| Author | Message | ||
  Anonymous Painter Unregistered guest |
While I've never used a Soltek easel, I've seen another artist use hers. It looked to me as if the easel's post remains vertical. As you probably know, however, the Soltek has a sort of drawers or table that lies flat (horizontally). If you work fairly small, perhaps you could start by working flat on this flat surface (I'm guessing you like to work wet, at least in the beginning)? I found working vertically with watercolor, in the field, was not a problem; I would just catch any drips with the tip of the tuft (held upright) of a second sable brush held in my other hand. But then, I don't work very wet in the field. I have an Integra easel (also just takes an upright position), but recently purchased a new Stanrite "table easel." It clamps to most surfaces, and tilts to any angle (between upright and flat). Perhaps you could find a small, stable tripod, insert an inset (from hardware stores?) for the tripod screw into a light palette-table-sized board, and clamp the Stanrite table easel to the board? In fact, the "board" could be almost anything that has a flat bit extending for the clamp of the easel, if you wanted to use something like a wooden (or metal) case that closes. This new Stanrite table easel isn't yet listed at Cheap Joe's, but is easy to find at DickBlick.com... It's quite cheap, too, only about $30! | ||
Laurie New member Username: Laurie Post Number: 1 Registered: 10-2007 |
Does anyone have/use the Soltek easel? I have been looking at it for plein air work in watercolor. Does the back tilt to 180 degrees? Is it only used in an upright position? Seems the answer to my travel needs but would be useless unless the paper holder/board tilts down. } | ||
Valerie_norberry New member Username: Valerie_norberry Post Number: 6 Registered: 10-2006 |
To carry paints around for plein air, I use a make-up bag, black, silk-look, and a Windsor Newton 12 color palette with really tiny little pans, almost too small. I paint on ordinary sketch paper, 90#, or WC paper. I make copies of my sketches onto postcards for friends, I guess I am an illustrator as I don't worry much about archival-ability. I really like the picture of the cows. I also use WC pencils, Signature, and also Woodless Creta Colour pencils, sets of 30, the signature have the wrap. I carry the wrap, the woodless pencils (in a plastic bag from a bath-goodies set I cannibalized for the sake of art), blank greeting cards, and the WN WC set, also my gouache pans if I'm "performing" in public, my calligraphy, then decorate for the kiddos in other mediums such as WC pencils. All my favorite media fit in a bag over the shoulder, weighing less than 7 pounds. | ||
SZ Unregistered guest |
Buying the Rollaband system is less expensive than the book offered--it's less than half the price. I believe I had one; hated how it worked and gave it away. The bands are loose, and don't keep the cover and pages together the way wire-bound books do--JmO of course. | ||
Rekha Advanced Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 156 Registered: 8-2006 |
Seems a little expensive, but Glenn Vilppu uses this sketchbook system all the time http://www.vilppustore.com/Portfolio.htm | ||
Garydoc Intermediate Member Username: Garydoc Post Number: 72 Registered: 8-2006 |
I also suggest those 'new' watercolor brushes that hold water in their handles and have variously sized nylon brush heads. They aren't the finest brushes you'll ever use, but they can wet a pan and transfer the color nicely to paper. They can wet the tip of a watercolor pencil as well, or wash over applied w/c pencil on the paper. | ||
SZ Unregistered guest |
Landscaper, Marie is right, you'll probably want to have those extras--but thinking about your wife, you might also consider getting a small field box, several good watercolour sets out there. I know I saw at least one on sale. The sets/field boxes generally include a small water source, a sponge and occasionally a medium quality brush. But keeping it simple is my vote. Whenever I overpack I regret it later  | ||
Valerie_norberry New member Username: Valerie_norberry Post Number: 5 Registered: 10-2006 |
Dear Greg: In response to Post about people watching you, I work very much alone, and enjoy the occasional "exibitionist" routine and the pressure of people watching. However, I find myself exhausted after only 4 hours or so of public type work. In my "real" life I am a med transcriptionist so work in a little office in the basement of a large hospital, quite alone on Saturdays, and often alone on Holidays. During the summer, however, I do calligraphy and did a plien air postcard of the Three Rivers Farmer's Market recently (which I snuck in a little Amish girl, and her mother was not offended after I showed her), which I printed 101 cards of. My outdoor stuff is loose and cartoony. I used to wish to be another Frank Netter, medical illustrator. However, what with digital imaging and such I don't think there is much of a demand for medical illustrators. Never got the education. Know how to spell the words and what they mean, though.  | ||
Marie Advanced Member Username: Marie Post Number: 183 Registered: 8-2006 |
I agree with SZ. I use a folding metal palette with whole pans, a watercolor block, an assortment of round travel brushes, and a 1 1/2" flat. In addition, make sure to pack some paper towels, a pencil, and eraser, and a small spray bottle. I also pack extra tubes of my most heavily used paints. | ||
SZ Unregistered guest |
You might consider a small metal palette with your favourite colours; one or two smallish blocks of 140 or good quality 90lb), some traveling size brushes, a set of coloured pencils and nothing more. Often the pencils, and a waterbrush are all I actually use (with small moleskine). | ||
Rekha Advanced Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 153 Registered: 8-2006 |
It may not be the best suggestion but is probably a practical one: why don't you take watercolour pencils with you? When you get back home at least you will have the impressions of what excited you | ||
Landscaper Junior Member Username: Landscaper Post Number: 16 Registered: 12-2006 |
I am going on a trip soon, and it will be difficult to take tube paints and a John Pike palette. My wife is very strict about packing space. I have never painted with pan paints before, but I would like the convience of carrying a field box and a small sketchbook. The packer tells me it would be allowed. Does anyone have any favorites to suggest? Greatly appreciated. | ||
Anonymous Unregistered guest |
Yes--here's the link to the Cheap Joe's Aquabee listing: http://www.cheapjoes.com/art-supplies/5443_aquabee-super-deluxe-sketchbooks-wc.asp | ||
Landscaper Junior Member Username: Landscaper Post Number: 14 Registered: 12-2006 |
The Aquabee is very suited to water. Ninety-three pounds. In fact, Skip Lawrence did a very nice sketch in one of mine and quite heavy on the pigment side. I need to frame it someday. | ||
Landscaper Junior Member Username: Landscaper Post Number: 13 Registered: 12-2006 |
I see that our own Cheap Joe carries the Aquabee, also. | ||
SZ Unregistered guest |
I have one of the deluxe; I don't think I've used it with water, but it is a sturdy book, one of the best I had. I think I'll get another one and try it wet, my other one is in storage.  | ||
Rekha Advanced Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 149 Registered: 8-2006 |
Are these sketchbooks vastly different from others available in the market? | ||
Anonymous Unregistered guest |
FYI-- It is the Super Deluxe | ||
Anonymous Unregistered guest |
