i just don't GET the point of a "focal point"

[ann chavez]

i have read and read and heard and heard--watched demo's, etc.--and i still do not understand the necessity of having a "focal point" in a painting. to me, the center of interest is the scene itself.

when i look at a painting, i always look first at the center. (unless it's of a human, in which case i look at the face; if it's more than one human, i look at the center of the painting). and then my "eye" darts around the painting, it doesn't follow any particular path. (maybe it's just me. )

so is a focal point supposed to be the first area i look at? or the area i look at most? or the area that was most interesting to the painter, thus telling us why s/he painted this particular scene?

i look at van gogh's bedroom at arles [my favorite of his]: the red blanket immediately catches my attention, of course, so i assume it to be the fp. why is it? and i don't see visual pathways leading me to that spot--it's only a focal point because it's the single red in the painting.

i look at any of cezanne's [marvelous ] still lifes: what is the focal point? how do i know it's the fp? what artistic techniques has he used to indicate that it is the fp? and why--if that particular area of oranges is indeed the fp--IS IT?

i watch a bob rohm video of him painting a tree-and-mountain landscape. he says that "here" is where he wants his focal area. WHY?? it's just an area of the same kind of trees that are in the rest of the painting. i see no special significance to that part of the scene. and when i look at his finished painting, i do not immediately look at the fp--i look above and to the left--at the center of the painting. at no time does my "eye" feel particularly drawn to the area the painter told us was the focal area.

i just don't get it.

HELP!!

[WFMartin]

It does rather make one wonder, doesn't it? Personally, I am amused by those who perform elaborate post-mortems on old masters' paintings, during which they draw their perceived lines of force, often criss-crossing and intersecting each other in an attempt to prove, both to themselves and others, that the artist was executing some elaborate plan of "eye travel".

I've seen some paintings totally annihilated by these post-mortem drawings, wondering at the time whether the old master actually performed such profound, pre-painting planning, or whether he just sat down to paint a pretty picture. And, somewhere in that musing of mine also lies the ultimate placing of the point of interest, or focal point.

It is often confusing to me when someone states that you should create lines that lead the eye into the painting from the outer edges. But, what's to prevent these same lines of force from leading the eye out of the painting? Sometimes this is more confusing to me than that of the focal point.

Hey, just keep paintin', .....and have fun at it. I'm sure those old masters did exactly that.

[Use Her Name]

Writers use focal points. What would "Gone with the Wind" be without Scarlett O'Hara and Rhett Butler-- just another Civil War costume drama.

Anyone who does any kind of creative work sees the importance of a "Focal Point." That is the story the drama.

Obviously the "entire" Piece needs to make sense artistically, but there is always a focus.

Oh, your bottom the bottom line of your post (why why why is this so important) -- the Golden Mean-- learn it. IT is how composition begins.

[Use Her Name]

Originally Posted by XipeTotec

i watch a bob rohm video of him painting a tree-and-mountain landscape. he says that "here" is where he wants his focal area. WHY?? it's just an area of the same kind of trees that are in the rest of the painting. i see no special significance to that part of the scene. and when i look at his finished painting, i do not immediately look at the fp--i look above and to the left--at the center of the painting. at no time does my "eye" feel particularly drawn to the area the painter told us was the focal area.

The Golden Mean-- see above

[Avena Cash]

The point would be to have something to keep the eye from just slipping away in boredom to look at something else besides the painting. First it moves from interesting to interesting and then it gets to have a pleasing spot to rest. How much and where the motion? What kind of stopping place? I think it can be hard to see lines that draw the eye, some artists create them intuitively. Some sort of sense of order rather than chance is usually underlying an image even if it looks like luck and chance created the natural-looking composition.

If you are making a visual communication, you want to know how the eye will see it; how will it move and where will it settle.

You may see more interesting brushwork, an unusual edge, some extra contrast, or a striking play of color or light as you practice seeing focal areas. Mr. Rohm may have been unsuccessful with his intentions to create that focal point, or perhaps because you see them first as "more of the same" (kind of trees) you are not noticing a difference in the design qualities. I think looking at lots of art while practicing your own art will help you to see and also to predict the reception of your own work.

[Yorky]

It's not an invariable rule, but it is tried and tested over the centuries.

Ddoug

[La_]

i think of it as 'the point of the painting',
'the reason for being', 'the thing(s) i want you to notice and in what order'

if it's all just green grass - that's boring
the more i add, the more interesting it can become
if i tell the story right

no hard fast rule, but i like to not start with the punch line, usually

la

[ann chavez]

random responses:

i have been looking at lots of art for 50 years. (that's why i know how my "eye" addresses a painting). and i have "analyzed" art for those years, and i have seldom been able to discern a focal point in a painting.

i know the golden mean and often--not always--use it in my visual art, but i am much more enamored of the "rule of thirds".

again, if i see an interesting scene/painting, i don't NEED a specific SPOT within it to keep me from looking at something else.

and i know that a painting must have a sense of order (which we call the "composition", no?). needing a "sense of order" does not explain the need for a focal point.

avena, would you say that the fp is the spot where "the eye" stops to rest?

La--again, for me, the reason for the painting's being is the entire scene (usually). it's not the mountain peak that i am especially interested in, nor the evergreen on the right, nor the big rock beside the river--it's how all of these relate to each other. how would i choose any one focal point? and why?

my "eye" never "rests" in a painting. (if my eye is tired, i go lie down and stop looking at paintings).

mr. martin--the reason i did "autopsies" on works of famous dead painters as the subjects in my original post is that if i used a work of a living artist, i'd have to show it here (i.e. people are not as familiar with living painters or their specific works as they are of the dead masters'), and i don't want to violate copyright! but i do think i'll take your advice and just keep painting and have fun!

