skip to main |
skip to sidebar
For this workshop we were asked to prepare an A1 canvas and to bring in paints, oil or acrylic colours but NO black or white.
We were given a bag of foam shapes and asked to prepare either a 3D composition using wire or to make a flat composition on a white sheet of paper, i chose the flat piece and i don't really like working from 3D objects.
Here is my composition...
I have layered the shapes to create depth and tried to cover the whole white paper so i wouldn't have to deal with 'white' background showing through, where there is slight amounts showing, i drew the shapes on larger to eliminate this.
Unfortunately (being the wally i am) i forgot to document the on-going process while i was building the layers up, however, i started by making a yellow wash and drawing on the shapes lightly with the paint. Then basically using the colours i had with me, added washes to the shapes using the corresponding colours. I didn't really get that much done during the day and come the end of the lesson wasn't really taken with my effort so far.
Yesterday at home however, i built up the painting, having previously bought better colours and paints from Studio Arts in town.I kept referring to Howard Hodgkin and the style he paints in to try and make something decent of my painting. This is not what i would normally choose to paint at all and i kept feeling disappointed in myself at the direction the painting was going in, i knew it needed 'something' to bring it to life.
I experiment with brush strokes and building similar colours up over each other, instead of just painting in block colour, in a sense it added tone and depth to the piece.
Here in these images you can see the colours layered over each other and the quite 'brushy' lines still evident.
While i was completing this painting i was looking at artists such as Howard Hodgkin and Mark Rothko who both use copious amounts of colour in their work, they are renowned for their use of colour in their painting styles. In particular i studied Hodgkin's brush movements and his layerings of colours and replicated this on the shapes so they didnt just sit flat on the canvas. I varied the brush sizes as well to give a greater definition to some of the marks. Hodgkin's has a very unique painting style though, so it wasn't a case of trying to copy him, more of taking his style and adapting in in my own work to a lesser extent. Here are some examples of their work....
Howard Hodgkin
Howard Hodgkin
This morning i started my final piece in response to the Soutine Painting. Using a viewfinder i reduced the original image to this, as i felt that even though the painting had been dramatically reduced, that there was still enough information within this reduced version to still grasp the painting.
Side of Beef and Calf's Head by Chaim Soutine. Oil on canvas 92x73cm 1923
So this above smaller version is what i have been concentrating on whist completing a painted study of the piece. For this last final attempt, i cut down the A1 mount to A2 size and instantly knew that this scale was much better for me to work on. I started off as usual, defining the darkest area and then building up tone with burnt sienna and then going over the tone with its matching colour counterpart, working over the image as a whole instead of just concentrating on one area at a time.
Gradually i built up the carcass area, using the colours to match the undertones....
And kept on going, trying to concentrate on the lines to build up the tones and colour to create the image.
Then i spent the rest of the time building it up more and more, using varied brushes to create differing lines,
I am going to go back to this piece in a few days, as just looking at it now, i can see areas i'm not happy with, and it gives me a chance to reassess the piece with fresher eyes. But here is the piece so far in its entirety....
Comparing it to the Soutine, i can see his tones are less vibrant than what i have created in my piece, so i feel a re-visit is needed in a few days....just to touch it up.
This afternoon i decided to start my final piece, choosing to use the whole A1 mount card, which turned out to be mistake!!!!!
I started by defining the black areas....
Then using orange mixed with a burnt sienna lightly started to define the tone...
Then as instructed, and having done previous attempts with the test pieces, began to build up the colour, then it just started going downhill.
I don't know whether this was because i was tired but the picture as a whole i felt just wasn't working on the A1 scale and every subsequent mark i made, just made it look worse.
And sooooo having documented with photographs, the evidence of this attempt, i decided to turn over the mount card, prime it ready to REDUCE the scale to A2 for tomorrow attempts.
Don't get me wrong there were some lovely areas with the carcass area like this pictured below, but as a WHOLE painting it just looked awful. I guess that it was a case of trying the scale to know it wasn't right, so i can only learn from this experience.
Having done the previous tests on A3 scale i decided trying a really small scale, maybe around the size of A5, if not that...just to see how well the painting would come out at a smaller scale. Here is how it came out.....
I quite like this small scale but i don't think i will do my final piece at such a small size as it was really hard to paint, plus i prefer working on a large scale...
I'm also thinking i would like to do my painting in line and colour, just concentrating on those two aspects primarily...
These are the tests am i doing in preparation for tackling my final response to the Soutine painting from the Carcuss Series, pictured here.
Laura said we could tackle the painting either concentrating on tone, colour, line, texture or shape; i decided to do about four or so tests to determine what was working and what wasn't.
This one here, i used burnt umber to respond tonally to the piece. Also using a viewfinder have cut down the image to what i have painted here, as i didn't like the piece as a whole but still feel that there is more than enough information in this reduced version to still understand the painting and what the imagery conveys. I think that this tonal piece worked well, but i found it hard using tone in just one colour.
These pieces above are responses in colour; i just concentrated using the colours to create the depth and tone in the original piece.
