A Good Spot, 16 x 12 inches, oil on linenI'm submitting this painting for an upcoming group show, Fish Tales at Christopher Queen Gallery on the Russian River. The show opens May 2nd, and as you may have guessed, is themed around fish and fishing, with emphasis on freshwater sport fishing.
When asked whether I'd be interested in participating, I said yes, but I know nothing about fishing and I don't paint still lifes (of fish, or anything else for that matter). Suggestions were made that I can paint landscape paintings of fishing holes, which seemed to me like a good idea. Not that I can tell a good fishing spot from a bad one, but I guessed if there were people fishing at a spot, and they had caught some fish, it was probably a good spot.
This is one such spot, a stream near a hiking trail in the Yosemite Valley. I used a photo to do the painting, as I didn't get a chance to make a trip out there - but I did take the photo myself, which is one of my rules; no painting from other people's photos.
I live right near the American River, but I don't particularly find that easy to paint because the big river landscape lends itself to boring horizontal strip compositions most of the time (at least, near where I live). It takes plenty of ingenuity on the part of the artist to make something interesting out of it.
A stream like this, on the other hand, is chock full of possibilities. The angles are dynamic, lots of movement, juxtaposed with solid forms of boulders which gives the painting structure. I can move them around to tweak the composition if necessary, and because the elements (water, rock, trees) are easily identifiable, I don't have to over define anything. Great for abstraction exercises!
As I studied the photo, I noticed that there is very little value difference between white water in the shadow and in light. But there is significant temperature shift. In order for white to have any identifiable color, it needs to be brought down a little bit in value, and that's what I did. The cooler temperature in the white water in shadow is further supported by diffused, cool light illuminating the top planes of the rocks, which differentiate themselves from the rocks in the foreground, the light on which are warmer and harsher.
The green stuff in the background is kept soft and cool, for the most part. In comparison, the green stuff in the foreground has more warmth, and more definition.
If you've been following this blog for a while, or if you've been in my workshops, you know that I think "cools recede" is a dumb rule. I don't want to go into it in detail here, but suffice to say the rule doesn't apply in this painting. "But the stuff in front is warm and the stuff in back is cool!", you might say. Yes, but that's only because I set it up that way. The stuff in back recedes not because it's cool, but because drawing, overlapping forms, edge manipulation, diminishing sizes make them go back in space. Not because it's cooler. It is cooler, because it's in shadow. If the foreground were in shadow and the background were in light, the cool stuff would be in the foreground. Would the background still recede? Absolutely –as long as I don't screw up the drawing, overlapping forms, etc.
Anyway, a fun subject matter to paint, with lots of interesting potential for more paintings!
When asked whether I'd be interested in participating, I said yes, but I know nothing about fishing and I don't paint still lifes (of fish, or anything else for that matter). Suggestions were made that I can paint landscape paintings of fishing holes, which seemed to me like a good idea. Not that I can tell a good fishing spot from a bad one, but I guessed if there were people fishing at a spot, and they had caught some fish, it was probably a good spot.
This is one such spot, a stream near a hiking trail in the Yosemite Valley. I used a photo to do the painting, as I didn't get a chance to make a trip out there - but I did take the photo myself, which is one of my rules; no painting from other people's photos.
I live right near the American River, but I don't particularly find that easy to paint because the big river landscape lends itself to boring horizontal strip compositions most of the time (at least, near where I live). It takes plenty of ingenuity on the part of the artist to make something interesting out of it.
A stream like this, on the other hand, is chock full of possibilities. The angles are dynamic, lots of movement, juxtaposed with solid forms of boulders which gives the painting structure. I can move them around to tweak the composition if necessary, and because the elements (water, rock, trees) are easily identifiable, I don't have to over define anything. Great for abstraction exercises!
As I studied the photo, I noticed that there is very little value difference between white water in the shadow and in light. But there is significant temperature shift. In order for white to have any identifiable color, it needs to be brought down a little bit in value, and that's what I did. The cooler temperature in the white water in shadow is further supported by diffused, cool light illuminating the top planes of the rocks, which differentiate themselves from the rocks in the foreground, the light on which are warmer and harsher.
The green stuff in the background is kept soft and cool, for the most part. In comparison, the green stuff in the foreground has more warmth, and more definition.
If you've been following this blog for a while, or if you've been in my workshops, you know that I think "cools recede" is a dumb rule. I don't want to go into it in detail here, but suffice to say the rule doesn't apply in this painting. "But the stuff in front is warm and the stuff in back is cool!", you might say. Yes, but that's only because I set it up that way. The stuff in back recedes not because it's cool, but because drawing, overlapping forms, edge manipulation, diminishing sizes make them go back in space. Not because it's cooler. It is cooler, because it's in shadow. If the foreground were in shadow and the background were in light, the cool stuff would be in the foreground. Would the background still recede? Absolutely –as long as I don't screw up the drawing, overlapping forms, etc.
Anyway, a fun subject matter to paint, with lots of interesting potential for more paintings!
8 comments:
I love a good argument against the
'they say' conventions! If warm and cool have to stay in their respective places, how does one account for black and white or full color photographs of great depth? I think color intensity and diminution of detail may be more of a factor than color temperature.
Whatever...this is a wonderful painting and it made me recall the word 'cataract' as a description of a place where water rushes over and through rocks.
A good spot no doubt. And an amazing painting of it. Love the texture you have achieved. I have always loved to look into the minds of artists and tried to figure out what they were thinking while painting a piece. Your extensive description of the painting helps me do just that with "A Good Spot". Thanks.
wow! nice one Terry!
This is beautiful, Terry. I love rushing water landscapes, rocks and trees...And cool just makes it sing to me.
I like these (not-so-little) little lessons. AND it was fun to see your photos of the show; you've got a neat face!
You can catch some nice pinot noir out there, too...
Thanks for your comments! This subject matter is new to me, but I've studied similar ones by great (and not so great) painters in the past, hoping to figure out how it's done. What I've found is, there's really nothing out of the ordinary about painting rushing water. You just have to realllly slow down and pay attention to the impact of each stroke you put down, and reallllly pay attention to how each shape relates to the whole.
Come to think of it, that's true of any painting. When I realized that, my other paintings got better. At the same time, my expectations became higher, so I had a lot more failed attempts! Ah, the cycle never ends.
Great painting Terry Good luck in your show
Thanks Jesus~
Post a Comment