http://www.dickblick.com/vendors/aquabee/ Above is Millard's sketchbook. He wored with soft carbon pencil followed by washes. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Rekha-- I use the shelf with support arms from Sun Eden that Mel Stabin recommends. IT attaches securely though it is hard to get it exactly level--. It is meant to be a problem solver for plein air artists who travel light. It folds up to the size of a 12 X16 sketch pad. Since it hooks to the two front legs of a tripod easel, it greatly helps stabilize the easel. IT you want bulky stability, take a TV tray. I hike in to areas and so the lighter is better. | ||
Marie Advanced Member Username: Marie Post Number: 177 Registered: 8-2006 |
Insects haven't been a problem. | ||
Rekha Advanced Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 148 Registered: 8-2006 |
Let's say a mosquito bit your umbrella-carrying leg, which twitches, followed by waterboard falling/tipping? | ||
Marie Advanced Member Username: Marie Post Number: 176 Registered: 8-2006 |
Insects? How so? | ||
Rekha Advanced Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 147 Registered: 8-2006 |
Don't insects upset this setup? | ||
Marie Advanced Member Username: Marie Post Number: 175 Registered: 8-2006 |
Oh, the umbrella. It's essential for working outside. I attach the umbrella to my leg. Basically it's a standard, white artist's umbrella. I cut a piece of PVC pipe that fits into the bottom of the umbrella. Then, I attached an L-bracket to the bottom of the PVC pipe. When I'm painting, I keep my foot on the L-bracket and use something that looks like a big twist-tie to attach the pipe to my leg just below the knee. It's incredibly geeky, but it works. Unfortunately, I don't have a picture to explain the setup. If someone ever takes a picture of me working outdoors, I'll post it. | ||
Marie Advanced Member Username: Marie Post Number: 174 Registered: 8-2006 |
I'll probably see her next week. I'll ask if I can try it out. | ||
Rekha Advanced Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 146 Registered: 8-2006 |
You mentioned some moons ago using an umbrella while painting. How do you manage to paint with the board on your lap and hold the umbrella as well? | ||
Rekha Advanced Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 145 Registered: 8-2006 |
Well, if you get a chance to test it out I would be interested in your findings. | ||
Marie Advanced Member Username: Marie Post Number: 172 Registered: 8-2006 |
I haven't used the Sun-Eden tripods. I have a friend who has one that she doesn't use, I sometime I would like to try it. I prefer to work on my lap when I'm working outside. An easel is just more stuff to carry around. | ||
Rekha Advanced Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 141 Registered: 8-2006 |
For those of you who have read Mel Stabin's book, he recommends an adaptor to fit on to the tripod to ease fixing the board. Has anyone used this? Just looking at the picture makes me feel that it must be pretty unstable http://www.sun-eden.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=SAG&Product_Code=02-04&Category_Code=Watercolor | ||
Dake |
It's hard to sit in a field with a 40inch sheet of paper taped to a board. You guys like things to be big also. It's impossible to match the scale impact of oil and appeal to a corporate market with a 1/2 sheet. And nigh on impossible to paint very large scale with a direct, brushstroke orientated approach. Laying the sheet flat, pouring and or painting a small section at a time eg, Joseph Raffael is the only way to paint huge surfaces. It does not detract from the medium to paint this way, it's the beauty of the finished product that counts, not how you do it. | ||
Dake |
I didn't think painting in realistic/photorealistic style meant you used a photo as reference but that it attempted to render a subject with as much detail and edge representation as a camera. Which is vasty different from how the human eye perceives. I refer mainly to Wyeth's tempera work which are astonishingly detailed. Many paint photorealistically from life. | ||
Raliegh |
I just had someone ask "how long did that take" (to produce a painting) I said 50 years! | ||
marie |
This reminds me of a couple of stories. I once read an anecdote about Sergei Eisenstein, the great film director, selling one of his drawings. The buyer asked how he could charge so much when there were so few marks on the page. Eisenstein responded that if he could have done it in fewer marks, he would have charged more. With my own work, some of my best selling work is my most minimal -- things that take 10 minutes to do. When I expressed some concern to my teacher, he reminded me how many hours of practice it took to be able to produce something worthwhile in 10 minutes. | ||
Robert |
Well put, John. I am reminded of the zen master Renzai who meditated for three nights on the rising moon above a cliff. Finally he took brush to paper and in three quick strokes executed a timeless masterpiece. If he tried to sell it today, the response would be, "What! $500 bucks for twelve seconds work. Thats...uh.. let me see..(getting out his calculator... 12 seconds times 5 gives one minute times 60 gives one hour times $500....) that's 150,000 dollars per hour. You gotta be joking! I'll give you 2 bucks." | ||
John Preston |
It's definitely not from Wyeth or Hopper. Both paint/ed on location and never used photos. I'd say the American predilection for photo-assisted painting stems from our tendency to want to get a bunch of gear and make a big project of something. People who don't paint or look at paintings can understand a bustling shop full of gadgets and high output. Thats the key - high output. Theres only 2 ways to get that in watercolor: quick loose things that don't take time (and don't impress the non-painter) or projected, traced and colored versions of photos. I'll bet the question most of us hear is "How long did that take?" Somebody with a brush, a block and a small palette sitting in a field doesn't generate enough noise and dust for most of us Yanks. | ||
Dake |
Of course America has been exposed to the camera more than any other society on earth. Perhaps that has something to do with it. | ||
Dake |
Interestingly you will find that the trend toward photorealism is an American phenomenon. In Australia the successful watercolourists are predominantly impressionists. Castagnet, Zbukvic, Wade, Taylor, Sluga, Hyatt etal. I wonder whether the tradition stemming from Winslow Homer, Andrew Wyeth even Hopper have not had alot to do with that. Conversely it is Americans that are the most innovative with watercolour eg Nicholas Simmmons, Carol Carter, Carolyn Brady, Joseph Raffael for instance. Impressonism or the Bravura style appears quite rare amongst US painters, Webb, Nuttal and Reid are certainly exceptions. I can only name two great American watercolour impressonists(for want of a better term) Sargent and Whitney...I'm sure there are many more but they're not household names internationally(amongst watercolourists)...oh there's Frank Webb but he's very much an individualist in style. Probably loaded with generalization, but I'm sure it's a fair observation. I don't know of too many Australian photorealists in watercolour...can't think of one in fact. Considering our societies are very similar it's strange. | ||
Eugene |
I agree, Robert. Good photorealism is GOOD, Poor photorealism is AWFUL. There is no inbetween. | ||
marie |
Robert, I have enjoyed hearing about the workshop. Please keep talking about it. Your comments remind me of a wonderful quote from my drawing teacher: "There's nothing worse than something carefully drawn wrong." | ||
Robert |
