Playing with linear composition - Granite Cliff revised (sort of)

[KatherineAnne]

Hi!

I posted this piece called "Granite Cliff" a couple of weeks ago in landscape. If you want to get up to speed on all the discussion, it is still there. I also posted this same query in landscape since it started there but posted it here to because it raises an interesting compositional issue. The reference that I was working from made our beloved moderator Iseiler write "you were brave to take on this work with this reference...holy cow!!! " I didn't think the reference was that bad - heaven knows that I have worked with less! Here is the original reference.




After all kinds of discussion in the original posting, I decided that perhaps when I lost the vertical lines on the cliff and ended up with a roundish mass of rocks for the cliff, that might have been the central cause that (1) it felt crowded horizontally and (2) unbalanced linearly.

I was thinking about how medieval cathedrals were far narrower than they were tall but feel spacious inside. Inside the cathedrals, all the lines were directed upwards to pull the viewer's eye towards the highest point of the ceiling. I thought maybe if I had used a vertical rock face, then the viewer would have been pulled from the water up to the top of the lighthouse without interruption and thus giving the painting a greater impression of openness and less constriction.

I didn't repaint the actual piece but instead took the paintbrush program to the image.

Here is the original painting:






Here is the painting marked up to show the conflicting mass lines - vertical, round and horizontal. Look closely at the effect of the round lines showing the rock mass and their relationship to the vertical lines above and the horizontal lines below.




Here is the painting after I took the paintshop spray can to the rocks and changed the direction of the rock color tones from round to vertical:





Here is the "repainted " version marked up to show the direction of the lines of objects and particularly the rock formation.






Comments? Thought? Ideas on the subject?


Kath

[arlene]

yep if you want to give the feel of being vertical and direct your eye up, then you should change the eye level (perspective) so it's below the horizon...this will give the look of thrusting upward.

Actually looking at this with the perspective it is now, I think your perspective is off and that's contributing to the problem.

another problem I see with this composition is tonal...there are no true darks and lights to lend interest to the painting.

the last problem I see is the relationship of everything to one another...you have the sky as one entity, then the sea, then the cliffs and finally the house and grass.

If I get time, I can show you what I mean, but the problem right now is i'm working with a deadline and am already over a week behind...so if henrik doesn't get to it first and you can wait.

[KatherineAnne]

Arlene

I'll save you some time. This thing was done strictly as a practice piece - like running the scales on different elements or techniques. If you read all of the prior discusson in landscape, then you would know that I didn't care for the tone but a lot of viewers really liked it. I took the view, in cryptic shorthad, too cloudy of a day, not enough light, too grey ( hate grey - never buy the color or black - old fashioned Impressonist training.) Not enough light so not enough shadows but with that heavy of a cloud cover....

Don't waste time on the perspective issue. One, the sketch is identical to the reference in sizing and lines. I had thought it looked a little odd after the first color wash. To check it, I used all the high powered equipment I have, scan, enlarge etc to produce a copy of the reference equal to the size of the board and even cut out the outline from the photo copy to match it up to the sketch on the board to make sure that it was the same. Second, I "see" on the perspective quite literally. I have zero depth perception and that is how the world looks to me. I never could understand what the big deal was about drawing on a perspctive - fiddling around with all those lines - I just drew what I saw. Even the reference looked a little skewed. It was an odd angle that was interesting. I wanted to do something that would make me practice rocks - this got elected.

On the tonal quality - I forgot to mention that this just won't photograph right. The blues keep washing out of everything except the water.

Glad you agree on the verticality of the cliff face. Aside from everything else I didn't like about it, there was something about the flow of the lines on the cliff and upward that was troubling me. (I had many blunt descriptions for what I thought of the rocks - analogies to large lumps of...)

What started all this is I was going to drop the painting when I was about 2/3 through the detailing. I finished it off complaining that I hated it until my husband to engage in all sorts of retailiatory threats if I didn't just leave it alone and stop going back and fiddling with the thing. The best I could say for it was that each single element was technically correct in excution - brushwork and color patterns - for the grass strokes, trees, rocks etc but as a whole it just didn't go.

