Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Metamorphosis


No, not Kafka. I'm talking about making big changes to a painting and giving it a new lease on life. 

This painting is not finished but I've spent quite a lot of time on it. I've been thinking about my decision making processes on this particular painting. There's so much going on (which was, now that I look at it, the main problem with the picture) that many conflicting ideas had be resolved.  I got confused at every turn, but in rare moments of clarity I told myself "this is important. I need to write this down before I forget and become confused again". 

And so here are some of my thoughts as the painting went through drastic changes.





This is where the change started. It was finished, hung in a show two or three years ago, and came back to me. It wasn't a bad painting, but my painting style has changed and it no longer looked like it should have my name on it. Too tight, too literal, too Hopper, too narrative, too cute.

At first I thought the tightness was what was bothering me the most, so I went over every surface, doing a looser version of it on top. If you've ever tried to loosen up an already finished tight painting, you know it's not easy to do. Much, much easier to tighten a loose painting than to go the other way.  (there's a lesson in there somewhere) 

But I knew it had to be done, and it could be done - I just had to keep going till the entire painting was loosened up because only then will I have a "loose context". A little bit of looseness in an otherwise tight context only looks like a mistake.


And then I decided that this painting relied too much on the narrative. The story there, like a scene from a novel. Nothing wrong with that, except I didn't want a narrative-driven painting. So I took out the car and the figures, the main players of the story.

Now I'm left with the set, without the actors. The visual elements such as the fire escape shadows and the striped awning became more important, and I noticed that there were actually a bunch of  strong elements competing for attention. Is it about the fire escape, the cast shadows, the awning, the sign... Too many good things crammed into one picture. Too many statements.

As much as I hated to do it, I had to get rid of the awning. That was a tough decision (I really liked the awning!) but I think it was the right thing to do. It felt right immediately afterwards.

Once that was cleaned up, I noticed another BIG problem. Actually, I had noticed it long ago but was in denial, hoping that drastic editing of the elements would somehow solve my problem or may be help me fake it. No such luck.

What's the problem, you ask. It's the color vs. tone structure. Look at the cast shadows of the fire escape in the earlier versions. They have a lot of blue in them, and feel much lighter and airier. Toward the bottom of the painting, the shadowy areas are much more tonal, dark, and moody. This is a conflict of light conditions that doesn't make very good sense, even accounting for artistic license.

Do I want tonal and moody, or light and airy? Can't have it both ways. The tonal approach will give me a grittier, more somber, and perhaps a  more timeless feel. On the other hand, the lighter, bluer shadows imply that I have a blue sky above the buildings, contrasting with the orange afternoon light. It implies a particular time of day, a particular kind of light, and that my intent would have to be to suggest that that's important. Is it about the color temperature shifts, or the patterns and shapes of the shadows?

I concluded that it was the latter. With considerable doubt, I took out most of the blue in the cast shadows. And I really liked the result. It's still got that warm afternoon light, but without making a big statement about color. The painting wasn't about pretty colors, after all.

Now I could see the overall mood coming forth, that of the afternoon sun, a mundane urban street, the familiar, comfortable yet slightly anxious feeling of living in the not-so-slick part of the city.

Yes, this is what I want. But the emptiness of the street seemed to be making too much of a statement. Why is it empty? Is it a ghost town? Did the plague wipe out the population? Am I making a statement about death and abandonment?



Hardly. But you see how my mind makes one association after another. Anyway, I put a pedestrian back into the picture, taking care not to overplay his presence. No bright colors or contrast on him. Let him lose some edges and be integrated into the scene rather than be the center of another narrative. Give us a sense of life but don't let the painting be about this particular person.

So this is where I am right now. I'm still working on it, but all the main issues are resolved, so I'm just tweaking edges and refining shapes and strokes. I like it very much.


26 comments:

  1. I just discovered your work and waow, i love it! this last post is beautiful (maybe it's because urban landscapes "talk to me") i'm a french painter sorry for my poor english... now i have to take the time to discovered all the post ;). Thank You.
    www.jeanmariedrouet.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fantastic post! I really enjoyed reading your thought process throughout the evolution of the painting. It's a much better painting now.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for all these wonderful insights into your thought process Terry!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you Terry for taking the time to share your thought process and the evolution of your pieces. I am a beginner painter but feel very inspired by your work. Can you tell us how much of your work is brush vs palatte knife? I wish I could take a workshop with you but I live WAAYYY out in the northeast. Maybe someday! P.S. Maine is breathtaking in the summer and fall (hint, hint!)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Really great to see the big changes in your painting. Was the painting varnished?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wow! I love how you shared this transformation and what you were thinking as you did it. The end result is great.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wonderful explanation of your thoughts and process; but I am curious as to how you worked on top of a several year old painting?
    Was it varnished and if so did you remove the varnish? Did you use a medium to work on top?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Terry, great seeing this process, the thinking(90%) is where its at when painting. Simplification does it. Strong shapes and values. Makes for a more powerful statement.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This was fun for me cause I got to see you go through this, or parts of it. Thanks for putting it into words. I love the results...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks Jean Marie~

    Love your paintings! Really compelling design and mood. I'll be following your blog too :-D

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks Sergio! I got more from the older series going through surgery. Some won't come out alive but still fascinating to see the changes - even if, (or especially because) it is my own paintings.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You're very welcome and thank you for reading, John~

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous; thanks! I'd come do a workshop in Maine anytime if your local art association or a school wants to sponsor me!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Oh, I forgot to answer your question; I'd say 99% of my work is brush. I do use the knife toward the end of the painting, mostly to scrape / integrate one abstract blob into another / put in a sharp line or an edge.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thanks Mike~ the painting was varnished with Liquin - so it wasn't like I had to remove Dammar. Just painted on top of it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thanks Stephanie! Much appreciated!!

    ReplyDelete
  17. JacMac, I don't use Damar or other *varnish* varnish that's removable. For one thing, I really have a hard time with the fumes (even outside!) and I don't like the overly shiny surface. I do use a thin coat of Liquin as a varnish, so if I need to work on an old painting I just go right on top like it just dried last week.

    Usually, if I paint on a dried surface, I end up repainting the whole thing because true wet-on-wet edges (most of my strokes need to be that way) can't be faked.

    This particular painting probably has four or five versions painted on top of previous versions. Very much a "process" painting, and not alla prima.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thanks Mary~ You're absolutely right. Less really is more!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Randy, you see it in real time, failures and all~ Never a dull moment in my studio!

    thanks for the brownies :-D

    ReplyDelete
  20. I love the changes. Thanks for sharing your process. I feel like I've been to a workshop and it really makes me appreciate what goes into your work.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thank you so much. This is a lovely post. Its unbelievable that you think so much about each painting you do. No wonder they all come out so well.
    Best wishes,

    ReplyDelete
  22. love reading your thoughts as you're working out changes...it's funny, you do make me chuckle...but probably because i can identify with all the questions you go through. I like the changes you made!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thanks Kimberly! Hmmm may be I'll do a class or a workshop on resurrecting paintings!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thanks Vinayak~! "obsess" might be the word... :-D

    ReplyDelete
  25. Thanks Sally~! Glad you can relate~

    ReplyDelete
  26. Terry, you're such a great blogger. Your ability to describe your decision making process is remarkable. And, your ability to make such wholesale changes might even convince me to abandon watercolors ;).
    Great post and great work.

    ReplyDelete