[Avena Cash]

Ann, yes I mean a resting place (not necessarily quiet) or pausing place--but one that is generally considered the main attraction. Maybe the "zone of intrigue" would be better? A good place to hang around a while and check out the scenery. I do not think you need to think in terms of a focal point, though.

In a portrait, the focal point is the face. Many paintings are that simple. In your waterfall, it is the waterfall, your landscapes usually use rock formations as the focus (even that one with the tree in the foreground), or a road, with your flowers the flower is the focal point. Yet on Dear Sarah it is the red flower for some reason while in Sassing Woman it is her big round boobs because those areas have more power than other areas. Your landscape Duck has a stronger focal point and it stands out among your paintings because of that lovely rounded bit of land jutting out against the water and the quieter areas around it. The focal point is just one useful way to think of these things. You can also get the point of a focal point and yet not use that as a tool for yourself. The danger of not having a focal point or some other control of the surface is that of unintentionally having a flat energy all over. If everything in a picture is handled with equal energy there may be no tension between differences and no balancing of tensions. Those are things that bring power to painting.

I also prefer an all over approach to painting but I am very concerned with energy. Everything is in relationship with everything else in a web of energies. That's how I conceive it. I like to have points of excitement and rest and push and pull, while all areas are an important part of the surface for their contribution to that energy. I do think you should be able to look over your surface and "map" where the movement is and where the highlights are, just like you can consider the main masses of composition or the pattern of value on the surface.

There are definitely many works out there dealing in all-over patterns and textures that really do not have a focal point at all. They do have a focus of purpose, but not a single primary attraction. If you don't want to use a focal point, it is good to know why you are not and what you are doing instead.

I guess the real question is are your paintings accomplishing what you want them to? For yourself and for others? Do you feel there is something missing?

[Aires]

Perhaps, besides the "rules" that are often mentioned, you could think in terms of what drew your eye or your interest to a particular scene. In other words, what is it about a scene or picture that makes your fingers itch to capture it in paint? if you think of it in that way, rather than "a focal point" you'll get it and understand the meaning behind all the definitions and explanations from an artist's world.

[WFMartin]

I rather like that, "zone of ingrigue" concept. I think I will hang on to that phrase for awhile. It sounds a bit "broader" than the phrase, "focal point", and I like it.

[birdhs]

I do think your opening post was quite interesting.

Interesting enough so that I took the time to read the responses.
Labels, we all have an innate need to label things so we can explain them. I, too, have seen the lines and theories about COI / FP and quite frankly I can only believe what a living breathing artist can tell me about their own intentions in their own words. Everything else is theory, not fact.

Having said that, I am most interested in the composition of a piece of art. IMHO whether the piece is mentally balanced is what pleases my eye the most. Perhaps a COI / FP is where the Calder mobile piece is balanced. Perhaps the balance is where the colors and values and textures and atmospheric perspective and dozens of other "things" all seem to be.

Because you and I see colors and values slightly differently, perhaps your COI / FP will be ever so slightly different than mine. especially in a landscape

I prefer art that keeps me interested, every time I study it I notice something new. That is true whether it is a good story, fabulous photography, sculpture, or any method of mark-making.
If all there was was a COI / FP then life would be boring.

It has taken me years to understand the difference between hue, saturation, value, tone, tints , chroma and so on.
I "got" COI / FP immediately, perspective is instinctive, and composition is easy for me.

Everything else is taking soooo long, but I expect they'll have to pry the paintbrush from my cold dead hands 'cause I'll keep on learning 'til I'm dead.

and challenging theories and labels.....

Greg

[StephenC]

The focal point, aka center of interest, is the place upon which you have lavished the greatest clarity, color, detail or any other superlative qualities and to which all other areas must be subordinate and to which the eye returns repeatedly as it makes its way around the painting.

[ann chavez]

Originally Posted by Use Her Name

Writers use focal points. What would "Gone with the Wind" be without Scarlett O'Hara and Rhett Butler-- just another Civil War costume drama.

Anyone who does any kind of creative work sees the importance of a "Focal Point." That is the story the drama.

Obviously the "entire" Piece needs to make sense artistically, but there is always a focus.

Oh, your bottom the bottom line of your post (why why why is this so important) -- the Golden Mean-- learn it. IT is how composition begins.

1. i have degrees in english literature/creative writing (and anthropology, as well, but that's not pertinent to this discussion), so i know a cuppla things about creativity, writing, etc.

2. "anyone who does any kind of creative work sees . . . ". that's a mighty huge assumption! what am i, chopped liver?

3. an odd question--"why why why is this so important?" you yourself have answered that question in this very post!

[ann chavez]

avena, aires, greg, and stephen--thank you for your comments. thay are all helpful, i think. i will have to ponder . . .

and avena--thank you for specifically addressing my own work. (interesting that dear sarah's flower is the focal point--i may do something about that one day!). i had hoped that someone would talk to me about, say, the cezannes i mentioned, or the van gogh (why is the red blanket the coi??). but your comments about the paintings on my website are enlightening, too.

yes, i am with mr. martin on this--"zone of intrigue" is a cool way to think of it. and with avena's comments about energy, it's becoming much clearer to me.

i'm gonna see how i can apply these concepts in my future work.

thanks to all who commented. wc rocks!