| Author | Message | |||
  Ahughes798 Junior Member Username: Ahughes798 Post Number: 14 Registered: 8-2008 |
Hi Whitewater, Most of my paintings are kind of weird, I guess. I don't have a website. If you're interested, my e-mail is ahughes798@ameritech.net, I could send you some jpegs. I have been painting since Fall of 2007, when I took my first watercolour class. I have been in a watercolour class ever since then, and in addition, this semester I am taking a drawing class because I feel the need to "see" better. I'm not studying art...it's not my major, but it's something I enjoy. I guess I paint things that intrique me, for whatever reason. My last painting was a 1973 Grand Prix, because I used to own one. | |||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 385 Registered: 10-2006 |
AHughes - very interesting painting. Interesting subject, well done. Not easily forgotten. I'd like to see more of your work. Do you have a website? You state that you are a student. Are you studying art? | |||
Ahughes798 New member Username: Ahughes798 Post Number: 9 Registered: 8-2008 |
A picture of a corn snake that was found dead(unfortunately) by the side of the road in Door County, WI, in June. I did it from memory, I didn't have my camera with me at the time.  | |||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 485 Registered: 8-2006 |
We used to have a joke that we would have to ask Salminen to judge one of our shows so that someone else would have an opportunity to win first place. Seriously, he is one of my favorite painters and an incredibly nice person. I highly recommend his workshops. Eugene, your paintings are all awesome. | |||
George Unregistered guest |
Very strong contrast......well balanced....I like it. Salminen has won an award in every national show I've been to. | |||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 512 Registered: 8-2006 |
 just finished this one full sheet -- from a combination of several of my photos Dale The turkey painting previously posted was accepted in the PWS international show but didn't win a prize, the competition was too much for me Simons, Salminen , etc. | |||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 510 Registered: 8-2006 |
Concerning my letter in the Artist’s magazine. It was about an article they published about Adolph Dehn. It said that during WW2 he ignored the need for saving gas and rubber tires, and took trips into the mountains to paint.. Then he became an objector and served time in prison rather than serve in the army. Then after the war he took scholarships and grants from sources in the country he refused to defend. I gave three years of my life to this country, being drafted at 18, just out of high school. It wasn’t in my plans---I wanted to got to college or art school. So it’s a sore spot for me when I hear or read about people take advantage of everything that this country offers, but give nothing back. I ended my note by saying that Adolph may have been a fine artist but he was not a good citizen.. | |||
Garydoc Advanced Member Username: Garydoc Post Number: 172 Registered: 8-2006 |
Dale, I've been away from the board for awhile, and have been reviewing the recent pages...that amaryllis is truly amazing and so different from what i've seen of your paintings usually posted. Gary | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 708 Registered: 8-2006 |
Rekha, There is no doubt that Dale's striking use of color is the strongest single element in his painting, but look at the subtle variations in the color (both hue and value), both here and in his strawberries, that render the subjects lifelike and realistic. Also consider the subdued, (forest-like?)muted colors, yet interesting variations, in the background. And, yes, he has the stalk right (I have grown amaryllis)-- it is stiff and fibrous, strong enough to support the flower when watered properly. By the way, good to hear from you again!!  | |||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 443 Registered: 8-2006 |
I agree with Jack but also question my own attraction to the painting. Is it the striking colours of the paints or the painting itself? I haven't seen any paintings from Dale that are painted from drab-coloured objects, for example, leaf litter on the forest floor, or sauce pouring out of a Worcestershire sauce bottle etc etc. With Marie's paintings there is nothing to challenge: she brings concrete to colourful life. Just one more comment on the Amaryllis painting: how can such a thin,long stem support the huge flowers? | |||
Joanna Senior Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 224 Registered: 10-2006 |
faints! Gosh, Dale, that is spectacular. I love it. So lively, it just feels like you could stroke the flower and feel the waxiness of the petals of the amaryllis. | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 707 Registered: 8-2006 |
Splendid, Dale. You really are doing some of the best work of your life, at least from what you have shared with us on the Board! | |||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 507 Registered: 8-2006 |
my latest--full sheet 140# arches cp permanent rose. cad red, viridian, hookers green ultramarine deep,burnt sienna, gamboge, mineral violet  | |||
Joanna Senior Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 220 Registered: 10-2006 |
I really can't scan it in, due to copyright laws. The Watercolor Artist usually has a cd of a year's issues available for a favorable price eventually, and I pick those up to keep from storing magazines I want to review later on. I am not sure if Eugene can share it or if he cares to, but in any case, I feel I must not, without permission, put something like that up here. I do apologize. | |||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 504 Registered: 8-2006 |
Hey Folks--My given name is Dale EUGENE ZIegler. When I first began posting it seemed the fashion to be anon. I'll keep posting as Eugene but sign as Dale. (i never liked my middle name) DALE | |||
George Unregistered guest |
Joanna, I went to the local book store and discovered the current issue of Watercolor Artist is the June issue. Is it possible to scan and post Eugene’s letter, as Rekha did with the page from Seago's book? Rekha, I love Seago's acceptance that he had to unlearn many things. Too often the hardest part of learning something new is the prerequisite unlearning of bad habits. | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 697 Registered: 8-2006 |
The "talent," "gift," or "genius" is in having a "feel" for what is "right" in terms of composition and design. We might not be able to analyze it as well as George can, but we just seem to have an instinct, as Eugene said so well. Having the instinct, unfortunately, is not the same as having the ability to produce with your hands what you know in your mind and heart. There is no substitute for trial and error, and learning from the errors! As others have said, that means constant work and practice! It means a lot of paint and paper may never make it to a frame (or shouldn't!). Most of us, if not all of us, will never reach pure perfection -- but we can enjoy the pursuit of excellence, and perhaps reach real enjoyment and satisfaction with some of our paintings, or at least some elements in our paintings. If others enjoy our efforts, so much the better. | |||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 442 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, you are so right. Not being able to paint currently I have had a lot of time to read and reflect. I have come to the conclusion it is not the Raphael brushes you own, or the best most expensive paints or to some extent the papers you own it's what you do with them. I am reading Edward Seago's Canvas to cover (1947) and have attached a page which reflects exactly what a lot of you experienced artists say  | |||
Joanna Senior Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 219 Registered: 10-2006 |
PS: Eugene has a letter published in Watercolor Artist April issue regarding some history and one particular artist. | |||
Joanna Senior Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 218 Registered: 10-2006 |
"George and all. I never think "design" or "composition". CAll it insight, instinct, or whatever. I call it a learned thing." When I took art in high school, my very critical teacher did say that I'd get composition right off the bat, and that I used the entire negative (photo class) I've always gotten "props" on my compositions. Later, I gave a very nice camera to my husband, who I perceived had the same natural skill with composition. You never see poles growing out of heads in his photos and even snapshots are well-thought-out. Is it is a learned thing?--my arseumption is that it is an art of seeing. First you really look at what you are doing, then you automatically correct via feedback (either in your drawing or photo.) The "learned" part could be the feedback. Many people NEVER look at what they are seeing (just ask anyone to be an eyewitness) and then they don't analyze what they see, even subconsciously. If you have a talent for composition,however, you look and analyze for sure. | |||
George Unregistered guest |
Well said Eugene! When a child first learns to ride a bike he, or she, must think hard about balance or the bike will fall over. Over time the subconscious mind takes control and the child doesn’t need to consciously think about balance - it just happens. Design is the same way, except the time from conscious to subconscious control is a lot longer. Oh - and my hair is gray too. | |||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 502 Registered: 8-2006 |
George and all. I never think "design" or "composition". CAll it insight, instinct, or whatever. I call it a learned thing. I was a graphic designer for years after I finished art school. Design can be learned and after a while it becomes instinctive-- you just do it without much thought. I get weary of hearing of "God given talent" and of being "gifted". Certainly some of us were blessed with more ability and desire, but without hard work and years of painting talent is wasted We can read books, watch cd's, listen to lectures but----The best teacher is practice, practice, practice George, thank you for pointing out all the things did right. But to be truthful, I didn't plan them. They just seemed to happen. I admire your ability to analyze and show us these interesting patterns. This must be the result of years of study and practice too. Eugene and George, the little hair have left IS GREY, but until you pointed it out, I didn't know why. THANKS | |||
George Unregistered guest |
Has anyone noticed that the outer points of all the figures fit on the edge of a large circle? Also, the body of the man fits perfectly in the center of this large circle. Spend some time with this painting. Eugene has given you a gift. Use this painting to learn to see visual relationships as Eugene does.  | |||
George Unregistered guest |
The only thing I could find to say about this painting that was even slightly negative was the overly simplified modeling of the boy’s hand, but then I realized the pattern of the fingers repeat the pattern of the birds wing and tail feathers. Thank you Eugene for this wonderful lesson in design!  | |||
George Unregistered guest |
I don’t want to swell Eugene’s head but this painting is a good lesson in design, and I think the people who look in on this page without ever posting could learn from it. There are two horizontal scratches in the wall to the right of the bird’s head, and one horizontal scratch to the right of the bench. If these three small scratches on the wall had not been placed where they are the painting would not have been in balance visually. Most artists would have left them out. Eugene instinctively knew they were needed. My guess is Eugene has a lot of gray hair. A person doesn’t gain this level of artistic insight over night. | |||
George Unregistered guest |
Eugene may, or may not have, planned it this way, but look at all the lines that radiate from the elbow of the boy; the bench, the tail of the bird, the shadow on the wall, the eyes of the figures, the heads, and the eye of the bird, all against the vertical pattern of the siding. An experienced eye will intuitively move visual components to the location where they provide the best overall design. Good job Eugene!  | |||
George Unregistered guest |
I agree with you Eugene, the cool light on the wall and the warm light on the figures was contradictory. Now the entire picture is bathed in the same warm light. It has nice visual balance too. | |||
Joanna Senior Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 217 Registered: 10-2006 |
I use that same trick--a glaze in my case, usually of quinacridone deep gold (similar) over the entire thing. This is really what it needed, but I think the boy's face and the turkey need a bit of shadow or some darkening (although it could be my monitor.) DEFINITELY NOT A TURKEY OF A PAINTING!!! lovely! | |||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 501 Registered: 8-2006 |
I did this panting a few days ago, but was not quite happy with it. Today I decided the background should be a little darker and warmer. So i took a big chance of ruining the whole thing and did a BIG, BOLD WASH OF burnt sienna and ivory black over it. It was risky, but I knew i wouldn't be happy as it was. I think it's an improvement do you?   | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 696 Registered: 8-2006 |
Eugene, good for you. The long foreground ascending the hill is the kind of thing Wyeth liked to do. Don't worry about smoothing out brushstrokes -- I like them and I like the texture, suggesting grass and uneven ground. As far as the white house goes, I simply have never felt that it's a good practice to put white objects in corners, for fear of drawing the eye there and leading it off the page. I think the house would be better obscured by more bushes, trees, etc. -- letting in peek through and giving a little mystery. Just my opinion. | |||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 500 Registered: 8-2006 |
AFTER READING YOUR COMMENTS AND OTHERS FROM ARTIST FRIENDS. I've decided not to crop, because cropping makes it just another nice landscape I think the big green foreground is what makes it unique. I will try to smooth it out a bit---but the original doesn't show nearly as much brushwork, This sometimes happens with certain colors when I photograph paintings. The house windows will be easy to weaken. Then i'll frame it and enter it in a local show--I'll let you know what the judges say. I took a big chance on this one-- i've found that if you don't take risks you'll never advance and paint nice but not very exciting paintings. | |||
midnight_baseball Unregistered guest |
eugene, george and the others make a number of good points. here's another one to consider: i would cover the lower third with mat and see how you like it. it tweaks the green dominance down just a bit, and adjusts the focal point bringing us a little closer to the house.  for me, it makes the red/orange pop a little more, while leaving both of those beautiful textured shades of green to hop over in the foreground. best regards, chris! | |||
George Unregistered guest |
Griz has a good eye for these things. I don’t think you need to make major changes to fix the problem Griz has identified with the white house – just remove a tad of the dark value on the upper windows of the house. This will lower the contrast with the white wall and reduce the visual pull. | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 695 Registered: 8-2006 |
Eugene, I agree with both George and Marie about the foreground. Unlike George, I enjoy seeing your bold brushwork and think its texture is probably needed to suggest pasture instead of water. The thing that does pull my eye away from your center of interest is the white house in the corner. You have played it down, but it's still a little prominent. Could it be smaller, more distant, and just suggested behind or among trees -- without details like windows? | |||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 479 Registered: 8-2006 |
I agree with George. Don't crop it. The dark, cool colors in the foreground are a marvelous balance to the warm building. I *love* the color in this piece. I wish I could do color like that | |||
George Unregistered guest |
I like the color! The red-orange and the blue-green balance really well to create an exciting image. That’s why those artists who have advised you NOT to crop are right. If you cut it back you lose the balance in the color relationships. The others who think you should crop are looking at the brush work in the foreground. It’s distracting. What I’d do is try to inprove the brushwork in the foreground. That may be hard to do, but it’s a better solution than cutting the painting. | |||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 499 Registered: 8-2006 |
to crop or not to crop, that is the question. is it nobler to get out the shears??????????? Some say crop! while other very fine artists say NO. They maintain that the big dark foreground really make it a strong and different piece opinions please  | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 687 Registered: 8-2006 |
Robert, did we miss something? I don't see a picture of your painting with your post. | |||
Robert Unregistered guest |
Please critique this. It is a plein air landscape, 22X30, done on location in about 1 hour. | |||
Joanna Senior Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 216 Registered: 10-2006 |
That's really a powerful piece, Eugene. I adore it. Reminds me of our local farmer market (1/4 mile away--fresh produce, beautiful crafts, nice people.) | |||
George Unregistered guest |