Thanks
Kath

[henrik]

I think your own analysiz of the subject pretty much covers it. The orginal image works very well because all the lines and forms create "visual force lines" that "point to" the highest point on the light house. I don't think the round shapes per se was wrong, only that the space between them points out to the left instead of creating an upward motion - they break the design.

[arlene]

first of all while you have no depth perception (I'm technically legally blind uncorrected in one eye), I have no 3D vision...I've learned to compensate.

It's not IMHO an excuse not to learn things like perspective and apply them..especially if you want to get the look of soaring. I'd say that it's important to learn so you can knowingly break the rules later on if that's what you'd like to do.

As for scaling to the photo, PHOTOS LIE!

They come out flat, change perspective, bow the sides, etc...our jobs as artists isn't to copy what we see exactly but to interpret, and that includes changing perspective if needed. But having said that, the reference shows the perspective better...look at the windows.

I did not read the discussions in landscapes, (moderating three forums and doing my own job, website, etc) I can't always go back to a thread...so I'm here looking at it here with a fresh eye.

I understand about the day being grey, overcast etc...but again this is where artistic license comes in and we get to put back in that which is missing from a picture.

Another thing I just noticed is the rocks in the photo extend to the left side of the painting...that makes a big difference as there's not so many disparate elements then.

[KatherineAnne]

Arlene,

What a rude person you are. I think that you are being particularly nasty because you resent the fact that in the so-called legal forum I pointed out that, IMHO, based upon my over 20 years as a practicing attorney, you were so dead wrong on your assertions about the law that you were dangerous.

The only reason I keep coming back to this painting is that I think you learn more from the ones that go dramatically wrong than all the ones that go right. I hadn't had one go this wrong in well over a decade which is why I am so fascinated by it. Most people shove their serious mistakes in the closet. I want to analyze them.

I DID NOT say that I was making an excuse and thus avoiding "learning perspective." Your comments are extremely offensive. I know very well about perspective. I have never had depth perception so I see nothing to compensate for and, in fact, the lack of depth perception makes it extremely easy to draw on the perspective. What I said was, when someone starts drawing the lines that are used to teach beginning students to find a perspective, I could never see what the diagraming was about. I ALREADY saw the image in perspective. I saw no reason for you to put yourself to the trouble of doing one of those perspective diagrams with the lines radiating hither, thither and yon to show points of convergence; and that is why I made the comment that those being useless for me. Those diagrams are attempting to convert a 3-D world into 2-D; and my world is, and has always been, 2-D with distances established solely by line and color and shadow. I really don't know what it is like to see in 3-D.


Didn't say that the color lines establishing the flow of the image were based upon the reference. I said I used the reference to check proportions. The ref is virtually useless for establishing the lines to create a perspective up and around the cliff.


You obviously missed all the sentences about this being a practice piece. The whole point of the exercise was to try to portray the image As It Is. What I call fiddling around to avoid difficulties -- grey overcast sky, etc -- and what you just seem to pass off, change and call artistic license, simply avoids the point of the exercise by ducking an exercise problem. IMHO all this pratt about "artistic license" and "interpretation" is typically an excuse to avoid tackling a difficult subject, avoid improvising ways to handle a problem, and avoid "creating what is before you." Maybe expressionists and abstractionists feel free to recreate the world. At least that is what you seem to feel. I was trained as an Impressionist: you remember those people, the ones who painted what was in front of them -- period. I always have some experiment that I am trying in every piece that I have ever done. Anything else would be mind numbingly boring.

Frankly what a painter of still life and flower insides is doing attempting critique landscape composition is beyond me. Of course, in another post, you basically called a compositional design method "wrong" when it turned out (not intentionally, but simply because I have been trained and have worked in that school for so many years) to be the same as Monet had used in the "Bridge At Argenteuil." Hey, at least I am in good company.