One more comment re. loose vs. photorealism. At this Ted Nuttal workshop last week (sorry to keepo bringing it up) I noticed most of the painters were painting in very tight realistic styles. Despite the fact that ted was teaching a workshop on apply loose painting techniques to their work, most seemed to ignore this aspect in their own efforts and to try to copy reality down to the last eyelash. The results were not photorealistic actually, in that they didn't really look like the subject, just like overworked, tired and tight paintings. The few who attempted to paint as Ted instructed really produced nice work that had the frredom of real life and, while not looking photgraphic, looked alive and very much like the person being painted. To credit photorealism--it is very difficult to do extremely well. Poorly executed attempts at photorealism are painful to look at, though. They lack the accuracey of the excellent photorealism (the nuance and subtlety) and they lack the aliveness of a more spontaneous approach. | ||
George |
Greg is right! | ||
greg |
You all hit it on the head earlier.....more commercial and the un-educated public enjoys it. | ||
Robert |
Interesting-- A thought occured to me that had never entered my bnrain before. The big teachers all studied under Whitney and they are in their 70's--on thier way into history. Perhaps the artists who are coming up studied in universities or in different ways that promoted realism. Also, perhaps galleries want photorealism and those who create it get into galleries and thus make a name for themselves and thus get into mags. | ||
Eric |
I'm noticing a trend toward hard-edge realism more and more also in the magazines like "Artist" or "Watercolor Magic". If this trend is true, does anyone have any explanations as to why? | ||
Robert |
I just went there (http://www.watercolors.org/) and would like to point out that when the site comes up there are three paintings. The middle one (a man with a bandana around his head) is by Ted Nuttal, the guy I took a workshop from last week. He mentioned this painting and said it was granted a top award at last years show. The funny story behind it is that everyone keeps telling him the model looks like Mel Stabin. Turns out is isn't but Mel Stabin is was the juror who selected the painting for the award! | ||
Eugene |
For all the transparency purists out there-----You might want to check the web page of the TRANSPARENT WATERCOLOR SOCIETY OF AMERICA---www.watercolors.org You can see the 2005 show as well as others of the past. Transparent watercolors only, on paper. No gessoed surfaces or yupo accepted. I was disappointed in this year’s show because most of it is hard edge realism rather than the wet, free, juicy style that I prefer. However, that seems to be the trend. | ||
greg |
rent "The Searchers" you will come back....promise. | ||
Robert |
I have to confess--every since I saw Brokeback Mountain I cannot look at a painting of a cowboy the same as I used to. | ||
Eric |
Greg, like I said before, I feel like I'm there right out in the Montana Big Sky. Also, with your gun painting you posted somewhere else, I can hear the "clunk" of the heavy pistol as it's placed on the table. In my view, you've succeeded in accomplishing what you set out to do. | ||
greg |
You are correct in stating that it was not "mean spirited." I posted the work and opened up the discussion. I would not have done it, if I was not open to criticism. I wanted and expected it. You are also correct on the camera issue. Photos can be taken a million different ways with a miriad of lenses and compositions. After listening to all of you and viewing this enormous thread the conclusion is: Plein Air is painting outside without the help of the studio, or photo. A still life set up in the studio is not Plein air, but one set up outside is. Plein air can be loose or controlled. A small amount of detail or very detailed. The reason I paint tight like I have shown in all of my work posted is: I like to create a window you are looking through, and make you feel, hear, smell, sometimes even taste the subject. the truck painting on the bottom of this thread, does that for me. I feel the heat of that sun on that day, I smell the cattle, I can almost feel the grit in my teeth that all of those cows were kicking up. I feel this way because I was there. If I can make anyone experience at least some of this, it worked...and and to me the work is successful. as for the camera issue. Lower quality digital cameras distort because of the digital zoom kicking in. this can be turned off on the camera and it will make a wonder of difference. You also get distorted images if you are too close to the subject and zoom in tight, it gets the perspective to shift and distort. ALWAYS use and look for the optical zoom in a camera. This is the lens working only and doing the work, without the computer chip turning itself on and digital zooming. The canon EOS D series is amazing and reproduces accurate color and has more creative choices than you can even imagine. | ||
Anonymous Painter |
This is a fun thread to read! What struck me first is that Anon must be someone some of you know, since I saw a gender reference... lol Personally I didn't see the comment as 'mean-spirited,' but as perhaps someone being over-enthusiastic in trying to help an already fine painter progress further. Just wanted to note that photorealism is not always realism or realistic. Many painters incorporate a fish-eye lens distortion, for example. Perhaps most of us invoke 'depth of field' effects: focusing on one spot and blurring others. Naturalism or realism seems to have meant different things at different periods. Furthermore, it is simply not accurate that a camera merely captures the actual light falling on the actual subject. With film cameras, limitations of the medium have a great impact. Also, of course, the 'creative' choices of exposure time, film speed & grain, f-stop, and lens greatly affect the resulting negative or slide. Then, if it's a negative, there are many creative variables in printing, as well. For some reason I don't yet understand (because I haven't yet researched digital photography properly) there is also distortion in a digital photograph. These cameras, also, do not merely reproduce the actual light falling on actual objects. Blues or purples, particularly, are not accurately reproduced (again, I don't know why). | ||
greg |
Drummond's work is fantastic. It is very detailed, thus showing that plein air comes in all styles. His landscapes and water are stunning. with his background in science, I bet he can create alot of this from memory after leaving the site, without the use of a photo reference. | ||
Robert |
er--Eric | ||
Robert |
Eris-- Though I haven't taken from him, he is a local artist and I know people who have taken workshops from him and have had their painting revolutionized. I think he paints in the darks first to get an abstract pattern. Then he really uses bright colors that nevertheless look like they belong (in a naturalistic sense). His workshops seem to be offered in about every section of the continental US. I would think that if one were to take a workshop, his would be one of the better ones to take becasue he , as I hear, has teaching down to a science and is very thorough, methodical, and helpful. He has a brief tutorial online which might give you an idea. | ||
Eric |
Has anyone seen Hosmer's videos? Or taken a workshop from him? I like his work. | ||
Robert |
I think what I meant was it doens't seem to be plein air but derrived from a photo; I agree-- not photorealistic though-- | ||
Sid |