I like it! The colors and patterns of the quilt are mesmerizing and the white bonnets provide an asymmetrical rhythm that balances the tight symmetry of the quilt. The balance between symmetry and asymmetry is about as good as it gets. I think it’s one of your best designs. You raise an interesting issue about illustration. An illustration stresses the subject more than the form, and it’s on the rise in recent years in the watercolor community because of the increasing overdependence on photographs. Sometimes the difference between illustration and fine art is clear cut and easy to see, but other times there is a very fine line between illustration and fine art. For example; most of the classical art was all about telling a story - in essence it was a type of illustration. I do agree with the critics about the lack of artistic merit in Illustration, but with an important provision. Not all paintings that tell a story are entirely about the subject. Your painting falls into this middle ground. You’ve created a work that is about both subject and form. The story is clear, yet the formal relationships are equally gripping. | |||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 497 Registered: 8-2006 |
 This is a full sheet that did at the Springmaid workshop for our local Hospice annual Labor Day fundraising auction. Since they are celebrating their 25th anniversary, they will auction the original and make 25 limited edition prints to sell. Comments please. I feel that some critics will say it is an illustration rather than a painting. My answer is what is the Sistine Chapel but one big illustration. I worked very hard on this one, trying to keep it realistic with out getting too stiff and tight. I was provided with about a dozen reference photos, but the composition and drawing was a tough, time consuming job. The quilt pattern had to be authentic-- it's called Sunshine and Shadows. I hope they like it! | |||
George Unregistered guest |
I like it! It has bold colors and a bold design. I especially like the strong angular alignments. I’ll overlay some red lines so everyone can see the strength of the design. I’m not sure I agree beginners need to worry about "Loosening up", but that’s content for another thread.  | |||
Joanna Senior Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 215 Registered: 10-2006 |
I'm teaching a watercolor class --this class was "Loosening up" (beginners, and you can't begin this too early.) This was my demo--I brought in two very realistic paintings plus a sketch and then painted this during class to show you don't have to stick with pure realism.  | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 682 Registered: 8-2006 |
Eugene, George says "Key West Skyline" is his favorite of your paintings, capturing qualities he especially admires. It is very special. Let me add that I think that your "Fallen Giant," like your "Harbor Reflections," are two of my favorites because of the lovely washes and the way you elicit and emphasize the beauty of the reflective surface of water. They evidence not only your technical ability, but the way you see and artistically interpret what you look at. | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 681 Registered: 8-2006 |
Eugene, as you can see, your posts came up just fine, even though they may have been duplicated when you thought you were having a problem and re-posted them. You have posted photos of those paintings before, and I truly love them. Don't mind at all seeing them again. Seeing them again confirms that you know all you need to know about color and value contrasts, as well as other principles of design and composition, and don't really need any additional advice in those matters. Sorry once again for my naievite in that regard. You and Philip Jamison may vary in style, but, as George says, placing your paintings side by side would evidence similar quality and similar training in design and composition! Granted that the painting you posted of the English pub was a quick demo, would it be possible to render it in the way you did the paintings in your 491 post, or would it lose something you intended? | |||
George Unregistered guest |
Eugene, In addition to the two paintings you have posted I also think your “Key West Skyline” painting is a wonderful example of the perfect combination of bright colors, strong value relationships and superb design work. It’s my favorite of all of your paintings that I’ve seen here, or at your website. When this or one of your other splendid paintings is placed next to a Jamison painting so that the two can be compared to one another, it becomes clear not only that both are of equal quality but more importantly it’s easy to see what is meant by the term “style.” As both you and Griz have suggested, all good artists have their own distinctive style. I’m not sure beginning artists understand what style means. The discussion in these last few posted messages may help some of the silent onlookers to better grasp the meaning of Style. | |||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 494 Registered: 8-2006 |
sorry. i did something wrong 3 times. i informed terry-- we'll see what happens. | |||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 493 Registered: 8-2006 |
Thanks for all the suggestions. Remember, this was a demo done in less than two hours with a bunch of people watching. not very conducive for good thinking. DArker background values would have helped pop out that white building; there were flower boxes atop the wall --- overhanging the wall and casting a shadow under them which should have been a little more irregular. Phil and I are different painters-- We both rely heavily on shapes and values It was drummed into us in school. We admire each others work-- I own one of his and he has one of mine But my most successful paintings have color too. and It is part of my style just as subdued color is part of his. here are 2 that show my point. They both have strong values but i think the strong color help take them out of the ordinary. both were accepted in national shows. the man in the boat won an award.- I think it needed that red hat. thanks again for the stimulating discussions. i may have posted these before--sorry if I did. | |||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 492 Registered: 8-2006 |
Thanks for all the suggestions. Remember, this was a demo done in less than two hours with a bunch of people watching. not very conducive for good thinking. DArker background values would have helped pop out that white building; there were flower boxes atop the wall --- overhanging the wall and casting a shadow under them which should have been a little more irregular. Phil and I are different painters-- We both rely heavily on shapes and values It was drummed into us in school. We admire each others work-- I own one of his and he has one of mine But my most successful paintings have color too. and It is part of my style just as subdued color is part of his. here are 2 that show my point. They both have strong values but i think the strong color help take them out of the ordinary. both were accepted in national shows. the man in the boat won an award.- I think it needed that red hat. thanks again for the stimulating discussions. i may have posted these before--sorry if I did. | |||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 491 Registered: 8-2006 |
Thanks for all the suggestions. Remember, this was a demo done in less than two hours with a bunch of people watching. not very conducive for good thinking. DArker background values would have helped pop out that white building; there were flower boxes atop the wall --- overhanging the wall and casting a shadow under them which should have been a little more irregular. Phil and I are different painters-- We both rely heavily on shapes and values It was drummed into us in school. We admire each others work-- I own one of his and he has one of mine But my most successful paintings have color too. and It is part of my style just as subdued color is part of his. here are 2 that show my point. They both have strong values but i think the strong color help take them out of the ordinary. both were accepted in national shows. the man in the boat won an award.- I think it needed that red hat. thanks again for the stimulating discussions. i may have posted these before--sorry if I did.   | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 680 Registered: 8-2006 |
Eugene, Maidensmith is right. Your demo is lovely as it stands, and I have no doubt that you teach a great class. You are a very successful professional artist, and you know more about these matters than most of us, Furthermore, you have your own distinctive and admirable style! There is no doubt that the scene would have the color you have chosen, given the bright light you suggest was present. (That's probably the reason your friend Philip Jamison said he tried to paint on cloudy days, as it suited his style better. His style is not your style.) George said it best: greater value contrasts are simply what he likes (as do I), and, as he said, are simply a matter of personal preference and would not necessarily make the painting "better." Mea culpa | |||
Maidensmith Member Username: Maidensmith Post Number: 35 Registered: 8-2006 |
Eugene, I love your demo painting and I'll bet that your class is great. | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 679 Registered: 8-2006 |
Sorry about that! Let me try again:  | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 678 Registered: 8-2006 |
Believing that people should "put up" or "shut up," I thought it might also be useful for me to post a small tree sketch I did after the one in John Yardley's "Tree at Wallfield." The thing that is so interesting is the tree's shape, which is typical of vine covered trees in England that so fascinated him and English painters like Ed Seago. It's not so much color as the tree's contrast with the snow, which enhances interest.
| |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 677 Registered: 8-2006 |
Eugene, In regard to my last post, take a look again at Philip Jamison's book 'Capturing Nature in Watercolor,' and particularly his finished demonstration on page 59 titled 'Abernathy's Farm.' What George has mentioned in terms of value contrasts is well represented by that work as well as others in his book. I also like Jamison's comments on page 23 about the painting he calls 'Studio.' -- "In the late fifties, as I experimented more with using watercolor and charcoal together, I found the forms in my painting becoming more simplified. It also seems that as I reduced the subject matter to near abstraction, my color was likewise reduced almost exclusively to neutral tones. This painting of my first studio is almost completely abstract. Although I painted it directly from life, my interest was not in the subject matter as such but in the shapes and color. I used a basically neutral palette, but I feel very strongly that a painting can have "color" without using bright colors." | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 676 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, when I was commenting on Eugene's painting, I was tempted to say that I thought it relied a little too much on color at the expense of value contrasts, which could have produced a center of interest like the one you suggest. Eugene might benefit from using some of the style of Philip Jamison, an artist he admires, who uses more muted colors (as does Andrew Wyeth) and value contrasts. | |||
George Unregistered guest |
Eugene, I like it. It’s very colorful, and a great scenic view of a riverside pub. The only changes I’d make would be to adjust the values a bit. But, that’s just me. I like strong value contrasts. I’ll attach a photo edited version of the value changes I’d make. I’ll post it in sepia so you can see the specific value corrections more clearly. Please understand, I’m not saying stronger values would make the painting better. It’s just my personal preference.  | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 673 Registered: 8-2006 |
Eugene, it's a lovely scene. I like the directness and the simplicity gained by your use of symbols for the trees more than detail (the trunks and branches are done rapidly, which unavoidably gives them strange shapes in places). However I'm having trouble reading the wall with the flowers. Does the container for the flowers extend beyond the wall? Is that why the shadow forms a straight line? If so, how is the container supported? I can't read the depth of what I'm seeing very well. If it's only the flowers that overhang the wall, it seems the shadow would have irregular edges. | |||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 490 Registered: 8-2006 |
This is a demo I did yesterday for a small class I'm teaching 10x14 140# arches viridian, cad.red, perm.rose, new gamboge, ultramarine, raw and burnt sienna  | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 670 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, did you see Nancy Gaucher-Thomas' "Silver Votive" in the winter issue of American Artist Watercolor? It's a good reproduction, and Marian might want to take a look at it as well and also read the article. | |||
George Unregistered guest |
sorry about the double post. This site needs a delete button. | |||
George Unregistered guest |
I did it on the paint program that comes free with windows. It was mostly a lot cut and paste. | |||
George Unregistered guest |
I did it on the paint program that comes free with windows. It was mostly a lot cut and paste. | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 668 Registered: 8-2006 |
Interesting, George. Did you do that with the computer, or your brush? You have made the wall much more neutral, causing both the windows and the foreground items to play better, yet have added a little interest to the wall as well without being distracting. Good work! | |||
George Unregistered guest |
It’s a fun picture – I see it as having lots of potential. I've been fooling around with it just for fun - how about this??  | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 667 Registered: 8-2006 |
Thanks, George. I now can see better how the vertical lines of the railing shadows on the faces of the steps actually have been corrected from their slight tilt to the right in the original. By the way, I meant to say that I also noticed the straighter lines of the siding, though I think you are right about not doing too much with the background, in order to keep attention on the items in the foreground and make them "pop" a little. | |||
George Unregistered guest |
 | |||
George Unregistered guest |
I put the black lines over (right on top of) the vertical shadows in both paintings. The white lines are where the lines of the wall siding should be (to be in proper perspective). If the steps still looks wrong to you it may be because the vertical supports of the railing are still not vertical in either painting. This is because of a confusion about the differences between 2-point and 3-point perspective.  | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 666 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, thanks for the generous comment. I appreciate your effort in editing the photos, but I'm still not sure I see the changes. Can you put her original and her revision side by side -- maybe that would help. Or perhaps you can describe how she placed her shadows differently. Thanks! | |||
George Unregistered guest |
Griz, your last message is very insightful. I think you’ve written something that everyone who judges or appraises a work of art should read. You asked about how Marian had improved the shadows of the railing on the steps in the 2nd painting she posted. In the attachment I cut the steps from Marian’s 2nd painting and pasted them onto her first painting. I also softened the hot spot behind the vase and straightened the wall boards (I didn’t get them into proper perspective, but they’re a little better now). Do you see the improvement in the steps? Marian, 98% of this is your painting (parts of two paintings really).  | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 665 Registered: 8-2006 |
Marian, like George, I visited your website and enjoyed seeing your lovely and gentle paintings. Your use of certain very consistent colors and technique do give you a strongly established style that brings all your varied subjects, regardless of their differences, under its control. I think it will be quite hard for you to try to change or modify that style at this point in your life, and such a change might not be either possible or desirable. (Would Charles Reid want to change his style?) If you are interested in changing your STYLE rather than simply a particular painting, I would have to agree with George that your present style does seem to consistently produce paintings that are somewhat flat or two-dimensional, lacking sufficient contrast and variation in values, color, texture, etc. to distinguish between foreground, middle ground, and background -- and to draw attention to a center of interest. The link he gave you to a painter with a very different style does show you how to overcome that flatness, but it would require a corresponding change in your approach or "style." You can see that the paintings on the link are very different from your paintings. That having been said, if you enjoy your present style, which is no doubt deeply ingrained after 30 years of painting and has not been greatly altered by the various artists with whom you have studied over the years -- and your paintings are selling to a loyal constituency -- it will be very hard to "change horses in midstream." In fact the attempt, as in the case of the revision you tried of your recent posting, may simply weaken rather than enhance your painting as you find it difficult to transcend deeply ingrained habits. You will just paint in essentially the same style, but with distortions as you attempt to force suggestions for changes, that essentially have to do with style and technique, on your paintings. If you are happy with your style, you would do best to look to others who paint with a similar style who best could help you enhance that particular style and any specific painting, as well as advance your level of achievement as a painter. The rest of us, who paint differently, may, in our suggestions for changes in a particular painting, actually be asking for too much in terms of radically altering your characteristic approach and will only frustrate you!} | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 664 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, you wrote that you thought Marian had improved the shadows of the railing on the steps in the painting she posted -- I was trying to see the changes, but I think I'm missing them. | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 663 Registered: 8-2006 |