Then you say you are so busy you just don't have the time to read other discussions of the same subject. If you can't be troubled to take the minute or so to read the previous discussion, don't bother. It takes you longer to type your redundant comments than it would to do a quick read.

[arlene]

Katherine,
First I’m not speaking as a moderator in responding to you, but as a member here of this community. Obviously you know nothing about me....

I pride myself about knowing composition...how? I have a BFA in art from Syracuse University...still considered one of the better art schools in the country...at the time I went it was considered one of the top.

I worked in the textile and wallpaper field for 22 years and learned about color and composition. I then went out on my own first doing wallpaper and murals and finally doing my own art...

I know how to look at a landscape, as well as a portrait or a still life or even an abstract. I've made it a point to learn about those things I'm not familiar with.

I have what many, if not most people would consider a trained eye; honed after being a professional artist for over 25 years and by having excellent teachers throughout my art career to guide me. And I'm the first to admit I'm still learning; I hope to continue learning till the day i die.

One doesn't have to paint landscapes to look at them and know what's missing or what could make a good painting better...the rules of good composition, color, etc follow through to all styles and mediums. I don't paint anymore either, but I still feel I'm qualified to comment on paintings.

If I don't know a subject well, such as animal anatomy I don't comment on the anatomy, but I can still comment on how the animal is placed in the composition, and the elements of color, line, shadow, etc. But to tell me I'm not qualified to comment on landscapes?

You again have no clue as to whether or not I’ve studied landscape painting. (I have.) I choose to paint still lifes and macro florals, but then again that choice was made after many, many years of doing what you’re just doing now, experimenting.

IMHO all this pratt about "artistic license" and "interpretation" is typically an excuse to avoid tackling a difficult subject, avoid improvising ways to handle a problem, and avoid "creating what is before you."

Actually it’s just the opposite! It takes skill and knowledge to reinterpret something, to add to it, to make it better then a photo…obviously I’m speaking mostly as a realist, but I think it applies to impressionism also. In reinterpreting isn’t one improvising?

I stand by my comments about how photos aren’t accurate depictions of what is there in real life. That’s why painting from life whenever possible is best, even for those of us without 3D vision and why when painting from a photo, one needs to reinterpret to give it the feel of being a three dimensional object(s).

Of course, in another post, you basically called a compositional design method "wrong" when it turned out (not intentionally, but simply because I have been trained and have worked in that school for so many years) to be the same as Monet had used in the "Bridge At Argenteuil." Hey, at least I am in good company.

Usually when someone makes a statement like this, they back it up with the example. I haven’t a clue as to what you’re talking about. At least then I can see where we disagree.

In your first post back to me you said:

One, the sketch is identical to the reference in sizing and lines.

Then in your second post you stated:

The ref is virtually useless for establishing the lines to create a perspective up and around the cliff.

I'm confused. Which is it?

Please reread the rules you agreed to when you joined; so far you've called me rude and nasty, as well as implied that myself and others are ignorant. Where have I called you names, insulted you, or questioned your intelligence?

And I never said you don't know perspective...I made a general statement about how important it is to learn it.

No I didn't miss your comment about it being practice, and yes I agree sometimes we learn more from our mistakes, but only when we're willing to keep an open mind so we can learn.

I recognize and appreciate all styles of art; in your anger I feel you missed what I was saying.

I see nothing rude in my comments and I doubt others would consider them rude either. I am however a straight shooter, not willing to just hand out kudos. That's not how we improve.

[arlene]

Followup: I found the post where you compared your composition to Monets and posted to it in the landscape forum.

this is the thread, right?

http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/show...threadid=88944

[PAEN]

The following site has an Arts for the Parks 2002 prize winning piece of art of this lighthouse. There is also a picture in the February/March issue of "International Artist" magazine. Perhaps this will help.

http://www.artsfortheparks.com/2002/...avyharbor.html

Pat

[LarrySeiler]

being that I compete in this competition, and know a good number of other artists that do...I am assuming the artist and the winning piece are fairly accurate to that location. There might be a number of key positions actually there where a photographer can take such a picture, but I'm sure the similarities are very close.