Robert: I like Ken Hosmer's work too, but I wouldn't call it "photo" looking. It is certainly realism, but nowhere near what a true photorealist would do. In a gradient from abstract (1) to photo-realistic (10), I'd call Hosmer an 8. My work is probably about there too. Where would you put yourself?? | ||
Robert |
Here's a Texas artist I like whose work is "photo" looking but at the same time very creative with color-- http://watercolor-online.com/KenHosmer/ | ||
Robert |
He works mostly plein air believe it or not. The water detail is made up, fictional. He has a PhD in physics and really understands the science of light and water. Even though his work is not loose and splashy it is outstanding, IMHO. | ||
Raliegh |
OK Robert, what is it?What do you think of this guy's work? Definately from photos? Plein Air? Appealing? Not? http://www.drummondart.com/web_gallery.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ||
tachee |
greg! the lighting the lighting! yes. it blows me away. his treatment of light is someting i want to attain. hmmm....did it list workshops i muse....gotta to go check that out. now i would want only a workshop working with light and the iris. sounds very private, does it not? | ||
greg |
His work is very nice. The iris is wonderful but you could do it! Study it carefully. The colors are very nice, but the lighting makes it. this is all about the lighting. I think he uses some photos, but mainly works plein air. As for painting cows...I live in Wisconsin and plein air is always dairy air.....:) | ||
Raliegh |
Appealing, definitely. I'm with Tachee, the Iris is absolutely wonderful. The landscapes, plein air? If they are this guy has many, many hours of practice behind him. | ||
tachee |
robert, i love that guy's work! his water is perfect. did ya see that iris?!! if i did that iris, i would have to stop painting and say i cannot attain any better than this. | ||
George |
Sid, sorry for the confusion! Yep, bulls can be dangerous. My grandfather was gored by a bull. Hay Robert, how about a painting of someone painting a bull with the cows looking over the artist’s shoulder as critics? I like Drummon’s work. Thanks for sharing it. It looks like it was done from photos, but my guess is that he has had a lot of plein air experience that has influenced his style. On a side note; not all paintings done from photos are photorealistic. | ||
Sid |
George: I didn't mean to dwell on being able to paint photorealistically en plein aire. Rather, I wanted to make the point that you can paint in any style, from impressionistic to realistic, and it is still plein air (if painted on scene). Cows are one thing, dairy cow bulls are something completely different. Stay away from them!! They are harsh critics. | ||
Robert |
What do you think of this guy's work? Definately from photos? Plein Air? Appealing? Not? http://www.drummondart.com/web_gallery.html | ||
tachee |
robert, i would pay good money just to come and look at this painting! even the sentence was a joy! | ||
Robert |
George I would love to paint a painting of you painting a painting with a couple of Holstein Heffers looking over your shoulder. I would call it, "Everyone's thinks He's a Critic," | ||
George |
Tachee, Yes, there are many types of realism under the general classification of realism. Photorealism is just one type of realism. There are also many types of impressionism under the general classification of impressionism. Lots of people paint plein air in a realistic style as well as in an impressionistic style. But, no one paints plein air in a photorealistic style. As Sid keeps pointing out, it could be done, but as Robert suggested, only a fool would do it. Sid, the best part about painting in a cow pasture is the cows. They are as curious as people are. The last time I went to paint in a cow pasture I took my neighbor’s dog along to chase curious cows away. It was a two hour standoff. The cows keep trying to get past the dog to see what I was doing. | ||
John Preston |
Being watched while painting is as comfortable as if I were bathing in public. Despite living in a very rural location it's amazing how many people suddenly come out for drive down gravel roads when you're out painting...you just know they're getting on the phone...it's the 2nd and 3rd drive-bys that get me. Storms are a blast! Nothing makes you feel like a real painter like chasing your equipage across a field. | ||
tachee |
greg, you may have started one of the longest threads. if you ever get bored, ask about yupo. i went to the plein air painters of america web site. http://www.p-a-p-a.com/ THEY are not going to shed any light on this subject. most are oils, good bit of realism, and some still lifes. vase with wallpapery background. seems even the promoters of field and stream painting are not foot putter downers. isnt there a difference between photorealism and realism? | ||
Robert |
er Sid --sorry about the Did typo :0 | ||
Robert |
Hi Did-- I think you are right. If you go outside everyday for a year and paint a picture of a barn and in the end that picture is photorealistic, it is still 100% plein air becasue it was painted outside. On the other hand, when the term'plein air' is used it conjures up images of impressionists going out and employing their raw brushstrokes to capture light. This is because words have 2 meanings, their denotations (strict dictionary definitions) and their connotations (the common things people associate with a particular word). Any painting painted outside fits within the dictionary definition of en plain air. But when one is , say invited to a plein air exhibit, one will probably think one is going to see loose paintings becasue that is what is commonly and historically associated with en plein air. Connotation is a legitimate and essential part of a word's meaning. In fact, unusually enough, the connotation of the word has actually been stated in Webster's, which is highly unusual (someone already posted this): 1 : of or relating to painting in outdoor daylight 2 : of or relating to a branch of impressionism that attempts to represent outdoor light and air Thus, which it is true any painting done outside is en plein air, en plein air refers in most peoples minds to a philosophy of painting as well as a location, though , as you can see from Webster, either meaning is denotatively correct. | ||
Sid |
I still refuse to accept that a plein air painting, by definition, has to be loose. It could be as loose or tight and detailed as you want it to be. It just depends on your style and how long you want to spend on it. If you are painting it ourside with the subject before you, it is plein air. George-- I would say that the painting that blew across the cow pasture really got "loose"?? If so, that was really a plein air painting | ||
Robert |
A type of rain-- a decade or so ago when I painted what I felt to be my best painting ever -- I was at a rapids at a rushing river--and a dog came up to the painting and shook out his wet fur all over it and ruined it. The owner just smiled as if to say "Isn't he cute!" The painting had been a break through so that insight wasn't lost. | ||
Robert |
In response to Greg--I painted all over Hawaii--but I was at seculded spots usually. Once though I was sitting on a sea wall painting a sky immediately after a storm. A spontaneous thing brought about by the otherworldly light. The sun was beaming through dark clouds and striking a volcano. Magnificient. I was capturing it and on on of those exciting "zone' rolls when a passer by stopped , put his face between me and the scene, and said "Wow--that is good enough to be in a gallery." It was a nice thing to say and I felt obligated to respond and by the time I returned, the wash was drying in the middle of the sky and the painting was lost. Hawaii has lost of secluded places if you know where they are and I had little trouble being invisible there. | ||