I'm somewhat relieved about my psychoanalytic situation by recalling that Leonardo da Vinci in several places in his writing encouraged seeking forms and ideas in accidental situations. He advised the painter to look at the stains on a wall and find the heads of men, diverse animals, battles, rocks, seas, clouds, woods, and other things. It's like trying to see images and shapes in cloud formations. Leonardo also encouraged the artist when painting not to refuse to hear anyone's opinion, for "we know very well that though a man many not be a painter, he may have a true conception of the form of another man." Leonardo advises painters to "be desirous of hearing patiently the opinion of others, and consider and reflect carefully whether or not he who censures you has a reason for his censure." This led to his use of looking at his work in a mirror, reversing the image. We are often unable to see defects in our own work as well as others who bring a more detached and objective view -- hence the need to find a way to view our own work in a more novel and removed fashion. We can often see problems in the works of others that we cannot see in our own work. (cf. "Leonardo's Rules of Painting" by James Beck) So, Meoshaugh, you are to be commended for seeking the objective views of others, even if their suggestions cannot be helpfully incorporated in revisions of your work. | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 662 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, I love the "Silver Votive with Twinings!" Menoshaugh, somehow our suggestions have misguided you into a weaker, less dramatic painting -- it doesn't have the strength of your original. If you can capture the drama in "Silver Votive..." in your painting -- with the object of interest playing so well against the background, it will work. Don't try another redo -- go on to something fresh! Eugene, I just saw "eyes" in the ghost I mentioned I saw on the right side of the revision of your painting -- looking at the lady on the bench. The eyes have heavy eyebrows. Do you see them? I can't look at it now without seeing them. What an imagination I must have! I'm going to stick with your original -- as others have said, it a good piece of work. I like the stronger light and color, even though the subject is subtle. Now I'll probably see the negative painting in the original as an open mouth shark about to devour the poor lady! Don't anyone psychoanalyze all this!  | |||
Meoshaugh New member Username: Meoshaugh Post Number: 8 Registered: 1-2009 |
George, Thanks for that link. Great reference. Not sure I can stand doing this painting again.. Maybe I'll just do the background until I like it and THEN do the main parts again.. Super suggestion. I really appreciate you taking the time. | |||
George Unregistered guest |
Marian, I just looked at your web site. It seems you like bright colors. That’s fine. Use the bright colors if that’s your objective. What colors you use isn’t the issue, the point of my earlier message is that it’s more about how you distribute to pigments across the surface of the paper. | |||
George Unregistered guest |
Sorry, that should read; "you're looking for" | |||
George Unregistered guest |
Eugene, Nice painting! If it were mine, I’d put a little more value contrast in it, but that may not be what your going for. The title suggests you’re after subtle relationships. Marian, you improved the appearance of the steps and the shadows that fall across them (well done). One problem is it dosn't look like natural light. What you’re really trying to do is show some objects (steps, railing, window and vase) as seen against the wall of a building. Check out this web site. The artist does a pretty good job of building up a number of layered washes (wet in wet) that create a highly textured surface as the background for the center of interest. Practice the background on scrap paper until you master the subtle light, color and texture your looking for and then give it another try. http://www.nineteenonpaper.com/NancyGThomas.html | |||
Meoshaugh New member Username: Meoshaugh Post Number: 7 Registered: 1-2009 |
Here is my second attempt at the Turquoise Shadows painting (first try is below). I tried to take your suggestions. I think it is a little better but what do you think?  I'm worried about the light beam ending too abruptly and being distracting.. Suggestions are welcome! Marian | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 660 Registered: 8-2006 |
Eugene, I like aspects of both renditions. (The ear move is a good one!) However, I think you have lost balance in the painting by removing the strong negative painting of the bush of the right, even though, as Deecubed noted, it may compete a bit with the figure for the central point of interest. I'm not sure I like the ghostly mist that has replaced the bush either -- maybe if you could lose the edges and "shape" of the ghost it would be better, along with something to give a little weight to the right side. Cropping some of the right might help, but it would leave the figure quite constricted. Isn't it so much easier to offer a critque than to produce the work!!! | |||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 488 Registered: 8-2006 |
Here they are. side by side   The exposure is not quite the same, But you can see that I added glazes of warmer color in the background and did some negative painting. Also corrected some drawing in the head by moving the ear forward, adding some color and softening edges. Added some darks under the bench. Plus darkening a few other accents. i think it is more interesting Thanks for the comments | |||
Meoshaugh New member Username: Meoshaugh Post Number: 6 Registered: 1-2009 |
Eugene, I love it! I think the figure pops enough. Great job. Marian | |||
Deecubed Junior Member Username: Deecubed Post Number: 25 Registered: 12-2007 |
Eugene, Your garden meditation piece overall is lovely. Nice energy. I remember you said you did this in the Ted Nutthall workshop, and that it is not your usual style. Obviously, you are a very accomplished artist, and have your own unique style which is awesome. Yet, you and probably most of us, take workshops and weave and integrate lessons learned back into what we know and have done for years. Sometimes the lessons get in the way of what we know has worked in the past, until they become part of our reportoire. So, all that said, I will share my observations, which may be worth nothing. I looked back at your post 481, where you shared your first iteration of this piece, and detected that one of the changes you made in the current piece is that you did some cropping, which is nice. Another is, that it looks as if you have toned down a bit of the garden growth at the figure's feet and adjacent to the bench. Is that true? I might say that I find the deeper contrast in the original [post 481] provides more punch to the figure. I would also say that another way to have the figure "pop" more would be to put a semi neutral glaze over the "negatively painted" bush that appears to me to "fight" for center stage with your figure. You could also glaze the whitish bush/growth just below the negatively painted bush, to create a bit more contrast with the figure. I recognize that you have posed your figure in sunlight, and you have done a great job of "saying" that. For me, leaving those adjacent bushes white or light appears a bit tepid. I know you want the figure to predominate, and I understand the softness and analagous color of the background, but if it were mine, I might use some lost edge softening with a bit more color [closer to the figure] ... your choice of course, or perhaps a bit of green ... I say that, I guess, testing my own instincts, as I see you have used green, isolated in the vegetation in the lower corner opposite the bench and figure, not woven through the rest of the piece. Please take everything I say with a grain of salt. I, too, am a student on the path, and learn a great deal from critiquing, giving and getting, in my painting groups and classes. I am humbled by your work and the work of others on this site. | |||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 487 Registered: 8-2006 |
started this 1/4 sheet in a workshop and reworked it when I got home. It's a little different for me-- but I sort of like it---what do you think? GARDEN MEDItATION  | |||
Meoshaugh New member Username: Meoshaugh Post Number: 4 Registered: 1-2009 |
No I didn't use masking but it was a pain trying to paint around the rails and I kept going back in to make it darker so it was a lot of work and looks choppy. I'm starting the second version and last night I applied artists tape to those areas in hopes of getting a smoother/deeper/more consistent wash. I haven't used tape in a long time and never tried that scallop wash so we'll see.. Have a good weekend! Marian | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 657 Registered: 8-2006 |
Marian, You weren't wrong to want to add lines to the side of the house for a little more interest. You have captured the look of a frame house with the old asbestos shingle siding used so often in rural Southern homes in the past. Just try to get them a little straighter with a liner after the wash dries, or scrape out a few while damp if you prefer. Some shingles often do sag, so a little variation is fine -- just not curved lines. And you are right in not wanting to make the lines (edges of the shingles) too obvious -- they can be light, and also lost and found. Your lines below the window level actually look much like what I'm suggesting. It's a nice painting, and you've done a lot of good, hard work on the window and the railing. Did you use masking? | |||
Meoshaugh New member Username: Meoshaugh Post Number: 3 Registered: 1-2009 |
George, Grizrev, I am learning more from you that I usually learn reading a whole watercolor book I actually painted this from a photo by just drawing and obviously should have paid more attention to the lines in the shadow. That will help the new painting a lot. I'll also try to do them in one pass rather than going back in. I struggled with the top right area. It was too dull so I went in an added the lines but didn't want them to be too precise and take away from the center of interest. Not a good idea in retrospect. I should have used a smooth graded wash I think. Rereading the handprint site was a great suggestion. I have never tried the scalloped stroke and I want to try that. It might help me. Funny you should mention the orange to the left of the vase. I added that at the end to help pop the center of interest but it bothers me so now I know why. I initially had the same vase shadow colors in the right shadow but again wanted to pop the vase so I went back in and darkened them to black. Sounds like all my last minute fixes were mistakes Oh well. My main goal is to learn and improve so I'm really, really happy to have your help. Thank you so much. Hopefully this will help others too. I'm so happy to have found this site. I love Cheap Joes!! Marian | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 656 Registered: 8-2006 |
Marian, I'm glad you find some of the suggestions helpful. All I know is that at first sight there were things that seemed distorted or confused that made me a little "dizzy," and George has spotted the most confusing element of all that should have been the most obvious -- the lines on the steps. I think he is right to suggest that the easiest solution is to use a two-point perspective consistently with all your lines, which in this painting wouldn't turn out greatly different from working out a three-point perspective. I think it would also help to keep the value (or strength) of the shadow lines uniform throughout the lines. George is right again that my comment on the color transitions has to do with the way you introduced the color changes. It appears that you introduced the warm color into the wet cool color a bit randomly, instead of using a smoother graded wash, transitioning from cool to warm. See Handprint for some help with this: http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/tech24.html#strategies. If you were trying layered washes, it seems you went back in too soon (before the preceding layer dried thoroughly) and mixed the layers of paint with your brush, losing transparency and increasing opacity, dulling your colors. On the other hand, it may be that you intended to do just that in order to contribute to the atmospheric mood that George noted in terms of your use of soft light. Or it may be that you simply saw warm "spots" of light, like the one to the left of the pot where you dropped in the warm color. (However, if there were a warm spotlight there, I don't understand the strong shadow to the left of the pot on the rails and platform. And, by the way, as Marie so often suggests, the shadow to the right of the pot should not be a version of black, but a darker value of the same cool color mix you used on the pot, with some reflected light of a cool color, not warm, in the right portion of the shadow itself) The bottom line is that your choice of technique will be controlled by your purpose, and you are the artist in charge. You know what you intended, what you saw, and how you wanted to interpret what you saw better than we do as observers. We can only let you know our reactions to what we see. Sometimes we get overly analytical and mess with your mind too much! Just enjoy your painting!! | |||
George Unregistered guest |
Meoshaugh, last night I realized I may have been hasty in my advice about your problem with linear perspective. The solution to the problem is really dependant on the drawing method you’re using. Since I don’t know what your approach to drawing is it might be better to give you some alternative solutions. If you are using a modern projection system to transfer your reference photo as a surprisingly large number of watercolor artists are doing today, or you are using the more traditional transfer paper, the solution is to be much more diligent about locating the starting point and the ending point for each line in the painting. If you’re doing your own drawing rather than a mechanical transfer of the photograph the solution is to locate the vanishing points on the drawing board and use a long straight edge (or a long piece of thread) to align each line in the painting with its proper vanishing point. This solution is somewhat difficult for the subject you have selected for your painting because the vanishing points are located a large distance from the surface of the painting. The simpler solution (the one I suggested) is to simplify the design by reducing the three point perspective of the photo to a traditional two point perspective by keeping all the vertical lines as true verticals. Use the solution that best fits with your approach to drawing and/or your knowledge of drawing technique. As to Griz’s comment, he’s referring to the transitions in your wet on wet technique – but I’ll let him address that. | |||
Meoshaugh New member Username: Meoshaugh Post Number: 2 Registered: 1-2009 |
Thank you so much you guys. This will really help me. Not sure what this means though-- "You have used a nice contrast of warm and cool colors, but the transitions seem a bit muddled and in need of more clarification." Do you mean I should make the warm areas on the building larger, for example? I knew I didn't love this painting but wasn't sure why. I'm excited to redo it. Marian}} | |||
George Unregistered guest |
Griz may say he’s an amateur observer, but his observations are always on target – he has been gifted with a very good eye for these things. As always, I agree with everything he has said. I would recommend that you take his comments as helpful, and use them to continue to develop and grow as an artist. I would only add one comment. The shadows cast by the vertical supports of the railing should be vertical when falling on a vertical surface. Your shadows on the vertical part of a step are inclined suggesting an inclined surface which it clearly isn’t given the vertical edge of the riser (in other words all these lines should be parallel). One positive comment (too many negative comments can be discouraging) is that you have made a very good attempt at creating atmosphere and mood with the soft lighting. That’s not easy to do. I’d recommend you do the painting again with an eye toward improvement. You can learn a lot that way. Some of the comments Griz made are not all that difficult to make adjustments for. | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 655 Registered: 8-2006 |
Meoshaugh, The window reflections are nicely done, as well as the directional lines pointing us to your center of interest, but the play of light and shadow to my eye tends to become a little busy and a bit confused, especially on and around the pot and where the beam of light ends so abruptly at the rail. The looseness you have introduced in your brushstrokes on the siding seems to me to distort rather than enhance. To me it would have been better to confine such looseness to the edges of the painting. In this painting you have made the lines of your subject an essential statement and therefore should be careful about destroying or distorting them unnecessarily. You have used a nice contrast of warm and cool colors, but the transitions seem a bit muddled and in need of more clarification. The window and the pot seem to compete equally as centers of interest -- it might be helpful to let one or the other dominate. These are just my initial reactions as an amateur observer. They may or may not be useful to you. Others on this board are more qualified to give a professional critique with helpful suggestions for changes and enhancements. | |||
