So, I was going for a more Realistic flatter look but...

[illastrat]

i don't know if it is out of habit but i just can't step out of my comfort zone. i was stylizing before the painting was complete when it came to realism. Then the impasto came out. I managed to keep some of the face flat but the eyes....impasto...the dress....impasto. i am starting to think that i am locked into on style and i can't bring my self to paint in another. what should i do??????


here is the completed painting. it is around 16"x28". I am linking because uploader keeps failing.
http://fav.me/d4vsmqa

[illastrat]

oh...without a reference.

[Trond]

Well, impasto may just be your style then.

Maybe there will be a slow transition in your work later on (as seen in many famous painters), but I say just go with what feels natural.

[DaveGhmn]

Originally Posted by illastrat

So, I was going for a more Realistic flatter look....

Why?

can't bring my self to paint in another. what should i do??????

If you really don't want depth and lots of paint on your next experiment, do what the masters did: don't put out much paint.

The first two palettes in the article below -- those of Renoir and Seurat -- show an artist with very little paint to work with: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture...goghs-palette/

Jean Renoir in Renoir, My Father describes how his father would only put a tiny dab of each color of paint out (you have to look very closely at the picture of his palette in the article to even see the paint dabs).

August apparently felt that to waste paint would be to insult the workmen who hand-ground his colors at Mullard's art supply store.

So there you are: paint dabs the size of half a pea...

And in the article, scroll down to van Gogh's palette. You can almost see the mad glint in his eye as he squeezed half a tube of paint into a mountain of color.

[illastrat]

my palette looks worst than Gustave Moreau. i am tired of this ****.

[DAK723]

Originally Posted by illastrat

i am starting to think that i am locked into on style and i can't bring my self to paint in another. what should i do??????

People often get hung up on "style." Especially beginning painters naturally want to paint in the style of painters they admire.

I have no idea of your amount of experience, but I have found that at some point there is a certain way that a painter naturally paints - and that is there style. So, if you paint without thinking of "style' then you will ultimately paint in your own natural style.

What should you do? Just keep painting as you naturally do.

This is not to say that a person's style might not change over time. In fact, it usually does, but not because they consciously decide to.

That's my 2 cents.

Nice painting, by the way!

Don

[RockettQueen]

If you really want to try a realistic style - if only just to try it before going back to thicker painting - I agree to put out less paint. Or at least load your brush with far less paint. My palette is a small piece of glass with tiny dabs of paint from the tube. Everything combined would barely make one impasto stroke.

It takes very little paint to cover thinly, and you can always go back in and add more if necessary.

[Newb]

Originally Posted by DaveGhmn

Why?


If you really don't want depth and lots of paint on your next experiment, do what the masters did: don't put out much paint.

The first two palettes in the article below -- those of Renoir and Seurat -- show an artist with very little paint to work with: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture...goghs-palette/

Jean Renoir in Renoir, My Father describes how his father would only put a tiny dab of each color of paint out (you have to look very closely at the picture of his palette in the article to even see the paint dabs).

August apparently felt that to waste paint would be to insult the workmen who hand-ground his colors at Mullard's art supply store.

So there you are: paint dabs the size of half a pea...

And in the article, scroll down to van Gogh's palette. You can almost see the mad glint in his eye as he squeezed half a tube of paint into a mountain of color.

Great article thanks for the link.

illastrat, Nice painting. I wouldn't be too concerned about getting locked into a style. If it feels too uncomfortable going for a different style then I don't think I would force it. Personally what I would do is experiment with a variation on a different canvass and see how you like it. Again I wouldn't force it. You will know when you should try to branch out if at all. If it matters, of all the work I've seen by you (and it isn't that many) I like this one best. It captures an expression and I like the lighting effect.

[sidbledsoe]

a more Realistic flatter look

this is somewhat of an oxymoron or contradiction in itself. realistic isn't flat and 2 dimensions, it is in 3 dimensions. this is what i meant in the other thread when i said van goghs look like they were sculpted from life. i saw this the first time i saw one of his paintings, the gorgeous sunflower painting, 40 years ago in philadelphia. Here among the eakins, homer, old masters, etc. which were all flat, flatter, and flattest, and 2 dimensional, i see my first van gogh and wham, it looks so much like a real realistic object that i felt like i could reach in the painting and pick it up, nothing else compared to it.
(but then i am a bit weird too)

[lovin art]

Im kinda perplexed here you say you where trying for a realistic FLAT approach ~REALISTIC is not flat to my mind - its ment to be voluminous and 3d like ... not sure what your tiring to say here , but tiring to understand , ~but I dont think that trying to paint in any amount of paint less or More really matters if your hitting the right color notes and values it should not affect this , its not that hard, I guess what Im trying to say is , ~if you want thick glorious strokes of paint then do so , if your wanting leaner then less is more , but it also comes down to the choice of color notes ...

Edit just saw your post Sidney arh Sid great minds think alike they say !!!

[RockettQueen]

I thought it was pretty clear "flat" meant a smooth surface without thick ridges of paint. Either with a lot of smooth blending or less/thinner paint or multiple glazes.

It's certainly possible to paint realistically with thick paint, but that wouldn't be "flat".

[lovin art]

I think its pretty clear what I said , Im saying its still possible to produce a painting to read realistically 3d with both I was asking as Im not sure what or how the original Poster ment his statement to come across ... and Ive seen great Artist work up close with still the least amount of paint (or Flat paint as mentioned here ) but you still see and know it to be paint , as Sid considers the strokes read as still realistic and that was what I was tiring to get too ... cheers !

[Ron Francis]

I'm with RocketQueen in that I thought Illastrat was talking purely about surface texture.

Illastrat,
If you want to play with painting more flatly (or without as much surface texture), try wiping the paint off before going over the top of it with another colour if you want to change something.
Also, you can try diluting your paint with a little solvent to make it spread more thinly.
Maybe a thin undercoat and come back to re-work the painting it after it has dried so you don't have to worry about the transparency of the paint.
Softer brushes may help.

I've seen some fantastic impasto work and don't think one technique is inherently more aesthetic than another. I hope you don't feel pressured into painting more realistically.
Good luck.

[0chre]

Originally Posted by illastrat

Then the impasto came out. I managed to keep some of the face flat but the eyes....impasto...the dress....impasto.

This sounds like you're not painting very consicously, but rather absent-minded which is different from being in a flow, because there's little concentration or attention in the first. What you could do is meditate, or do some mental excercises before painting to raise your level of concentration. This gives you more control. Ultimately it's a control issue. (Or a motivation issue.) Good luck!

[illastrat]

Intuition has always worked way better than concentration for me. i find if i overthink things it comes out wrong 70 percent of the time. I have a pretty good work flow. I know thats not the problem. I knocked this out in 30 minutes, 16"x28".