greg |
Did I mention to all of you that I paint part time and full time I sell insurance to artists......kidding. | ||
George |
Two or three times. One time when a big storm hit my drawing board blew away and rolled about a hundred yards across a cow field. The painting on it was soaked. Another time I lost my paints into a fast moving river when they slid off the rock I was sitting on. | ||
greg |
How many times have you been caught in the rain painting outside? | ||
George |
People who paint in their booth at art fairs do it because if helps sales. Buyers have a tendency to buy if they are drawn into the process. | ||
George |
I prefer to be out by myself. But, I don’t mind people looking at what I’m doing. When I do paint where people are around they always say good things, but it can be real distracting. Last summer I was painting at a national tourist site and every hour about 500 to a 1,000 people walked past me. My answering every one of their questions, or saying “thank you” to every comment broke my concentration. Another time a guy saw me painting and sat down next to me and talked my head off. When I went back to painting, he acted as if I were being rude to him. If the onlookers are quiet (sometimes they are) I don’t mind them at all. One time while painting, I heard a faint noise behind me and turned to see a young girl peeking out from behind a tree. She looked embarrassed that she had disturbed me and didn’t say a word but gave me the thumbs up sign. That’s the kind of onlooker I like! | ||
greg |
What do you think about people who paint in their booth at...an art fair let's say? do they have a deadline? do they like the good light? OR are they looking for public feedback? or all of the above? | ||
greg |
Was it you who did paintings on a beach in Hawaii? | ||
Robert |
Actually, I get self-conscious in the presence of on lookers and seek out secluded spots to paint and paint as unobtrusively as I can so as not to attract attention. | ||
greg |
this is such an interesting topic I want to keep it going. FYI I am not downplaying Plein Air at ALL. It is REAL art. I hope none of you would ever think I am suggesting: "I paint outside I am an artist, see how great I am" this is not the question or the intent. Just wonder what all of your thoughts are on this. You all or almost all paint outside frequently or exclusively. | ||
greg |
to clear up something on the question below: I know when creating a Plein air piece you find the subject first and place yourself in the best spot. It can be anywhere. Someone would not pick a busy spot and then find something to paint. that's not what I am asking. I'm just curious about your thoughts on this | ||
greg |
Monet: The public perception of an artist is they are a little crazy and eccentric. The onlookers played right into his hand as they watched this man create. He, I'm sure, wanted to create a "BUZZ" about what he was doing and create excitement and play to the audience. It's actually a nice marketing technique, smart. ALL THE WORLD IS A STAGE.... Do any of you enjoy people (non artists) watching you when you paint outside? In the studio, you never get feedback, until you let someone view it. Some people need that personal interaction and it helps them, others like it to be their own personal time. A TWIST: just a question for all: Do you think some may prefer to paint outside in a busy area just to get feedback and get compliments as they create a work? I mean who doesn't like to hear, "oh....that is beautiful, " you are so talented" I can work on a piece for months in the studio and never show it to anyone. I would love to hear comments as I go along to let me know I am on track and should continue. OR: Do you purposely find a quiet spot away from onlookers? | ||
Robert |
How 'bout what Monet did en plein air with the cathedral (Rouen?)---- He set up various canvases and switched canvases each hour so he would be focusing on a different painting as the light changed. He set these up daily. So we have this nutty French artist with 10 or so canvas set up before the cathedral trying to catch fleeting light effects. Thank God we have cameras now so we don't have to resort to such absurd tactics! :) | ||
George |
Sid and John, I think you may be misreading what Robert said. He qualified what he meant by looser when he said “a looser watercolor feel.” John you clearly agree with this when you said; “their style is tighter than what we normally associate with "loose" watercolor although hardly photorealistic.” Everyone is really saying the same thing; that there are degrees of looseness, but that photorealism is not loose. | ||
greg |
Thank you all for this wonderful discussion, this has been interesting and extremely helpful. I know this work is not PLEIN AIR, but it is the only thing thus far that I started outside and did not rely entirely on photos for composition, lighting and color. I could have actually done this all on site....It was supposed to be a 45 min drive to Livingston from Mcleod, but with a 1000 cows in the road it took 2 hours....they would not move. There actually were cows covering the road to the telephone pole. I parted the cows in the painting as part of my composition. the thing I like most about this composition is that nothing is in the center of the painting at all, except open road. | ||
Sid |
Good post, John. As I said back a day or so, plein air is not a "style" of painting with respect to being "loose", impressionistic, or tight. The term refers to the act of painting outdoors while facing the scene you are painting, rather than a photo or sketch. Stating that plein air painting must be loose is, in my opinion, not correct. | ||
John Preston |
I want to take issue with the idea that plein air must be loose and "impressionist" in it's appearence. Granted, that IS the general perception and it won't be changed, but for the record: A lot of recent research (evidently unread) supports the idea that the British watercolorists had been working plein air a good 40-50 years while the French were waiting for the invention of the paint tube. The point is, their style is tighter than what we normally associate with "loose" watercolor although hardly photorealistic (their studio versions were WAY tight). Richard Parkes-Bonnington was a major pre-Impressionistic influence on them and his style is not unlike Sargent's. By the time The French were outdoors the Brits were experimenting with camera lucidas, getting their drawing tighter still but getting their color from observation. About all we've added to the discussion is a new format: the online forum. | ||
Robert |
One thing that interested me is that Ted does all of his painting, 100% of it always, with a #16 Raphael series 8404 #16 Kolinsky round. | ||
Robert |
Ted is focuced and a very very accurate drawing. His goal is to capture fleeting expressions. To facilitate capturing a fleeting expression he makes use of reference photos as well as a model (fleeting expressions don;t last long enough to paint). He has a process for creating the portrait anter he finishes a painstaking contour drawing. The process I found very informative. He spends a lot of time on eyes and the tiny darks in the corner or the mouth and nostrils and maintians these are the places that reveal the personality. He is very good at capturing personality and mood. I am hesitant to recommend workshops since the journey is so very personal. Ted himself warned that taking a lot of workshops from a lot of people will most likely just confuse you and hamper your development of a personal style. | ||
greg |