Meoshaugh New member Username: Meoshaugh Post Number: 1 Registered: 1-2009 |
Hi. I'm new here and would welcome any suggestions on this one. Marian  | |||
Joanna Senior Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 204 Registered: 10-2006 |
Weekend painting: Alliums  | |||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 381 Registered: 10-2006 |
Joanna: I love your painting of the dog. It is so expressive. I can feel the dog's excitement for the walk in the snow. | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 644 Registered: 8-2006 |
Eugene, I found a hardback first printing of Philip Jamison's "Capturing Nature in Watercolor" at a great price on Amazon. It just arrived, in very good condition. It is lovely as well as helpful. Thought you'd like to know. | |||
Deecubed Junior Member Username: Deecubed Post Number: 17 Registered: 12-2007 |
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I attended a Ted Nuttall workshop in August in Coupeville, Washington. Thought he was great ... Good instructor, and good soul, as well as a terrific figure watercolorist. He gives 'way more than most. I look forward to hearing about your experience in his class! | |||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 467 Registered: 8-2006 |
Enjoy the workshops, Eugene. I have heard good things about Ted Nuttall. | |||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 477 Registered: 8-2006 |
I'm leaving for the Springmaid workshop in Myrtle Beach on Nov. 1. one week with TED NUTTALL doing figures and portraits and one week with DIANNE MAXEY, doing flowers. will show some of my work when i get back (if it's presentable) Dale | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 643 Registered: 8-2006 |
Marie & Eugene, I'm still here too, but I've done a good bit of traveling recently away from the computer. Among other things, I did a Yellowstone Institute seminar with Molly Hashimoto on field sketching with watercolor. Had a great time. Molly has posted some of the work we did on her Typepad site: http://www.mollyhashimoto.com/ | |||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 466 Registered: 8-2006 |
I'm here, but I haven't had much chance to post anything lately. | |||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 476 Registered: 8-2006 |
It has been so quiet. I'm alive. Anyone else out there still breathing? | |||
Joanna Advanced Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 200 Registered: 10-2006 |
Hi Eugene! I like that. The colors are very original for a snow painting -stronger and very pleasing. I can tell the snow is more prominent in the original. I would have preferred a bit more framing on the right side with a stronger dark set of trees to vignette the bridge but overall, it's very nostalgic for someone who grew up in PA. Here is my attempt at spattering--can be fun. BY THE WAY: yes, over paint, with frisket or masking tape, Danger, Will Robinson! I heard painting with gum arabic first protects the layers, but have not tried this idea.  | |||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 475 Registered: 8-2006 |
Just did this one this weekend--- read an article on spattering technique so I thought I'd try it..First I spattered the sky after masking all else with frisket paper. I didn't like it at all so I sprayed on clear water with an atomizer. this made the blues run together. next, I masked everything but the tree trunk, using paper and blue painter's tape. LESSON--never try to use masking tape or anything but liquid masking fluid over something that is already painted. The paint will seep under the tape, no matter how hard it is burnished down. i went on masking and spattering, letting the colors run together, and finished with some brush work. Then I spattered opaque white over the whole thing to suggest snowfall.  (the falling snow is more apparent in the original | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 642 Registered: 8-2006 |
Eugene, I love your vibrant colors! The columbine is a beautiful botanical, and I too like your replication of photography's technique of using a shallow depth of field to focus on the flower and fuzz out the background. I understand Joanna's desire to do a "Leonardo" type sketch, and it is well done -- but it would be interesting to see a finished painting in color of the same subject. I'm not sure I would zoom in quite so tightly, though the butterfly leaving the page is nice. | |||
Joanna Advanced Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 199 Registered: 10-2006 |
I'm LEANING (ar ar ar) to your viewpoint about the slant. And you did it to the right, thank you so much! I used Permanent Brown from Dan Smith--a very lovely color. It's nice with purples, too. I wanted a bit of mystery on the butterfly (swallowtail) and a bit of dimensionality (seeing the other side of the umbel lit from within the Queen Anne's Lace.) The butterfly is heading into the back and is fluttering a bit--so I wet the paint and brushed out some of the detail. I too hate pencil lines, but I was aiming for one of those Leonardo wash/pencil effects. Thanks for the critique and for "getting" what I was trying to do. | |||
Dave New member Username: Dave Post Number: 7 Registered: 6-2008 |
Joanne, I agree with Eugene that slanting the stem makes the picture more interesting. For a monochrome study of this subject I think the warm sepia tone you chose is perfect. I like the suggestions of detail, rather than spelling everything out for us. There is a bit of mystery about what kind of flower and what species of butterfly. And about those pencil lines, usually they drive me nuts. In this study though they help add definition and actually work as part of the painting. | |||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 474 Registered: 8-2006 |
Joanne. I like the loose rendering, it really suites the fluttery butterfly. I'd like to see it tilted a little more so the stem isn't quite so vertical. and for me, flowers and butterflies cry for color, but that's just a personal quirk. i took the liberty of tilting it for you, but lost some of that beautiful butterfly in the process nice painting.  | |||
Joanna Advanced Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 198 Registered: 10-2006 |
I like the way that columbine jumps out of the page. But I would have cropped it closer (that's out of my photography past.) Here is a photography-inspired floral. Comments welcome.  | |||
Dave New member Username: Dave Post Number: 6 Registered: 6-2008 |
I like the use of "depth of field" in this painting. My aunt photographs wild flowers for greeting cards in a similar style, tight focus on the subject and a very shallow depth of field so that the background becomes abstract. At the small size it appears on my screen the yellow in the upper right corner is dominant. I think if I were viewing it at full size this would be less so. The dark moving up and to the left behind the flower sets it out nicely from the background and leads my eye to the pink in the upper left corner which then becomes suggestive of another flower. | |||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 473 Registered: 8-2006 |
thanks for the discussions--- here's another older one you can play with columbine 1/4 sheet i don't usually paint many flowers but was intrigued by the graceful shapes of this one  | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 641 Registered: 8-2006 |
Whitewatercolor, Interesting idea. I, too, wouldn't want to get rid of the detail in the bottom left that is above the tree trunk, but I would think about losing the other background detail on that side with a darker value, losing the edge of the tree on the shadow side to a darker value in the background. | |||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 380 Registered: 10-2006 |
What I mean is on the left side, right where the bottom dark red leaf is, I would make the bark right there lighter than that leaf. It would reverse the dark/light sequence and leave a passage for the eye. I think the detail in the bottom left is interesting and I wouldn't get rid of it. The Ivy holds your attention, it is just when you leave it and notice those beautiful leaves in the corner, the edge of the tree stops your eye movement. I wouldn't consider it a fault, I would just consider the suggestion a possible improvement. | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 640 Registered: 8-2006 |
Whitewatercolor, If by softer passage on the left side of the tree and leaving more shadow, so as not to draw the eye to that side, I would agree. A darker value and softer, more obscure mystery on the left side of the tree would make the ivy "pop" and draw the eye to it as the focal point on the right. | |||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 377 Registered: 10-2006 |
Eugene: It is a beautiful painting. I'd like to see a softer passage through the left side of the oak tree. My eyes want to follow the shadows, which are very dramatic and hit the edge of the oak tree. That quandry reduces the drama of the focal point. Imagine you could move on through and you'll see what I mean. Believe me, I don't know better than you do, this is just how I would mess it up! | |||
Joanna Advanced Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 195 Registered: 10-2006 |
I like it too, Eugene (bad memories, though, of a childhood in the woods and a strong allergy to poison ivy.) The trunk is a bit light and a bit too warm imho(esp in the middle) and flat-ish. The ivy is a bit small in scale for the drama (poisonous beauty!), though I know it to be true to size for a big oak. I tremble at criticizing THE MASTER (!!) but despite it being a totally delightful painting with cheeriness, beautiful background handling, it isn't 100 pct. I like it however, and I think they should have shown it. Someone would probably like it a lot. | |||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 472 Registered: 8-2006 |
here's one that i always liked. i entered it in several shows but it was always rejected. 1/2 sheet, arches 140# cp poisonous beauty  | |||
Dave New member Username: Dave Post Number: 5 Registered: 6-2008 |
Whitewatercolor: That reminds me of my older daughter's room. Eight and a half and she still loves it. Your grandchild will be very blessed to have to artist Grandmothers. | |||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 373 Registered: 10-2006 |
No grandchild yet! Any day. I'm working on both a quilt and a sweater and you can't imagine how difficult it is to pick up sewing and knitting after 20+ years. Way more difficult than painting. Both are over half finished but I need to get them done soon. I guess I didn't realize how little extra time I have with my painting responsibilities. | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 605 Registered: 8-2006 |
Whitewatercolor, did your grandchild arrive? My wife and I have just finished a six-week visit by our five grandchildren. What a treasure, even though our energies are somewhat depleted! Your mural reminds me of my wife's painting of a lemon tree for our children ago. Somehow these efforts make me aware of the importance of the feminine touch in creating a home. I value the female perspective as well as your paintings. Which reminds me -- I miss hearing from Joanna and Marie. Where are you two? Have you left us? | |||
Eric Junior Member Username: Eric Post Number: 16 Registered: 4-2008 |
That's a great mural. The tree's got a lot of character. Looks like it was fun to paint. Lucky kid, gets a cool room! | |||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 350 Registered: 10-2006 |
partial together  Is this a watercolor? | |||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 349 Registered: 10-2006 |
second wall  | |||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 348 Registered: 10-2006 |
Although I am a watercolor artist and we've had a lot of debate about using opaque paint, acrylic, etc., I just can't resist posting my latest project. I'm expecting my first grandchild from my only child. This will be the first grandchild on both sides and both grandmothers are artists, so when the other grandmother was visiting from Minnesota, we decided to do a mural for the baby. It only took us about four hours to paint. Me about another two to plan. Here it is...fun, fun, fun. Since it involves two walls, I'll send three pictures.  | |||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 434 Registered: 8-2006 |
Daniel, it looks very pretty to me but people like Marie, Eugene, George and Eric can shed better light on composition | |||
Daniel New member Username: Daniel Post Number: 3 Registered: 9-2006 |
Since it's early spring....thought I'd show a crocus picture I did recently. I do a lot of florals and nature closeups...just love it! Daniel  | |||
Joe Intermediate Member Username: Joe Post Number: 99 Registered: 2-2007 |
Since I am posting:  This still needs a little work. I missed a palce or two. | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 513 Registered: 8-2006 |
Rekha, I am sorry to hear that your lovely first wash is "wrecked!" It's been said that too many cooks "spoil the stew." Oh well, you can always pull out more paper and go at it again! Now that you know that you want to follow the photo realism style of one the photos George posted, that should narrow the range of suggestions. George has called photo realism to our attention in the past and may have some helpful ideas about developing a painting of that sort. I'm not sure that a first wash of the sort you did before would be the right first step -- it seemed to be headed in the direction of the advice Eugene gave in his post 422. | |||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 432 Registered: 8-2006 |
I just cannot progress the painting from the photo and realise what everyone meant all this time. I am able to discriminate now that I have been going to life drawing classes and have no difficulty in translating form onto paper. I'll probably finish the painting (wrecked) just for experimentation as George suggested. | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 501 Registered: 8-2006 |
Rekha, how's the painting going? I hope you're painting! What does it look like so far? Josie probably has a good point -- folks like me could spend more time painting instead of posting and learn to be more like Marie, who only posts occasionally, when she can snatch a moment between painting and teaching, and after she has had time to reflect and choose her words carefully! She doesn't say a lot, but what she says is always important and largely confined to painting! To keep our discussions from looking like an online clique, I wish more of you who have knowledge and talent like Marie would post occasionally. | |||
Josie New member Username: Josie Post Number: 3 Registered: 2-2008 |
Eugene and others: I believe that Robert later requested that his early postings be deleted. I don't blame anyone for not entering the current political discussions. After November, perhaps such sharing will be easier. Meanwhile, i think that Whitewater's offer to share her e-mail is better than my suggestion for a political site. Yes, please let us return to the subject of this discussion. It has been extremely fruitful. | |||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 424 Registered: 8-2006 |
We did get off the subject of helping Rekha's problem painting. However, I'm glad to know that we are all thinkers as well as painters. Regardless of our views. I will not express my opinion, except to say that I will support any next president because he/she will be better than our present one. Remember when I once told somebody in England that not everyone in USA liked Bush and dear old ROBERT flipped his lid and threatened to quit. I had to apologize to keep him posting. He should read this thread. If he's no longer with us he must be spinning! Now can we get back to critiquing paintings? | |||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 324 Registered: 10-2006 |
Josie, thank you for contributing. | |||
Joanna Advanced Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 147 Registered: 10-2006 |
I mean 2008. A slip of the keypad. | |||
Joanna Advanced Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 146 Registered: 10-2006 |
My point is that the words Mr. Obama used are open to interpretation and that interpretation could include relativism, which is indeed one of the prevailing philosophies of today that have yielded some less-than-optimal fruits, in my opinion. I wish those words of his had been clearer --at least to me, then I could put to rest my fear that he is indeed a relativist. As I pointed out, the words can be interpreted in that way. I do like the fact Senator Obama has not indulged in Clintonian tactics in his campaign. He is a charismatic and intriguing figure, whether you look at him from the right side of the aisle or the left. But my delight in the fact that he has proved a formidable and able opponent to Sen. Clinton in no way influences my being critical of his words. He very well might be our next president, and I want to know what kind of man will be leading our nation. Especially before I vote, because I am going to vote for the person who I believe best represents my interests in a strong nation and support of our constitutional rights. As to heated discussions, except for the ad hominem attacks, this has been a most civil and spirited discussion that I am enjoying. I make it a point, however, to call out anyone who makes such disparagements, veiled or otherwise. If it were 1707, I'd be whacking one of my frilly kid gloves across a powdered and patched cheek and demanding "satisfaction", but this is 2007 and I have to be content with simply bringing it to general attention for what it is. I like debate and I really get annoyed when debates end up with personal insults. My favorite response to such things in an argument is that of Winston Churchill, who was excoriated by a woman at a dinner party for being drunk. "You're DRUNK!" huffed the woman at Churchill. "And you, Madam, are UGLY. But tomorrow morning, I shall be sober..." | |||
