much to study in this one!

[Gribbey]

This thread is fabulous. So much information here.
I am submitting The Haywain by Constable because I would like to learn about unity and multiple focal points. He always seems to have many things going on so the paintings could be cropped into several. Not necessarily a bad thing eh?
I think the unity in his work is usually based on dividing the land and the sky - dark and light. There certainly are lights in the dark but the large areas at some point get my attention and I see those big shapes- which make the atmosphere, don't they?






Another thing- about direction of the eye- we follow the path, the stream from the bottom usually because that is natural, like in nature we would do that. We see receding planes because that too is natural and the verticals are attractive because they are something in an otherwise flat-ish land, generally speaking. But, I am wondering if sometimes the eye just goes to something in the middle of the canvas and doesn't start on an edge- just boom, into the action at centre of interest, and for myself I am calling it 'centre of interest' rather than focal point. The notion of focal point threw me off- like cross your eyes? Nope.
So far in looking back on my work with composition in mind, I am liking the crops better than the whole paintings, maybe because of bits of flow here and there but also because my objective for overall unity has not often succeeded. I think I can safely say that this workshop had helped me and will continue to help.
ps. I was looking for thirds in my work and often enough not finding quite that. Instead though, I find golden ratio placement. It is close but not the same. I was so relieved to realize that that was what I was doing- here and there. It is similar in that it gets you out of the middle but a slightly different system in that it is not regular divisions, not quite on the thirds. I have been such a self-taught non- analytical painter for years now. I do things paint-wise habitually, but I don't know how to talk about them! I am very much looking forward to the next sessions. Thanks Larry!

[Landscape22]

I've been infatuated with this Aspevig piece for days now thanks to this thread. I've seen many of his pieces and this one in particular is especially captivating. I can't figure out what is drawing me into this piece so much, but I really like it!!!!! Anyway, some great conversation on this thread and thanks for the intro to On A Good Year.