I would learn a lot taking a class from someone like Ted Nuttal. Most of the instructors I have had, through this journey, have been fans of realism. great lovers of the academics. they molded me...... | ||
greg |
I agree...very well put gentlemen. thanks for all of your valuable insight. | ||
Robert |
George, yours may be the best post I ever read. | ||
Robert |
The workshop was wonderful Howard, and whether or not you have a loose style, you will pick up some valuable tips. Nutal spends hours , about 10 -12 on a typical 1/4 sheet portrait. so the looseness is largely a function of intent. He paints metculously to create the illusion of looseness. As a result, my definition of looseness is changing. I had thought it meant incorporating a sort of slash and burn bravado and speed in your art. Now I think it is a more complex phenomenon and what may appear to be carefree might just be the result of carefulness. As he says, no one gives a damn whether or not you painted it fast or slow, only that they like the painting. There are very few watercolor portrait painters teaching workshops and he is one. | ||
George |
Robert, you make an excellent point about the difference between the camera’s eye and the individual’s eye. The camera records the light waves reflected off the objects in the scene. That’s it! Light enters the camera and light is recorded. A photorealistic painter copies that light pattern (photo). The plein air artist must select from the millions of pieces of visual data in the visual field and restructure them into a poetic response to the scene. Many, many different solutions to this problem of reducing a three dimensional scene to two dimensions exist (individual styles). The light from the scene isn’t fixed as in a two dimensional record (photo), instead it is moving, flowing, dancing and interacting with light from other sources in the larger environment around the artist. It’s a complex problem! Decisions have to be made. For example, the light from one object might be adjusted to enhance the light from another object sitting next to it. When it is done well, by someone like a Homer or a Sargent, it is the highest form of painting. The mass public may prefer photorealism, but connoisseurs of watercolor prefer plein air. | ||
Howard |
Robert, How was the Ted Nuttall watercolor portrait workshop? I'm a watercolor portrait painter and am looking for a good workshop to take. I notice that Nuttall has a loose style. I don't. Is that your style and, if not, how easy did you find it to pick up his approach? Howard | ||
George |
Sid, to expand on the answer to your question about; can a plein air painting be in a photorealistic style? Sure, anything done on location can be called plein air. So yes, a person could paint on location (plein air) in a photorealistic style, but it just isn’t done! Why would anyone paint on location (plein air) in a photorealistic style? What’s the advantage? There isn’t one!! So….. artists don’t do it! Don’t get me wrong, many plein air artists do paint on location in a realistic style – I do for example, as did Homer (I assume that you know that there are a lot of sub styles under the heading of realism). You just don’t find anyone who works on location working in a photorealistic style. The reasons for this are somewhat obvious I guess. But, if you’re still confused, let me know and I’ll go into it a little deeper. | ||
greg |
Well, I do make choices and changes on the fly. colors change, textures change and sometimes composition changes. The finished work may look very photo realistic, but not exactly like the photo reference. For this piece, I took shots of the cows, a few of the truck and multiple backgrounds. I did the sketch in the field for the way I wanted the painting to look. interesting: "It seems to me that photorealism captures the camera's objective reality; where as painterly painting captures the individual's reality." Which is more real? A person still has to take the photo using their eye? | ||
Robert |
It seems to me that photorealism captures the camera's objective reality; where as painterly painting captures the individual's reality. Which is more real? | ||
Robert |
Speaking of being accepted--I think George is right--the more it looks like a photo the more a lot of people are impressed with your skill. Note how the impressionists were treated when they first exhibited--people spat upon their canvases. On the other hand, the artists the impressionist rebelled against, the academics, are , form the distance of 150 years, also great painters. I'd settle for anything academic or impressionist from 1860 Paris hanging on my wall. Honestly. | ||
George |
Robert, Great posts!! Very well said! Greg, if you go to any National watercolor show you will note that the majority of paintings are in a photorealistic style. In part it’s because photorealism is easier to do than it is to do the kind of painting that Robert is talking about. That’s my opinion, others may disagree. But, there is another reason that photorealism is a popular choice for watercolor artists today - It sells really well to a largely uneducated public (as in - I don’t know anything about art, but I know what I like). The public likes photorealism and artists want to sell paintings. | ||
Raliegh |
My husband plays Kanaka WaiWai on the banjo, Bela Fleck plays Bach. Art is taking the usual and transforming it in one's own style and medium. Thus becoming unusual. | ||
Eric |
Greg, a lot of watercolorists paint in a tight way. You'll be accepted...just not by me, or maybe Robert! Ha ha. Just kidding, Greg. Just browsing through the bookstore or library, you'll see a lot of watercolor instructors in the tight style. It's all a matter of personal taste. I happen to agree completely with the Whitney statement. (just my opinion, others may disagree) I'm in favor of using watercolor to it's fullest advantage. It does things that no other medium can do and that should be taken advantage of. Watercolor is the best for showing the "effortless effort" that Robert mentioned. What I left out of the Whitney statement is when he talks about coiling two ropes. You cast one on the floor and arrange the other. Which one looks better? I do like that Montana painting, though. It makes me feel like I'm there. | ||
greg |
I have some loose paintings and sketches I have done but they never feel or look finished to me. It is amazing to me how we are exact opposites. You feel you could never paint tight, and I can't get loose. WELL: my biggest question is... Will I ever be accepted into the watercolor community painting this way? Would I ever get selected for a show? Marie seems to like my work and she does a lot of show selection. Maybe, she is just being nice. I have sold works and have received much praise from teachers and all of you. I know this would sell and be more accepted if done in oil. I am really going to try all of your advice on my next piece and I will post my result. I am going to make a conscious effort to stay loose and place my brushstrokes carefully, simplify backgrounds and detail, use dramatic light, and bold color......we'll see. :) | ||
greg |
Welcome back, Robert. :) | ||
Robert |
I think Whitney's expression of the nature of watercolor mirrors the much older painting philosophy of the chinese summed up as "Wu-Wei", which can be translated as "effortless effort." The true master of the brush uses one stroke to represent much and that one stroke looks direct (un-tentative) and spontaneous, though much meditation may have preceeded that one stroke. The secret of genius with the brush is placing oneself in the flow of the Tao and allowing nature to express itself through the brush as we step aside and let it happen. Use the force, Luke. | ||