Josie New member Username: Josie Post Number: 2 Registered: 2-2008 |
That ****word is "as----sumption" Also, 2 "lastly"s...-  | |||
Josie New member Username: Josie Post Number: 1 Registered: 2-2008 |
I have found this discussion Board very helpful. Although I have neither time nor inclination to participate, I am grateful to others who do. Since one never knows how many folks are "tuning in", I make the •••••••••• that the contributors enjoy doing so, just for the joy of writing and sharing, whether the sudience is small or large. I write and paint and share art and knowledge on many subjects, and find this is so for me. In the few years that I have "tuned in" here, the pattern has always been the same; a cluster of writers, then a time of quietness, then a resurgence of writers. Perhaps some changes might bring more participation,but even if not, I have some suggestions that could make participation more comfortable. First, keep your discussion within the title which is listed. If another subject arises, move to another similar thread, or create a new one. Second, re. the "personal" stuff. The friendliness is pleasing, but sometimes it seems more like a "chat room"..which is not a bad thing, but not the same as a "discussion board". I have an idea for that also: add some new threads, such as "philosophy", "travelogues", "museums/exhibits" or even "the effect of current life issues on art"...let's face it, if this is the place that people want to connect politics with art, it is OK, but everyone need not have to be exposed to it. A small thing, but important: when responding to another person's comments, use their posting name, not their personal name. It is easier for others not to have to remember who is "??". Lastly, and this is delicate; if someone new ( or not so new)mentions a possible change, don't try to answer it swiftly, although that is tempting because you want to be helpful. It is possible that some current pattern could be changed, and you don't want to give the impression of "this is how we do it" or " this is the best way", because then you will never hear other possibilities. Instead, appreciate the idea (whatever it is), listen closely,discuss it..and you will have welcomed a new artist! Lastly, please eliminate that "lurker" label. I suppose you could use something neutral like "reader", but why do you need a label? Why bother to separate into two groups? Everyone keeps saying "we are all learners, forever", and we should mena that. Just offer all kinds of threads on every possible subject...whatever you create will be useful to someone at some time....Or have a thread such as:" new to watercolor", and list suggested topics for them to pursue. Please know that you are very much appreciated, even by non-newbies. | |||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 323 Registered: 10-2006 |
We hear ya Deecubed. How about posting a subject for discussion or a picture for critique. In other words--leading us in another direction. I'll send any further comments about this subject off of this forum and others that want to continue discussion are free to contact me. | |||
Deecubed New member Username: Deecubed Post Number: 3 Registered: 12-2007 |
I came to this forum to exchange ideas and learn from other artists. I can go to myriad other forums and news outlets to discuss and understand current politics and philosophies. And I earned my degree in political science. I LOVE politics! I find this election exciting and hopeful on a number of fronts. So while I am familiar with the essences of current conversations on this board, and in fact find them somewhat interesting, I come here to participate in a forum that relates to something that offers me a spiritual and creative way to learn to express myself through art, and, above all, at this stage in my life, to give me peace. As a relative newbie, I am now understanding why there are so few who participate in the conversation. I observe that often, whether it is about politics or art even, often the trend seems more about being "right," than being open to what others might share. I often feel as if you all must have way too much time to chat here than do other things. Personally, I am close to withdrawing because my "learning curve" is now a product of the "law of diminishing returns." I'd rather be painting! Come on, People, can't we all get along? | |||
George Unregistered guest |
Jack, I agree with you 100% that we need to be careful not to discard those core (constitutional) values (many of which do root in the Judeo-Christian convictions of persons who wrote the Constitution) too easily, or allow ourselves to be blown off course by "every wind of doctrine" that crosses our path in our journey through time. What I am reacting to is Joanna’s implication that Obama doesn’t believe this also. There is absolutely nothing in Obama’s statement to suggest he doesn’t believe what you and I do. As to your statement that there is no need to suggest that Joanna's point of view allows us to categorize her as a fellow traveler with right-wingers you are, as always, correct. I should simply ask – Joanna, are you a fellow traveler with right-wingers? On the matter of politics, I am actually not an Obama admirer. I have no plans for voting for him in the coming primary election. If someone on this forum were to misrepresent McCain’s words, as badly as Joanna has misrepresented Obama’s, I’d knock them on the noggin too. I firmly believe that the major problem we face today is that entertainment media is masquerading as news. This is how all the distortion, character as*ignation, and misinformation enters into the public debate. If we citizens care about the future of this country we need to rout out the people who are advancing the “distort and divide” strategy. | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 500 Registered: 8-2006 |
Eugene, you pick up on the same objection others have made about Joanna warning us about choosing to give up core value in the face of current cultural forces. You point out that Obama believes such changes happens "over time." There actually is no disagreement here. What happens "over time" is simply is a compilation of choices that are made in "current moments." As those choices are made in our current moments, we drift in one direction or another "over time." We need to pay attention both to our current moment, and to the direction of our journey over time. When all is said and done, we can only make choices in our current moments, not in the past or in the future. | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 499 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, when I said "I hope George is right," I was referencing your interpretation of Obama's words, not the process of continuing to examine our core beliefs and willingly allowing them to be tested. Fortunately, as you point out, that process has been largely helpful. Among other things, it has led us over time to continue to affirm (or recover our affirmation) of the core values of the Constitution, as Joanna points out. I have to agree with Joanna that when we go through that process, we need to be careful not to discard those core (constitutional) values (many of which do root in the Judeo-Christian convictions of persons who wrote the Constitution) too easily, or allow ourselves to be blown off course by "every wind of doctrine" that crosses our path in our journey through time. It is essentially a matter of finding a proper balance in the struggle to hold on to time-tested truths and at the same time tweak and improve our grasp of them. I also have to agree with Terry about the vital importance of maintaining a high level of respect for one another in our communications. There is no need to suggest that Joanna's point of view allows us to categorize her as a fellow traveler with right-wingers and a poor reader. Those are unjustified personal characterizations that are beneath the high level of discourse we usually enjoy on this board. There is a place for passion, but not for unfairness. Let's continue to set forth our ideas and understandings, agree and disagree, without resorting to such unnecessary characterizations of one another. On the matter of politics, we could learn a lesson from the ongoing struggle in the Democratic primary. George, you seem to be an Obama admirer, and I think you have good reason. Thus far he seems to have maintained a personal consistency in his approach, a firm grip on his core convictions, and a demeanor that echoes the consistency in his positions. He has refrained from personal attacks, choosing rather to attack the positions and record of his opponent. I'm not sure the same thing can be said for Clinton. Her campaign, her tactics, and her demeanor have shown a bit more inconsistency, and she has not refrained from attacks on her opponent that have a more personal edge. Thus far, it seems Obama's approach is working better, though the final outcome is still uncertain. I recognize that ad hominem attacks sometime work in the short run, but, as you point out, over time our better selves, and our highest values, seem to prevail. Let's hope that remains the case! | |||
George Unregistered guest |
Joanna, Let’s review the events that have brought us to this standoff. Bonnie posted a quote by Barack Obama that had great meaning for her. She wanted to share his words which for her communicate the light that is this forum. I’ll post them again; "we must test our ideals, vision, and values against the realities of a common life, so that over time they may be refined, discarded or replaced by new ideals, sharper visions, deeper values.” You responded with, among others, the following statements; 1. “For the record, my moral compass and my vision does not alter based on what society thinks for the given moment.” 2. “Mr. Obama's interesting comment is part of the spectrum of our society's value system and in fact, is quite reflective of a drift in our prevailing thinking in the US and the world to relativism” 3. “I used logic to read this statement and realized the inherent danger in it.” All of these statements you claim are an accurate interpretation of Obama’s words. You claim to have used logic to “devolve” his statement. In so doing you give an interpretation for 20 of the words Obama used in his statement. Interestingly, you ignored any mention of, or personal interpretation for, the four words that are central to an understanding of Obama’s statement – “so that over time.” Thus allowing you to redefine what Obama said to mean for you; “current” and “now”. Two words that Obama did not use, and made clear he did not intend (He actually using the words, “over time.”). This isn’t really a disagreement in interpretation is it Joanna? No one could leave out four key words in an interpretation and believe it’s a fair interpretation. Isn’t it really about a personal prejudice that you have difficulty seeing in yourself? | |||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 322 Registered: 10-2006 |
Morals and values are not the same thing, but seem to be being used interchangeably here. Maybe that is a cause of misunderstanding. Religion and morals are not the same thing and also cannot be used interchangeably. I do not see this as a discussion about religion, nor a debate on morals, or values. But I do see misunderstanding and lack of clarity about the use of words. It is for that reason I am not offended and appreciate Joannas comments. I think I understand and agree with the moral basis of her arguments. If we established our goals, they may very well be the same. If there is disagreement it comes as we chose between the complex paths to getting there. It would be nice if virtual reality could show us the entire paths to enlightenment. It can't, so we have to rely on the knowledge we have at any given time and expand that knowledge by discussion, interaction, etc. Isn't it amazing that we can pick up a brush and communicate with each other so clearly. That's what makes the ability to create art such a blessing. There are factions within the art community: for instance, followers of art that elicits negative emotion--outrage, anger, fear, or disgust... All of the interacting participants of this group do share a common quest that takes them in the opposite direction. We are always looking, feeling, appreciating, interpreting and attempting to share the positive, the beauty around us. Forgive us if we sometimes slip into a little stimulating discussion. | |||
Joanna Advanced Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 145 Registered: 10-2006 |
I don't understand why an ad hominem insult is the result of a disagreement in interpretation, but that often seems to be the result. If you notice, I have not indulged in that behavior, perhaps because I think that insults, veiled or otherwise are a sign of weakness in a debater's position. At least, that has always been my observation when debating. Perhaps you meant to say "interpretation" not "reading skill"? --they are quite different. Two people can read the word "steer" for example, and get two different pictures, depending if they are a truck driver or a cattle driver. | |||
Terry Intermediate Member Username: Terry Post Number: 75 Registered: 8-2006 |
During my 12+ years at Cheap Joe's and as the person who originally created this board "New Threads" many times end up like old threads. When things are kept on point (meaning mostly art, maybe a little philosophy and or politics/religion mixed in for spice) everything seems to move along at a more or less steady pace. When posts get more detailed and begin to take on other subjects, I find that people getting offended is not very far away. Passion is a good thing...but there is one thing I have learned in my 58 year journey: true communication with another person is one of the hardest things we will ever attempt to do. I mean communication in the sense where we can each respect one another for our beliefs even in the face of deep disagreement. A place inside ourselves where we can be secure without having to fight for being "right". I have been blogging for over a year after leaving a church I was a part of for 22 years (http://blog.lookingforthelongride.com). What I found in that journey is that many people would rather be "right" than ever begin to understand where I was coming from. There are currently more blogs about the various aspects of church and religion/christianity in general than a person could ever visit in a lifetime. I have found that many invite passionate debate and it is exciting to me that many different viewpoints can be expressed even though I very often disagree with them. I hope that we can continue to respect one another and keep the dialogue going. | |||
George Unregistered guest |
Yes, I do believe any intelligent person would read the quote to mean that Obama believes that by constantly testing and challenging our ideals, vision, and values we over time may move toward absolute goodness. This sentence was not, as you suggest, meant to be a veiled insult, it was meant to be a knock on the noggin. You made the following interpretation of Obama’s words: “realities of a common life” equal what the current majority may believe, or now commonly holds as true. This interpretation totally ignores Obama’s conclusion to his statement: “so that OVER TIME they may be refined, discarded or replaced by new ideals, sharper visions, deeper values. When Obama wrote “so that over time” he made it clear he was talking about extended periods of time and yet you ignore this and interpretate his words to mean; ”what the CURRENT majority may believe, or NOW commonly holds as true.” You close by saying you, ” prefer clarity.” That is admirable! If you improve your reading skills, you may someday achieve your desired clarity of mind. (This last sentence was an attempt on my part to NOT veil my insult. You will receive my sincere apology, after Bonnie receives yours.) | |||
Joanna Advanced Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 144 Registered: 10-2006 |