That being the case...I took the winning piece (all rights and credits to Sandra Beblavy, winning artist...and to Arts for the Parks) and reduced it to a grayscale image for the purpose of seeing how the perspective lines converge.



We can see here unquestionably, that the lines of the lighthouse, the roof top, the lines of the windows, the water plane from the lower foreground out, and the angle of the rocks as they firmly sit within the water all converge to a vantage point as I have indicated.

I believe using Sandy's work as an example, and assuming hers is close to the reference photo (or else the judging would have no doubt tossed out her piece for consideration), that this then is a perspective issue and that Arlene is vindicated in that her intent in pointing out such was no ploy of irritation or contention. I believe Arlene as a seasoned artist was seeing what she was seeing and responded to your invitation of thoughts, ideas, and comments. If she had not stated such, I probably would have.

Now...here is a consideration for all artists perusing, lurking or reading along.

The burden upon us, is to not always trust a photo reference. To not always assume if we "copy" we automatically will get it right.

The burden is to use artistic license, and consider the psychology and physiology of how the viewer's eyes will see, and how their eyes can be manipulated. It is to take advantage of the givens of composition and design essentials to work for our ends and purposes.

Knowing that the average Joe public is not likely to travel and stand on the exact spot we portray, all s/he gets is our visual rendition. With that in mind, we can either prepare ourselves to have to answer to endless questions in their minds when something doesn't seem to sit right, and defend why we did what we did....or, knowing and anticipating the viewer is likely to be confused ask based upon "what" principles of art and design appear to be violated that would transfer such feelings in the first place.

If a house were built at an angle so as to not sit solidly on a foundation as we might visually depict it to be in our imagination, then we might wish to adjust our inclinations to abide by what the public is likely to know to be true. This will then avoid confusion, speculation, negative assessments, and endless defensiveness.

In other words....work with what works. Keeping things in perspective is a device that causes images to work.

This is a principle of design and composition, and as such is not subject to change. With that in mind, pointing this out I don't think suggests Arlene was being rude. I think she had every intention to be helpful here.

Consider this Katherine...here in a virtual artists community, we at least have the advantages of having such conversations, and if another artist notices this as a potential problem...you can believe the public will....however, their conversations will happen where you have no control. Here, you can weigh what is being said, anticipate the outcome, and make decisions for or against bearing the consequences knowing what is likely. For that, I think Wetcanvas is a great safe environment.

I'd rather artists point something errant possibly in my work, than the public or a gallery...which could really be embarrassing.

We all maintain here relatively speaking and relatively well an attitude of "teachability"....and that assures our continued growth.

Perhaps you are 110% correct, and this is how the reference looked. That being the case...I would caution you that your reference is likely to confuse the public and for the reasons stated. I would not therefore paint the reference as is, but use artistic license and principles to adjust the image to reflect my knowledge and potential mastery.

hopefully...we can all get along here peacefully, and thanks Pat for the link. Proved to be informative for my eyes.

Larry

[arlene]

Katherine I went further not to distress you but because I believe this is a great lesson. Larry made some excellent points and explained it better then I could.

I went ahead and showed the perspective lines on both your painting and the original photo, so you might see what directly what we're talking about.

I appreciate you had a great teacher, as I've had great teachers, but like Larry I still learn and would still prefer a critique from one of my peers then send something out into the world with what could be a glaring mistake...

and yes others here have with their eagle eyes pointed out things on my work that need correcting...or that they thought did...in all cases I've been gracious and thanked them, then reassessed...

9 out of 10 times I've discovered them to be correct and having this resource where you have some truly excellent teachers is wonderful.

Ok here you can see the perspective first of the photo you took and it's clear that the perspective gives an upward thrust. On your painting, the perspective is going in all different directions and that is jarring to the eye...

While making the rocks vertical may help a bit, without the correction of perspective I don't think you'll be able to acheive the look you were after.