Robert |
Amen | ||
Eric |
This looks like the time to trot out the legendary Ed Whitney's thoughts on watercolor: THE VIRTUES OF WATERCOLOR- Watercolor has three glories or virtues: 1. Faster rhythms-one stroke three feet long if you wish. 2. Lovelier precipitations, the truth involved here being that substances obeying their own laws do beautiful things. 3. Its white paper showing through a transparent wash is the closest approximation to light in all the media, and light is the loveliest thing that exists. WATERCOLOR'S NATURE- The nature and essence of watercolor is its spontaneity, the swift seizure of a single impression, not the careful building up of design and inclusion of carefully defined detail. That is oil, gouache, or casein painting. Taste is questionable when there is a too arbitrary extension of the natural province of the medium. | ||
Robert |
One more thing-- Implicit in the phraise plein air is an impressionistic loose style. Thus, yes, in a certain sense, plein air in a very broad sense, is a an impressionistic style, not just a description of where you set up to paint. | ||
Robert |
BTW--Ted Nuttal lives in Kalispel, Montana, at the south end of Glacier NP. I am planning to go up there and take private lessons from him in the spring. He's also a fellow guitarist and does an incredible version of the Beatle's "I'm a Loser"--totally in his own style. He is the cover artist on the fall (I believe) 2003 Watercolor Magazine and the article within gives the bare bones of how he works--nice paintings in that article. | ||
Robert |
Greg--I just returned from a Ted Nuttal watercolor portrait workshop for three days and just checked my computer. This is an interesting debate. Here's my 2 cents. I could not paint like you if a gun was held to my head and the heads of all my children and I had as long as I wanted to try. Your draftsmanship and sense of brilliant daylight is, frankly, moving in its directness. You use a lot of detail but it serves the overall purpose and doesn't interfere with the big statement. The shadow under the truck is my favorite part of the painting because it so aptly states the intensity of the sunlight. I feel like I have to wear shades to see the painting it is so full of light! It is also, in my opinion, categorizable as photo realism. In reading Anon #6109.89 's "criticism" I think, in context of plein air, it comes off as being opinonated and helpful. Opinionated, in my understanding of human interaction, is a good thing. I think if we all fall into to being simply "supportive" we make one of the biggest errors people can make with one another--not respecting their ability to take constructive criticism. Anon. seems to have respected your maturity, Greg, and your response indicated you took the constructive criticism. I frankly, agree with Anon--the watercolor medium as a meduium seems almost irrelevant in the painting. It could easily have been an oil or casein by it's overall look. I think Anon is suggesting that if you want a recognizable watercolor look to your painting, you might want to seek out someone's work you admire who pulls off that look and take a workshop. I think this is great advice since I just got back from a workshop about giving portraits a greater "watercolor" look! Alsot everyone in the workshop was a very "tight" photorealistic sort of painter and some of them began producing work that had a looser, watercoloresque feel. It could be endlessly debated that a looser watercolor feel is merely an opinion and not the only way to go. But let's get real here. That loose, watercolor feel is the holy grail for most w/c artist and is very difficult to do well. I picked up some tips that will revolutionsize certain aspects of my painting, tips not so much verbalizable, but tips I got from watching the atrist work and talk about his works--he answered nagging questions I had. I recall a fellow student in my first Jr. high art class--7th grade--under a great local artist --Henri Gadbois (man was I lucky)--saying, after Mr. Gadbois criticised his work--I'd rather have him critize my work that praise it since I learn from the criticism and not from constant praise. Wisdom from a 7th grader!!!! | ||
Sid |
I meant to add--plein air paintings perhaps tend to be loose because we don't have time or patience to paint slowly and carefully? Or maybe because the bugs were biting? Or they may be loose because we want them that way. Sid | ||
Sid |
Is "plein air" painting a style? Isn't it more to do with where you paint--outside, looking at the actual object/ scene--and you can do it in most any style--loose, tight, photorealistic?? I guess this is what George said earlier. By the way, I'm not irritated today. I'm just an old curmudgeon (love that word). Greg__ I'm originally a New Hampshire boy, long ago. Now live in western Montana in the Bitterroot Valley near Missoula. Just moved here from the Paradise Valley just north of Yellowstone near where you said you visit. Montana is a wonderful state, unless you have to drive across it in winter! Sid | ||
Eric |
Greg, I tried flyfishing for the first time last summer in Montana and you are correct. Watercolor and flyfishing...hard to control...and very addictive. I was on the Clark Fork River, east of Missoula. Love the Bozeman, Livingston area also. I also love the area around Glacier Nat'l Park. | ||
George |
HA!! I’ll have to share this one with my wife (There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."). My wife has been telling me that (in different words) for a long time. She’ll be happy to know that others agree with her. | ||
greg |
I just heard these quotes and thought I would share: Never be afraid to try something new. Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic. AND: There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness." enjoy...I did...he he he :) | ||
greg |
variety is the spice of life. It was not mean, just an opinion of this not so plein air painting. I am not offended, life is too short. Sid: where abouts in Montana do you live? I love Montana.....I usually stay in the Big Timber area, between Billings and Bozeman. We stay at a ranch on the northern most tip of Yellowstone. FYI to all: If you think controlling watercolor is hard... try Flyfishing!!! | ||
George |
Wow! Four posts in the time it took me to type my last post. Great! It seems all the “issues” have been resolved. | ||
George |
Tachee, those are really good questions! First, was Anon mean spirited? I reread the post and I didn’t think the comment of; “It is as exciting to look at as a photo”, is all that mean, but rather more a comment based on personal preference. Perhaps it would have been better if Anon had said so. However, I did think the “highly” in the sentence; “I highly suggest taking a workshop”, was a bit over the top. So, I understand your concern about the “spirit” of the post. But, not knowing Anon personally, and not knowing what “spirit” was intended, I’ll reserve judgment. Your major question of what is “plein air style” is a great question. This may have already been discussed on other threads, but I haven’t read enough at this site to know. Maybe the word “style” is the wrong word to use here. Plein air can be either tight or loose. It can be realistic in style (Homer for example), or it can be impressionistic in style (Hassam for example) or it can be abstract in style (Marin for example). But, the point I think Anon was trying to make (correct me if I’m wrong) is that Greg’s painting, while a great photorealistic painting, is not a painting that could be called plein air. Also, I took Anon’s comment about loosening up to mean that if Greg is interested in more of a plein air look in his paintings (topic of the thread), he could work at better using the natural spontaneity of watercolor. This however, does not mean that Greg needs to be sloppy (many people inaccurately associate loose with sloppy). In this regard I thought Anon was trying to be helpful. You also mentioned Sid the Irritated. I loved his post, especially the signature; “Sid the Irritated”. Good humor! But, I’m curious why you see mean spiritedness in Anon’s post and not in Sid’s (along comes another "watercolor expert")? No! Forget my curiosity, I understand your motivation. | ||