Here is how I devolved Obama's statement "we must test our ideals, vision, and values against the realities of a common life, so that over time they may be refined, discarded or replaced by new ideals, sharper visions, deeper values.” Test: To challenge or estimate the validity of Ideals, vision, and values: our moral compass, values and highest, best ideals "realities of a common life": what the current majority may believe, or now commonly holds as true " refined, discarded, or replaced ": changed, thrown out, substituted with something entirely different "new ideals, sharper visions, deeper values": Something new called a new highest, best value, different than what we did hold to be true. Summation: This statement could be interpreted to mean that we need to examine our current moral and value compass and change it based on what current society mores are now holding to be true. This may or may not be a right idea; for example, in our history, suddenly, it was a societal value to consider American Japanese as less than upstanding citizens, though their sons were serving in the European war theater and there was no evidence that each of these American citizens were engaging in espionage against the US. Japanese Americans had their property seized and they were transported by force to the desert to dig holes and set up tar paper tents, even unto the sick elderly who were grabbed from hospital to take trains to Arizona or California camps. To leave the camp, the prisoners had to take jobs as menials and promise not to return to California, where their property (lands in Orange County they'd irrigated and developed and bought and paid for) were permanently given to other people. It was the society belief that Japanese could "not be trusted" (in reality, it was an excuse for a land grab) but even my parents said it was "for the war" and "for safety." Our constitution said you could not do something like this, but we changed this old value for a new one based on current "realities of common life." This is why I jumped on this statement of Obama's: it can be twisted to mean many things, not all of them beneficial. " believe any intelligent person would read this quote to mean that Obama believes by constantly testing and challenging our ideals, vision, and values we over time may move toward absolute goodness." Your comment on "intelligence" is a veiled insult. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me stupid. I used logic to read this statement and realized the inherent danger in it. While it sounds good and new and brave, it also can be read as something just as different, if you apply rules of logic. While Obama may have indeed meant "we need to test what we do to make sure it meets the highest moral values we possess" the statement actually doesn't say that clearly and can indeed be interpreted differently. While I agree with Noam Chomsky that "the end result of all communication is misunderstanding"--I have pointed out here how Mr. Obama's words can be construed in several ways. Your interpretation is interesting, but you'd have to take apart each word and analyze them to show if that is indeed the best interpretation. My objection with rhetoric such as Obama's is that it sounds GREAT but if you dissect it, you can find multiples of meaning. I prefer clarity. Throw out currently held values? Sure, I think we have to test things and throw out the garbage. We used to have separate drinking fountains for African Americans and deny the Fisk Jubilee Singers a place to stay or eat while on tour (how mean was that!) and that was a value of the time. But in essence, it did not jibe with what people were espousing at the same time in the constitution (all men created equal under the law) and in the Bible (which says we are fall short of the glory of God, meaning we are imperfect in our acts.) I'd rather say we have to test our values to make sure we are walking the walk, and talking the talk, and that we have a moral compass outside the whims of Man that is absolute and affords equality and liberty for all under the law. | |||
George Unregistered guest |
Jack, why do you say you hope I’m right? History has proven that the test of cultural winds moves us over time as a Nation in the direction of an absolute goodness. We’re not fully there yet, but we’re clearly on the right path. If Joanna’s attitude that our vision should, “not alter based on what society thinks for the given moment” were the historical norm we would still be living with slavery and women would not have the right to vote. I don’t mean any offense Joanna, but the slave owners used the same arguments that you advocate today. | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 496 Registered: 8-2006 |
I hope George is right. Certainly our beliefs and values need to be able to stand the test of cultural winds, and to be refined by any better grasp of ultimate truth, but they shouldn't be "blown about by every wind of doctrine." I'm thankful we can have conversations like this, because they do reveal more of our inner selves which cannot help but be expressed in some way in our art. Thanks, George, for affirming that reality. I was thinking today of Thomas Couture's great political statement (one of the largest paintings in the d'Orsay, ground floor right, 1847) "Romans of the Decadence," his critique of the society and culture of his day in France. | |||
George Unregistered guest |
Joanna, The quote Bonnie posted said; “we must test our ideals, vision, and values against the realities of a common life, so that over time they may be refined, discarded, or replaced by new ideals, sharper visions, deeper values.” Your reaction was; “If our visions and idealism are adjusted by "reality" then are we saying there is ultimately no absolute good and we take what is relatively good instead?” Your idea that Obama believes there, “is ultimately no absolute good”, and that he intended his words to mean such shows a lack of proper reading comprehension on your part. Obama's comment is NOT an endorsement for relativism, and for you to read his comment as an endorsement of relativism is strangely odd. I believe any intelligent person would read this quote to mean that Obama believes by constantly testing and challenging our ideals, vision, and values we over time may move toward absolute goodness. | |||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 321 Registered: 10-2006 |
Values, Morals, Right, Wrong, Belief...Left Right I think we can all agree that having children out of wedlock is not the best choice. I think we can all agree that drugs and alcohol produce an altered state that may impair judgment and lead to poor choices. I think we can all agree that children learn better and are just generally better off, in an unaltered state, in smaller classrooms with a more hands on approach. Where we may disagree is whether those who have children out of wedlock should be stoned to death, or whether children who are born without a father present or whose mother or father die, should be labeled and stigmatized because they have less than desirable circumstances. We probably don't agree on how people should be treated if they chose to have a drink or use drugs. Should they be executed or should we have laws to buffer their behaviour from the greater society? I guess a black and white world would help control population but many didn't like the rules of Hussain or Castro. Who gets to carry the hatchet? Children learn better in small settings. The best scenario may be people teaching their own children or paying for the complete education of any children they have. But short of that, if I am helping pay for the education of your children and grandchildren then I want to know that all children, regardless of race and religion are treated fairly and have the same opportunities. All of that changes with time, not the morality but the ideals, vision and values against the realities of common life. If we have 100 children and 100 working adults to pay for their education, the decisions we would make may be different than if we had 100 children and 50 working adults to pay for their education. In times of war more children are left with single parents. And in hard economic times more people turn to drugs and alcohol. Therefore we need some flexibility to always make sure that our ideals, visions, and values allow morality to always prevails. I have a hard time finding fault with that statement. Again. It is not my statement. It is not Obama's statement (although he is a professor of Constitutional Law), it is the statement of James Madison about the intent of the Constitution of the United States. Have I been too intent on painting and missed a desire of the majority to abandon the Constitution? You bet our artistic world is effected by politics and visa versa. I hope the man with the hatchet doesn't start thinking artists are terrorists because they distort reality? | |||
Joanna Advanced Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 143 Registered: 10-2006 |
I'm feeling really wonderful here: I did not expect ANYONE to right away jump in and bring up that morals and values are intimately connected to art. Of course they are; the philosophical branch known as axiology is related to aesthetics and even epistemology in a way. In other words, what we deem "good" in art reflects what we deem good in the world. If anyone doubts this, I'm going to bring up that famous work of art (which I won't even TRY to post the title here for fear of the red dots)--you know the one, consisting of crucifix submerged in a suspicious yellow liquid. This work caused huge discussions around the world about its value, and not only about what the artist was saying, but about what the museum that purchased it was saying. And we've discussed whether abstract art is more true, better, more honest than representational art or the reverse. Or why we tend one way now in the art world and why is that so. So Mr. Obama's interesting comment is part of the spectrum of our society's value system and in fact, is quite reflective of a drift in our prevailing thinking in the US and the world to relativism and the confusion whether this is a good thing (all values are equally good and equally valid) or a bad thing (all values are not equal; some are good, and some are less good or even evil.) Now, if relativism (which we might define as our moral compass swinging with our current values or having no compass because all values are equal) is a trend, then is abstract art (no form or little representational content) symbolic of a rejection of fixed or absolute values? Not saying art should or should NOT be abstract, what does it say about our philosophy is a valuation of art is considered more worthy if it IS abstract rather than representational. Are we saying that form and design must also be relative or vague reflecting this moving target of worth? And that representation or realism is less worthy because we don't wish to have an absolute or moral compass guiding our society? Think about that. | |||
George Unregistered guest |
I'm sorry Joanna! Jack is right; politics, morals, beliefs and values do have an impact on us personally, and therefore on us as painters. | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 493 Registered: 8-2006 |
Joanna, I'm not sure where this philosophical discussion began -- was it with Rekha's mention of "opportunism" and our not being sure what that meant exactly? No matter. Politics may not the the proper subject for this board, but our politics, morals, beliefs and values do have an impact on us personally, and therefore on us as painters. Great artists have often made "political" statements through their painting, George. It's part of their inspiration, motivation and creativity. Don't give Joanna such a hard time. Speaking personally and only for myself, Joanna -- "go get 'em, Doc!" You're not talking right wing; you're just talking common sense. | |||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 319 Registered: 10-2006 |
Well there you go--this boat is leaning so far to the right, its about to sink! Or am in wrong? Maybe that's why the others jumped off. I'm just a little slow. | |||
George Unregistered guest |
I just put a post-it on my computer screen as a reminder to myself. It reads; “never mention politics on an art page.” :-) | |||
Joanna Advanced Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 142 Registered: 10-2006 |
<<we>> This is an interesting statement. Is it saying that morals and values must adjust to "reality"? or is it saying that morals and values must be refined to better revise what reality is doing to us? If our visions and idealism are adjusted by "reality" then are we saying there is ultimately no absolute good and we take what is relatively good instead? Or what we can get versus what we aspire to achieve? This statement is very interesting and I am not sure what it is intended to communicate. It is also a very significant statement, but its intent is unclear. When discussing values, morals, and vision, it is best to be very clear as to what you mean. Otherwise, it is open to vague interpretation that may feel and look good, but lead to ultimate misunderstanding and confusion. For the record, my moral compass and my vision does not alter based on what society thinks for the given moment. It used to be "bad" to have kids out of wedlock, now it is a celebrity event, but my opinion of its fitness for society has not changed; bad to have kids have no stable parents. As an example. It used to be a bad thing to drink and otherwise booze up so that you end up wild on the street or passed out under a bus, but now it is a reason to have a hit song and flaunt your resistance to rehab. I still think it's a bad thing to be drunk or addicted. No matter who wins a Grammy. We think boring kids in school is now a reason to drug them with ritalin, but I still think teaching is a hands-on, individualized process best handled in small groups and overlooked constantly by parents, but now we warehouse kids from birth, then drug them when they fidget if too young to sit for long periods of time and call them ADHD instead of too young to be sitting for endless hours on buses and without recess or respite from sedentary activities unsuited to their young age. But I still think they need hands on teaching and less sitting and more interaction. But that is inconvenient for adults. Much easier to drop them into a daycare or babysitter, and have them nailed to a seat in a classroom than do individual attention. But it doesn't change my estimation of what kids really need in education and attention. | |||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 431 Registered: 8-2006 |
Your quote, Bonnie, got me to think about the changes with time in the religious tomes which quite rightly need to change with the times. An extrapolation of that has been the terrorism propogated by some people in the name of islam, for example; that is opportunism surely | |||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 317 Registered: 10-2006 |
Rekha: I am again lost. Are you talking about the constitution? Obama? My posting? My comments on your painting? Is this an attempt to tell me to shut up? This is exactly what I am talking about with "lingo." In order to interact with a group it is sometimes necessary to learn the "lingo." I'm not always sure what the lingo is here. I try to make my posts as clear as possible, but it seems that I either appear to be the weakest chicken in the flock or my communication skills are not clear. The repeated play on the word "lingo" is another example of this. | |||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 430 Registered: 8-2006 |
The pen and wash was my original intention. No, I shall not be doing that with this painting, Jack | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 490 Registered: 8-2006 |
Rekha, it sounds like you want to try photorealism and not the soft, loose impressionism Eugene suggested. It will be more tedious and difficult, but I'm cheering for you whatever you decide and eager to see it when you finish. I know you do enjoy pen and ink, having seen you post on that forum as well. I did a little of that in Paris and will try to post something one of these days. Are you going to do a watercolor of the bridge, a pen and ink wash, or a watercolor over pen and ink (or pen and ink details over a watercolor)? | |||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 429 Registered: 8-2006 |
Of all the bridges you kindly searched the internet for, George, only the eyefetch appears to approach closest to the photo of the bridge and how I wanted to do (pen and wash). You notice that those artists who did put the texture on the bridges make it appear like brick work rather than of stones | |||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 428 Registered: 8-2006 |
There is always an extreme proviso, Bonnie, opportunism | |||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 313 Registered: 10-2006 |
I read a passage last night in Barack Obama's book "The Audacity of Truth," that applies to life and painting, that I've always felt but never been able to articulate, that I'd like to share. "...we must test our ideals, vision, and values against the realities of a common life, so that over time they may be refined, discarded, or replaced by new ideals, sharper visions, deeper values. Indeed, it is that process, according to Madison, that brought about the Constitution inself, through a convention in which "no man felt himself obliged to retain his opinions any longer than he was satisfied of their propriety and truth, and was open to the force of argument." In this light, this forum has been a fertile testing ground for me. | |||
Joanna Advanced Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 140 Registered: 10-2006 |
Isn't this fun? Arched bridges, how many ways? Of the ones you put up, I think one of them (depew) is what Rekha is heading toward. Now I want to paint one. I think I have a beloved bw photo in my archives of my old bridge (The horse paddock has long been converted to a housing development but when I was a kid, this place looked like England though it was on the Wissahickon in eastern Pennsylvania.) | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 488 Registered: 8-2006 |
Good point, George. There is no one "right" way for Rekha to finish the painting. She just needs to decide on the style (look) she wants (probably the loose, impressionistic look she began with in the first wash, and which Eugene is encouraging), then go for it. As George says, in art there is almost an infinite number of approaches to painting. When they become established approaches shared by a number of proficient, recognized artists, they become "schools" of painting. Rekha, as you decide on the "style" you prefer for this painting, you might enjoy reviewing some of these various schools or styles. Take a look at the following site: www.1st-art-gallery.com/browse-by-art-movement.html | |||
George Unregistered guest |
I’m done! Notice that the trees are handled differently in all five watercolor paintings. Also, the stone bridge is handled differently in all five watercolor paintings. http://www.allinsongallery.com/hughes/wbridge.html  | |||
George Unregistered guest |
I never should have started on this search - now I'm hooked! Here's another; http://www.rfgart.com/watercolors.asp?page=5&id=frenchstonebridge&title=French_Stone_Bridge-Watercolor&value=200&giclee=  | |||
George Unregistered guest |
And this watercolor painting of a stone bridge; http://thistlefineart.com/Delbos.htm  | |||
George Unregistered guest |
To this watercolor painting of a stone bridge; http://www.briandepew.com/paintings.html  | |||
George Unregistered guest |
Something for the casual reader (the lurker) to consider. Why is there so much diversity of opinion? Because there are many different watercolor styles (approaches to painting). Any one subject (in this case a stone bridge) can be done in varying degrees of realism. Throw in a wide variety of possible painting techniques, lighting schemes, color schemes, moods and other issues the artist must sort out prior to picking up a brush and you get some idea of the dilemma Rekha now faces. Compare this watercolor painting of a stone bridge; http://www.eyefetch.com/image.aspx?ID=462460  | |||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 309 Registered: 10-2006 |
Rekha: I have tried to read through all of the posts about your bridge and I'd like to say I agree with Eugene, that it is not the stonework that would make the painting. You have a wonderful wash on the bridge and if you look at the two beautiful paintings supplied by Joanna you will note there is little stone work. When you begin a painting with such beautiful washes, it is good to try to keep the best of them. I would not touch the bridge or the water but put the bridge forward by painting a darker wash to delineate the background (leaving some of the sky) and then set the bridge back by delineating the foreground. Remember--dark against light, light against dark, as much as possible in the painting. Also remember the cool colors recede and warm colors advance. Use the same pigments, just more concentrated. Remember you don't want all hard edge delineation, but where the water is light, make the connecting earth darker and vise versa (generally). Same with the background. Anyway--that's what I would do. | |||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 426 Registered: 8-2006 |
Are these suggestions helpful or confusing?...Jack They are all helpful ideas. I will let the paint and water take the direction after I have followed the suggestions. I have no idea how it will finally turn out | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 487 Registered: 8-2006 |
Rekha, John Cotman's painting of Greta Bridge also shows what I meant by suggesting that any wash on the bridge be a gradation from dark to a light sunlit area. It's also interesting to see how he did the bridge shadow. If you do stick to a soft, loose, and impressionistic style with juicy washes as Eugene suggests, I agree that you shouldn't use too much texture or detail in the bridge. You might just touch the brush with clear water to some spots on the bridge to hint at the existence of the stones, lightening those spots in the way George suggested earlier. Are these suggestions helpful or confusing? If the latter, I'll be glad to stop and quit muddying the water, so to speak. | |||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 425 Registered: 8-2006 |
Just to confuse things... Joanna Au contraire the image gives me the idea of adding reflections under the rocks in the stream and for the shadows on the foliage of trees surrounding the bridge. Thank you very much | |||
Joanna Advanced Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 138 Registered: 10-2006 |
Just to confuse things: Cotman and Girtin both painted this kind of bridge. I've been tempted to also, I used to travel to school every morning over one of these humpbacked bridges in horse country in Pennsylvania.   | |||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 424 Registered: 8-2006 |
did I make any sense?... Eugene Yes, thank you very much Eugene. You have shown me a possible way out of working on the bridge till the end. | |||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 422 Registered: 8-2006 |
Rekha, If I were to finish the nice start you have, I would begin by putting another nice juicy wet wash behind and around the bridge, except for the water. That will show the shape of the bridge. Then add that nice reflection, to show that it is water. I see that you've done it faintly, but go darker and draw it carefully. Use horizontal strokes to suggest the shimmer. The darker wash around the bridge will show you the shape. You might want to suggest some soft tree shapes in the background, while it is still wet. Keep it loose, the way you started it. If you do the background wash that I suggested-- use the same colors , but remember to not put a compliment over an existing color. (like- don't put red over green, or yellow over purple, or you'll have mud.) This is an impressionistic painting, I wouldn't worry too much abut the texture of the stonework, until you're almost finished. You might find that you don't need it. I've rambled-- did I make any sense? | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 484 Registered: 8-2006 |
Rekha, if you do choose to make your painting a brighter day with some sunlight, when you run the light wash over the painted stones to unify them, you might use gradation in the wash from a darker to a lighter tone, leaving an area of the bridge appear like it is in a direct shaft or area of sunlight. Variation of colors, sizes, shapes, values, etc. make a painting come alive and much more interesting. Use as much variation as you can without making the painting confusing. | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 479 Registered: 8-2006 |
Rekha, You only need shadows if you want the painting to change the photo into be a sunny day. If so, that will take a little imagination. I do see that you have lightly drawn in some stones. George was probably right about not doing rigger work at this stage -- the wash is extremely light and bright. I've only seen a few great painters like Berthe Morisot get away with it on a light painting that looks like a first wash. At any rate, I wouldn't use a rigger to draw outlines of stones anyway -- I think it would be better to paint a few stones of varied shapes, colors and sizes on various parts of the bridge area, then run a light wash over them when they are dry to unify them into a whole. I agree with George that the stone bridge might be kept rather light and made the highlight by surrounding it with darker values in the trees. | |||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 421 Registered: 8-2006 |
Thank you, George and Jack for the recent comments and advice: I shall practise the stonework before touching the painting. As Jack pointed out the photograph has not been taken at at a time when you can see shadows. I don't have much of an imagination so will struggle for some time. | |||
George Unregistered guest |
No, it’s from a website on masonry work. Here is a website with a painting of stonework similar to the one you are working on. http://www.alistairbutt.co.uk/lz_step_by_step_arncliffe_a.htm | |||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 420 Registered: 8-2006 |
Didn't see your post about the bridge, George. Thanks for the stone picture, but that is not from a painting is it? | |||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 419 Registered: 8-2006 |
It looks like she already has the stones penciled in lightly in her painting.... George I was trying to finish off the calligraphic part with ink, but I should have chosen a pen with a thicker nib. If you enlarge the image you can see branches on the trees and the stones of the bridge. | |||
George Unregistered guest |
Jack, I didn’t see your last two messages. It looks like she already has the stones penciled in lightly in her painting. All she needs to do is lay on the paint. Another suggestion for the stone texture is to use Ultramarine blue and Burnt Sienna and let the granulation go wild. | |||
George Unregistered guest |
Practice your stonework technique on a scrap piece of paper until you have it mastered then work on your painting. | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 477 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, I like the tone of the stones in your photo, but I find the shapes too large, too regular and too boring compared to the small varied shapes of the stones in the bridge in Rekha's photo. She can interpolate that, however. She can also see from your photo how lifting a little paint (or in some other way creating a little internal variety in tone on the various stones)would create the textured look you suggest. | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 476 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, I agree entirely about the bridge and its stonework -- it is the central feature of the painting. I think it is here that I would try for the most texture, just as you suggest. I don't know how large the painting is -- if it is small, it would be hard to use the paper towel to lift paint and create texture on each individual stone. If it is a small painting, perhaps a quick spray of water droplets on the gray surface (light in tone as you suggest!) would work. I'm afraid crumpled plastic wrap would give texture, but not the correct shapes for stones. Do you have any other ideas? I would agree, by the way, that rigger lines outlining each stone would look artificial. What about painting a few stones in various areas with varied earth colors, then covering and uniting them with a thin gray glaze? | |||
George Unregistered guest |
One more time!  | |||
George Unregistered guest |
Here it is!
| |||
George Unregistered guest |
Jack has given some good advice. All I would add is that I believe the stonework of the bridge will make or break the painting. I’ll try to post a close up photo of some stonework that you can use as a guide (I've been having trouble posting that). Make sure the neutral gray color is light in tone so as not to overpower. You can get the textured look of the stone by tapping the glaze on each stone with a crumpled paper towel. | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 475 Registered: 8-2006 |
Rekha, I see from the photo that you didn't have much in the way of shadows on this cloudy day. If you want to reproduce the mood of the photo, the very bright colors in your painting are deceptive, indicating it was a brighter day. If you want to portray the mood of the cloudy day in the photo, the next washes should darken the values into an overall mid tone, while still keeping your light and dark value areas as you wish, but with one of them being larger than the other. You have painted the dark under the bridge about the same value as the photo, but the value of the other parts of the painting (with the exception of the rocks) are much lighter than the photo, giving an unreal degree of contrast. I also would bring the darks of the rocks in the river into an affiliated shape in some way and lighten them, helping bring the values of the painting into a closer range. You might also try for a lighter value under the bridge for your "dark" by a little lifting or scraping, giving it a little variation in color and some gradation. On the other hand, if you want to keep your painting very light and bright as it is, I would use some darks and shadows to indicate a sunnier day, but I still would try to bring the values into a closer range. Don't worry about ruining this first wash. By using the rule of thirds, your next washes will only enhance, not destroy the beauty of this first wash. Some of the first wash will continue to stand of its own (the second wash in the rule of thirds is usually only one third of the overall area, though it can be two thirds; but any further washes should only be one third of each previous one)and the rest of your bright original wash should shine through any additional transparent washes! The ease of what you can do at this point will depend on the size of your painting. I do like the reflections of the right side of the bridge in the water in the photo, and also the variation of values in the stream. You might try to capture them in your painting. Just some thoughts to consider before you start again. | |||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 416 Registered: 8-2006 |
George: Sometimes an artist likes the early development of a painting so much they are reluctant to finish it, for fear of ruining it.. You read my mind. Here is the photo I was given  I think I will put this painting aside for a few days and get on with a new one. This will allow me to look at it freshly. At that time I shall upload the final result. | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 473 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, Wise suggestion!! However, if Rekha is already attempting the washes you suggested, I'd like to hasten to say that the primary purpose of any subsequent wash should be to clarify and relate shapes through the application of paint with stronger value to about a third of the original wash. The darks at present (rocks in the river and on the banks) are uncertain, scattered splotches that need to be clarified and related to each other and to the painting as a whole. Furthermore, the strongest contrasts, hardest edges and greatest detail (whether or not a rigger is used for finishing touches or rough texture added) should largely be confined to the area of the center of interest, not scattered about. (I presume that Rekha intends the right side of the bridge's arch to be the center of interest.) It would also be helpful to work on shadows to clarify the direction of the light -- there is something not quite right about the bridge shadow in the water. All that having been said, I agree with George that this first wash is beautiful with fresh, clear and appealing colors -- it's a good beginning and a good basis for an even better painting, if subsequent washes can be applied without losing those qualities. I can't wait for Rekha to tell us more about the kind of painting (style, if you will) she has in mind, so that those of you like George, Marie, and Eugene who are experienced painters and know what you're talking about can pitch in and help her. | |||
George Unregistered guest |
The problem with giving some direction as to how to finish the painting is that (as Jack suggested) there are many approaches to painting in watercolor. I can see the finished painting looking like, at minimum, five or six totally different paintings - all being equally good but different in style. For example, the next stage could be very wet or it could be very dry. It all depends on the image you have in your head for the finished painting. How about posting the source photo and a sample of a painting of similar subject by a watercolor artist you admire greatly. This way we’ll have some idea how you’d like the painting to look when finished. Then it would be easier for us to tell you which of many possible techniques you should use in step two. | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 468 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, I think your observation that Rekha's painting is actually a first wash is quite right. I could see the shapes lacked sufficient definition and therefore left the painting with (as Marie says) an unfinished feel, but I didn't think of using subsequent washes to correct the lack of contrasting values that left the shapes incoherent. You are right that a couple more washes, using the rule of thirds and applying stronger values, should come first, with perhaps a little rigger work as a finishing touch. Berthe Morisot's "White Boat in Nice Harbor" has the same look of a first wash, but she strengthens the shapes with rigger lines in the way I was suggesting. It's probably because I am disinclined to use multiple washes or glazes that I first think of the rigger as a finishing touch. I usually have a stronger first application in terms of values (a small light in a larger dark within a general mid tone, for example). I dislike going back into painted areas, though I know that with the patience to let the surface become absolutely dry and using a light touch to avoid unwanted lifting of and mixing with the first wash, subsequent washes can be beautifully luminous and transparent. I also can see how the use of a rigger on a first wash can look a little weird! Jongkind gets away with rigger-like pencil and pen lines in his aquarelles because of the stronger values in his initial wash. Some of Monet's work is rather amorphous in terms of shapes without strong value differentiation, but he compensates for that with the use of texture. Rekha might use a little rough texture at the water's edges and elsewhere to help the shapes. | |||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 415 Registered: 8-2006 |
I would like some direction here please in terms of how you would tackle it next. I really don't know how/what to do further. I can see I need to add more values to the bridge and foliage | |||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 450 Registered: 8-2006 |
I'm with George. It's a gorgeous start for a painting, but it's not finished yet. | |||
George Unregistered guest |
It’s a beautiful first wash. It looks like step one was successful. Now you need to find the courage to move onto step two. Sometimes an artist likes the early development of a painting so much they are reluctant to finish it, for fear of ruining it. You may in fact ruin the painting in the process of trying to finishing it, but what you learn in the process will be worth the effort. Don’t use a rigger (sorry jack it’s the only thing I disagree with you on). Be colorful, be bold, be brave and most of all have fun because it looks like it’s going to be a joyful painting. | |||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 467 Registered: 8-2006 |