marie |
I find it useful sometimes to explore techniques that are not my natural style. My technique tend to be loose, but I find that from time to time it's good for me to do a really tight, academic drawing/painting. It forces me to observe and articulate details that I might otherwise miss in a flurry of paint, and it helps me when I return to my normal style. Likewise, I imagine it would be helpful for a tight painter occasionally to set a timer for, say, 20 or 30 minutes on a plein air painting. Painting fast and loose forces one to focus on the big values and shapes, which can be helpful when you return to your normal style. Greg, I am not implying in any way that there is anything wrong with the way you handle value -- you handle all that extremely well. Occasionally it's good to try something radically different. Consider it an exercise, not something to do every day. | ||
greg |
sorry forgot, Webster's says: Pronunciation: "plAn-'ar, -'er; ple-'nar, -'ner Function: adjective Etymology: French, open air 1 : of or relating to painting in outdoor daylight 2 : of or relating to a branch of impressionism that attempts to represent outdoor light and air wow....dictionary usage....I am getting more and more like Robert everyday......:) | ||
greg |
actually....to me, to say it looks like a photo is kind of a compliment. In this tight realistic style it is what I try for, yet with a blend of style and painterlyness...is that a word? :) | ||
greg |
Thank you all for your kind words and comments. ANON is correct. This is not plein air painting, but it is the closest I have ever done to painting outdoors without relying on a photos 100%. I have really tried to paint loose, but I just have a hard time with it. I really love tight work. Most of the artists I admire paint this way. "Watercolor seems almost irrelevant as your medium here." True in a way. This could easily be an oil. If it were, we would not be having this discussion. This type of painting is not what a lot of watercolor looks like. If you saw the original up close you would see something more painterly and the use of edges hard and soft, and a multitude of values that blend with a "watercolor look". to SID THE IRRITATED: don't fret, I am not upset about any comments here. this is a forum for all to speak. I appretiate and learn from everyone. The Sistine Chapel is a stable as anything. It has survived a lot longer that even Michaelangelo envisoned I'm sure. It has survived many wars and ruling parties. Many great works on paper and canvas have been lost, stolen, or burned in a fire. Is anything REALLY archival? It is a toss of the dice. thank you all again for your encouragement. :) my cyber buddies! | ||
tachee |
i am confused. what is plein air style? do you mean loose? classic loose watercolor? when i think of plein air i do not think of w/c first. it began with monet, pisarro, etc. oilmen painting with pure color in broken strokes. he did it in the studio, so it really is not an open air painting, according to some. george, i felt anon was mean spirited. as exciting as a photo? she was not nice. high 5's to sid the irritated- you said it best. | ||
George |
I think you guys are being a little hard on Anon. The topic of this thread was; “more Plain air.” Therefore, Anon’s comments were appropriate. And, he did add that Greg’s “Photorealism is a skill” and that Greg “is adept at it.” But, the point (that everyone seems to have missed) is this; the painting isn’t plein air in style. | ||
John Preston |
I thought you got the best of what outdoor and indoor painting has to offer. The combination of both practices is as old as watercolor itself. | ||
Sid |
Good grief! This is an unending struggle. We go round and round and finally get everyone, or nearly everyone, on the board to agree that we all see and do things differently, and you should paint the way you like and the results are satisfactory if you, the painter, feel you succeeded in accomplishing what you set out to do. Then, along comes another "watercolor expert" who just has to tell you you are not doing things "correctly." To say, "I appreciate your style but I do things differently,and I do them lile this" is one thing. To say, "you should take courses in this or that technique because you are not 'doing it right'" always really irritates me!! I'm not sure there is a "right" and "wrong"--only this way and that way, take your pick. I suppose Michaelangelo was "wrong" because he painted on ceilings! Is that really archival??? Greg, I really like your painting style too. I live in Montana and I appreciate the subject matter particularly! Sid the Irritated | ||
marie |
Greg, I love your paintings. Do what's right for you. | ||
tachee |
greg- anon#6,000 and change is wrong wrong wrong. i love this truck. i love the story the painting tells. to prove it, look at eugene's comments about wyeth. does not get any better than that! of course, i mostly do tight-ish paintings. so what do i know? i know i like this. you keep it up. | ||
Eugene |
ANON. It doesn't look like a photo to me. Greg's painting style is tight. And he does it well. I too prefer a looser style but that does not mean that Greg shoiuld change. If we all painted loose it would result in boring sameness. Andrew Wyeth is tight, John Pike is loose....that doesn't make one better than the other. Greg I think you have a style that is your own. My advice-- stick with it and perfect it. | ||
Anon #6109.89 |
Greg-- Is this a photo or a painting? Photorealism is a skill and you are adept at it. It is as exciting to look at as a photo. Watercolor seems almost irrelevant as your medium here. I highly suggest taking a workshop where you will learn about lost and found edges, softening edges, value patterns, and especially to loosen up and let the medium speak. | ||
Raliegh |
I like that picture alot Greg, remember you have your own personal style which clearly shows here. | ||
George |
Longest = three days. Shortest= one hour. Your painting is beautiful, but overly photographic for a plein air work. It might have been better if you had done the entire work on location. Others may disagree, but that’s my opinion. Things that move (shadows, animals, and so on…) are typically done on site from memory, or from bits of visual data reorganized into the existing compositional requirements. | ||
greg |
the man driving this truck was actually older than the truck.........if you can believe it. This was near Livingston, Montana. very close to Michael Keaton's ranch. There were 1000's of cattle roaming free that day. | ||
greg |
What is the longest you have spent on an outdoor painting? what is the least amount? Do you paint all of the shadows first, or objects that will move?, since the light changes and the figures won't stand still. I will post one more work here for you all to see. It is the closest to plein air I have done. I sketched this outside and did some quick color sketches, and took a few photos, then finished it in the studio. I has a haze too it, it was very bright outside that day and the colors were very washed out.  |