Rekha, since fools rush in where angels fear to tread, let me offer my personal (and admittedly amateurish) reactions. I love loose painting, and this is loose. At the same time, without taking away from the looseness too much, I think it could use some work with a rigger and dark paint to add a little detail to help us sort out the shapes a little more. It might have been better to have done that in your original work by using a few hard edges and value changes to accomplish the same thing, lending variety through contrast to the overall softness, but the rigger can still be a help. Just my personal first reaction. I don't have the tools to put up what I mean, but I think George and Marie do, if they agree with that thought and would like to give it a try. | |||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 412 Registered: 8-2006 |
 I greatly simplified the photograph (using Artellmedia's Artwork basics) friend gave of a bridge in North Wales. I shall much appreciate critical comments | |||
Garydoc Intermediate Member Username: Garydoc Post Number: 70 Registered: 8-2006 |
Also the use of circular rainbows as haloes in some early religious art to represent "karnei or" (horns of light) Gary | |||
Raliegh Intermediate Member Username: Raliegh Post Number: 69 Registered: 8-2006 |
On the islands we often see rainbows in the morning mist over the ocean looking west (sun just rising over the mountain behind) Moon bows created the same way, alot harder to distinquish bands of color but projecting an etheral glow. "Double rainbows" are possible in any of these views. As Handprint states rainbows follow unbreakable laws. The Bible states rainbows are to remind God of His promise to us through Noah in Genesis and in Revelation the rainbow is seen in its entirety around the throne. Perhaps this is where the 19th Century painters symbolic use of rainbows 'the end of our labors." | |||
Jay Unregistered guest |
FWIW, rainbows reflect the light from behind the viewer, not from its surroundings....also a 'clue' for the cast shadows in pix that have them. Can't see a rainbow unless the sunlight's coming from your back. /Jay | |||
Marie Advanced Member Username: Marie Post Number: 163 Registered: 8-2006 |
All of this discussion of rainbows reminds me of handprint's article on the geometry of rainbows -- http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/perspect6.html#rainbows ...just in case we want our rainbows to be *really* accurate. :-) | |||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Upon reexamining the painting, the color distribution is a yellowish band of distant landscape on top, a reddish band of rocks and a bluish band of water. The rainbow seems to mirror this. A red to violet rainbow would not. Thus, intentionally or accidentally, the rainbow as it is reflects the overall color scheme of the painting. | |||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Yes: Red on top violet at bottom--- http://www.tooter4kids.com/Light_Color/Rainbows.htm However, it shouldn't matter--it may be the artist had a design reason for painting it a certain way--not a slave to nature but a slave to art. | |||
Anonymous Unregistered guest |
I see yellow on top--and besides, so what? | |||
Rekha Advanced Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 128 Registered: 8-2006 |
Bill, I have a feeling that the rainbow wouldn't quite have had the sequence of colours you have painted; red on the top going to violet at the bottom | |||
Anonymous Unregistered guest |
Regarding the darks-- Adding the complement directly--green--to the cad red, wet on wet, might work well. (Not adding a green aliz mix which is still adding black). | |||
Anonymous Painter Unregistered guest |
Thanks, Eugene, Eric, and Bill. Bill, the black in this painting was mixed from (W/N) burnt sienna + Fr. UM Blue. I chose this dark rather than my usual Winsor green + either (perm. Aliz. Crimson) or (Perm. rose + Trans. yellow) because I wanted it to be more liftable. My palette does not contain gray, black, brown, or white. I very seldom use cadmium red, however, and don't feel I handled it very well here. It's splotchy, tended to lift where I was glazing or adding dark marks. Eric, the lack of balance may arise more from my poor placement of the bird. I really struggled to create a composite reference for this card. First I scanned the tree (from a field guide) and the cardinal (from a different field guide), then used a digital image manipulation program to try to get the relative size of bird & bits of branches correct. I had wanted the tail of the cardinal to overlap the trunk, with the bird bigger (though with its eye roughly 1/3 down & 1/3 from the left). But that would have required a different posture, and there was only so much time I could devote to creating the reference, which I needed before I could start to paint 6 separate cards. Next year I'll start setting up my reference for painting cards much earlier. Eugene, I'm afraid the one I've posted here was the card left over, therefore not a very good one! I think you're right about the poor drawing, but it's more likely the beak making the eye look wrong, since the highlight of the eye was my starting point in each case. (Necessarily, since I masked it.) This one does look a bit thin, too! The overall pale cast is probably my usual poor scan. I didn't try to correct it, since my monitor's brightness & contrast are currently very low to prevent extra strain on my aging eyes. Thanks for the critical eye, everyone! | |||
Bill Unregistered guest |
Kisha-- I looked carefully at the painting (now at the bottom of the thread). I really like it. A lot. | |||
Bill Unregistered guest |
I'm not sure how you colored your shadows in the red but they appear to be made with black or payne's gray mixed with red. They would be much more pleasing if you used a green complement of red to create them. | |||
Eric Unregistered guest |
The tree trunk on the left makes the composition seem a little awkward. Cover up the tree trunk with your hand and see if you think it's a better painting. | |||
Eugene Advanced Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 140 Registered: 8-2006 |
Looks a little pale, overall..and check your drawing. I think the eye is a little low and the cardinal should be a little "fatter"... but maybe it was sparce winter feeding. Good try. Keep it up and keep posting. | |||
Anonymous Painter Unregistered guest |
Painted with W/N artist's quality paints, on Strathmore blank card stock, about 4"x6". My inexperience with cadmium pigments shows... All critiques happily read.  | |||
Whitewatercolor Intermediate Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 87 Registered: 10-2006 |
I just got back on line after being without power for three days...Move over Bill, I'd like to be painting where you are. What a beautiful waterfall. It feels like a vacation. | |||
Marie Advanced Member Username: Marie Post Number: 143 Registered: 8-2006 |
Bill, I think the composition is especially strong. Perhaps the edge of the foliage on the left could be a little more irregular, but the basic shape works well. The mist and the movement of the water in the falls are especially effective. | |||
Bill Unregistered guest |
Thnakjs Eugene--I've often wondered if familiarity with a subject, or in this case, directly painting what is before one, can create misinterpretation in the viewer if the reality doesn't signal certain thnigs. The left foliage is growing from a cliff face about 1/2 way between the waterfall ledge and the viewer. At the point the foliage is seen it is making a turn outward to become parallel with the falls ledge. The little white lines at its foot are rivulets. I am so locked in to what I was seeing that I find it difficult to reorient myself to see it as if I hadn't seen it. I have wondered about the big green shape on the left and how it fits into the painting. I mirrors the shape of the falls perhaps a bit too directly. Eric--thanks for the Kudos on the colors--the entire painting was done with 5 pigments--Cad. Yellow , cad. red light, ultramarine blue, cerulean blue, and pthalo green. | |||
Eugene Advanced Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 128 Registered: 8-2006 |
Bill. The waterfall and mist are beautifully handled. The foliage on the left leaves me a little confused. Perhaps it should be more irregular in shape, and the rock it's growing from are not "rocky" enough for my taste. I think you'd have a more pleasing picture if you cropped the left side and addsd a little more foliage hanging in from the top left corner. It's a nice painting of a difficult subject. My comments are meant to help, not discourage. | |||
Eric Unregistered guest |
Bill- The mist is amazing, great colors in the water, values are right on. Nice painting. | |||
Raliegh Intermediate Member Username: Raliegh Post Number: 59 Registered: 8-2006 |
Bill that is a great painting. After much study it might be the sunlight is a bit off, I see a rainbow in the mist (you have done a beautiful job on the mist, I'd love to jump in right now) so the sun is behind the viewer. IMHO the highlights on the oblong leaves should show more light toward the front. Where is this waterfall? The foliage could be tropical but not the color of the sky above the water. Terrific job on the water. | |||
Bill Unregistered guest |
 Half sheet--plein air Comments encouraged | |||
Suzy Junior Member Username: Suzy Post Number: 25 Registered: 8-2006 |
Gary, DItto on the water but I would also gray and darken the back boats. | |||
Whitewatercolor Intermediate Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 86 Registered: 10-2006 |
Gary: I just have a minute...I've skimmed some of the comments...I like your painting also. The only suggestion I would make has already been made...darken the water. Just areas of it would help lead into the painting, you can selectively darken an area to highlight one or two of the boats, making them the focal point and by doing so, it would take away from the fact that the trees and water area are very close to the same size. You've used the tree area as the dark value in your painting. By darkening some of the water to the same value, you change the shape and size of your dark value and get the momma, papa and baby bear someone suggested. Nice painting, lots of work. Kisha--The freshness and use of warms and cools is exciting. I would have been happy with either of these paintings. | |||
Marie Advanced Member Username: Marie Post Number: 141 Registered: 8-2006 |
Gary, good job on the boats. Boats can be a challenge, and you are handling it well. I also like the way the sky transitions nicely to the trees. I think folks are struggling a bit with the arrangement of the boats -- there are a lot of different shapes there. As Bill suggested, you could eliminate some of the boats. Another option is to make the boats in front overlap the boats in the background. This would give more importance to the front boats. In addition, it would make the boats into a single shape, which would help the composition. Eric's suggestion about lowering the perspective is one way to make the boats overlap. | |||
Eric Unregistered guest |
Regarding Eugene's comments about Gary's painting: I like the idea of making the water darker, but what I might do instead is lower the perspective so you would view the boats against the dark background foliage. This would make the white boats really pop. And at the same time would make the dark background foliage shape more interesting as it cuts around the shapes of the boats. | |||
Eugene Advanced Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 126 Registered: 8-2006 |
Kisha== I think Marie's critique is right on! Making the background a little darker and bluer might help define the figure and enhance the flesh color. Good job on a difficult aubject. | |||
Eugene Advanced Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 125 Registered: 8-2006 |
Gary, I'll not dwell on composition. I like the painting style but I think making the water value a couple steps darker would make a big improvement. This would gove the boats more definition. Foliage is good, I especially like the way the top edge fades into the sky. | |||
Bill Unregistered guest |
Kisha--I like the paintings you posted maybe because they were done under time pressure and with a live model. There is a freshness and looseness about your use oif color and paint that makes them feel fresh and watercolor like. Garydoc--I like landscapes with water. I like the way the background foliage is rendered in staccato strokes. Very nice. I do have a problem with the clutter of boats--three are the same size and at approximately the same attitude. I would, next time, edit the scene for less boats. | |||
Bill Unregistered guest |
With all the calls for more pic postings, where are the promised critiques? Only a very few have responded. I recall some people wanting others to post so they could respond. So respond, darnit! | |||
Eric Unregistered guest |
Gary- That's pretty good. I like the fearless brushstrokes. (The brushstrokes might even look better if you used a bigger brush.) A compositional change I might make is with the 3 horizontal bands, the sky, the trees and the water. The water and the trees are the same size. Varying the size of the three(Mama, Papa, baby) might improve it. | |||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
I always like painterly paintings! I like the activity induced by the brush strokes in the foliage and water. The use of such active brush strokes seems very stylistic. I like the feel, the painterly looseness, of the foliage. One critical thing--the boat to the left is not have horizontal and seems to veer upward for no apparent reason. I would also like to see more variety in the foliage--esp. in value. | |||
Garydoc Intermediate Member Username: Garydoc Post Number: 60 Registered: 8-2006 |
Well! I finally finished a picture. WWC: the block had more to do with exhaustion at the end of the work-day and no energy to pull out a brush. (There was probably some 'white paper block' as well!) Anyway, I hope this posts ok. My 1st 'boat' picture of a really pretty basin next to the local VA hosp.  as usual: (c) copyright Gary L. Wasserman, 2006, all rights reserved | |||
Marie Advanced Member Username: Marie Post Number: 138 Registered: 8-2006 |
Suzy, in my version of Photoshop auto levels is under Image->Adjustments->Auto Levels. After you apply the auto levels, there's an option to fade autolevels. The fade is close to the "undo" item. Kisha, the best all-round anatomy/structure book is probably Bridgman's Complete Guide to Figure Drawing. A personal favorite is Robert Beverly Hale's "Master Class in Figure Drawing." For pure technical reference -- when something in Bridgman or the Hale book doesn't make sense -- there's a good book by someone named Goldfinger. It called "Human Anatomy for Artists" -- I'm not sure of the exact title. The Goldfinger book is overkill for everyday use, but it's the most detailed book out there. | |||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Thanks Marie-- we have a dearth of cadavers locally due to a zombie infestation. Could you recommend a good anatomy book, in lieu? Also, commemts from anyone else? Neg. is fine. | |||
Suzy Junior Member Username: Suzy Post Number: 24 Registered: 8-2006 |
MArie, Quick Photoshop Question about Auto levels..Exactly what did you do to enhance the photo of the artwork. Where is Auto levels...under what heading?? etc... | |||
Marie Advanced Member Username: Marie Post Number: 137 Registered: 8-2006 |
Now, on to feedback. Please forgive me if I talk too much. I just *love* figurative work, especially when it's done from a live model. I'm so happy to see what you're doing. (I don't talk so much about flowers or abstract painting.) First off, there's a lot of very sensitive observation on your part, and that's nice to see. Similar to last painting you posted, you're not falling into the symbols and stylization that so often ruin figurative work. Big kudos for that! The color, composition, and page use are all good. I'm wondering a little what might happen if you darkened the blue passage at the top, making sure to keep that rim of light at the top of her arm. But I'm not sure -- maybe that would work and maybe it wouldn't. Where to go from here? I would probably do some anatomy review. The rib cage and the head and good and solid, but there are some things about the shoulder and arm that are probably not reading as you intended. Of course, it's always difficult with a live model, because the models invariably move --- especially when they are leaning one arm; that's a tough pose to hold. And a model doesn't have to move very much before one gets into structural problems. In my own work, I find that a reasonable background in anatomy is a good way to help check what I observe. Good job, Kisha! you should be pleased. | |||
Marie Advanced Member Username: Marie Post Number: 136 Registered: 8-2006 |
I pulled it into Photoshop and used "auto levels." If you have a Mac, "enhance" in iPhoto will do the same thing. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it's a complete disaster, and sometimes it doesn't do anything. My camera does the same thing that yours does sometimes; I don't know why. When the white of the paper shows up as gray in my photo, "auto levels" will usually make the photo look more like the original. | |||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
On second thought, you nailed it, Marie--How did you do that? (and why is my camera so off?) | |||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Split the difference and you'll have it. | |||
Marie Advanced Member Username: Marie Post Number: 134 Registered: 8-2006 |
Is the original more like this?  Just curious. | |||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Here's one:  | |||
|