This painting here, was a line response, using only line to create the tone and depth of the painting. I found i liked representing the piece in line and definitely want to use colour as well for the final piece.
My thoughts on this piece, is that i'm not sure i like it as a painting, firstly the subject matter is quite grotesque, it's not like i am disgusted by it or anything, i just wouldnt want it on my wall. The palette is limited and quite dull, it is just not a painting that brings me any interest or joy. I do think it has strong imagery, and a definate theme to it, and the darker background really emphasises the shape of the carcuss and brings out the colours in the head of the calf.
To be honest i cant really relate to this painting, this is not what i would ever choose to paint, given the choice, i personally like to be quite realistic with my painting and this style of painting, quiet gestural, with the brush strokes showing doesnt appeal to me, maybe on a different subject but definately not this.
When i have been responding to this piece, initially in the class i was more trying to copy it rather than respond and i know sometimes that this is a problem for me, but choosing to use line, or scale or tone as a certain aspect to concentrate on really helps as you tend to concentrate on the formal property rather than trying to do a mark for mark perfect copy.
I approached this piece well i thought, the tonal aspect when it was announced threw me slightly but once i got into the swing of things, highlighting the darkest areas and the lightest and then working in the mid-tones, it seemed to flow pretty well.
I started off with a light grey wash, outlining the image, working quickly and swiftly as it was only the outline, which only needed defining vaguely to allow me to work more into the actual tone.
From then on, i just got on with it and painted just what i saw, mainly concentrating on tone.
Laura said we could use some charcol if we wanted to, so then i used the charcol to define some areas but ended up using it to define the edges against the background.
The background as previously explained, i wanted to keep minimal as to keep the object the main focus, i didn't want to paint the background as i saw it, behind the still life, as i felt this would distract from the actual object.
I revisited the painting a few days after spending the whole day working on it, to reasses what was going on in the piece and add some final lighter tones to it, with fresh amounts of paint.
When i approach painting i always do an outline in a wash, which is exactly what i did here on this piece. I tend to paint quite life-like, not the extent of say photo-realism but i like people to know what it is i have painted and i guess that is how i paint and the style i paint in, and this has been carried into this piece.
I can't say i liked using the oils in this context on raw canvas as it was hard work; i tend to paint using acrylics myself as had actually never used oils before. I think i handled them well though, and managed to apply them well, although trying to thin them out was hard work.
In relation to the Berger essay, i just saw what i saw and interpreted the object in my own way, in my own style and how i saw the still life there and then on the day. We were all a little preoccupied by the fact the piece looked like somone from the KKK, a white hooded figure; was a little distracting and may influence what a viewer would describe it as too.
John Berger states in his essay...
"The difference is in what the painting delivers: in how closely the moment of it being looked at, as foreseen by the painter, corresponds to the interests of the actual moments of its being looked at by other people, when the circumstances surrounding its production have changed."
I feel this sums up what I was trying to explain in my previous post, everyone is going to have a different opinion on the painting and people's reaction to art is always going to differ. There isn't one simple answer or response to a piece of art, what one person believes another may totally contradict and disagree with their views.
So of course, someone passing judgement on our pieces, or any piece of art for that matter who doesnt know the intention and stages of production may be at a loss as to what they are seeing. Most people's reaction in this case is "i don't get it", "i don't understand" and usually "oh i don't like it, my 5 year old could do that". It is REALLY annoying as an artist if someone passes such a judgement on your work.
With regards to the piece we have just produced, the still life with Laura, the object appears to be very figurative, and a lot of people interpreted it in this way, although when we went around the class marking each other's work, on Trine's painting the 'figure' looked like a massive rock amongst a landscape, whether she intended this or not, i don't know? Yet she painted exactly what the rest of us had painted; this is an example of what Berger is trying to say in his essay.
This seems to have been a burning issue amongst the group lately as we heard along the grapevine that Laura didn't seem to think any of our large paintings of the still life were finished, which of course, being more experienced maybe she noticed things we didn't in our work.
I feel that this is a very SUBJECTIVE issue as the artist may intend to paint something in a specific way which may arouse the issue in its viewers, critics, that their work isn't finished.
When i think about my piece, posted below, i know i really wanted the background to be minimal and keep the focus on the 'figure' (if you will) but after hearing that it wasn't apparently finished it made me think twice to reasses the painting.
Ok so i have followed the criteria, i've filled the canvas, got the image on there and done a tonal black and white representation of the image.
The criteria, which i am reading now states 'pay special attention to the relationship between the object and the background and the definition of the edges'.
Now some may argue i have drawn the image on and used charcol to define the edges, and that they are 'no such things as outlines' but i wanted to keep quite a drawn feel to the image. In fact it was only after the application of paint did i use the charcol, i started out with a wash of oil which outlined the object.
Anyway, over Easter i am going to look at the piece again and see what else may need doing to it.....my only concern with the background is that when i've seen other members of the groups work with full background, it has distracted from the image, which i really don't want to do as i feel i have produced a strong piece.
SO when is a painting finished?
Well, from experience, it is when i feel i have come to a point where anymore work would spoil it and know i have sometimes pushed this boundary too far and ruined previous works.
I take a step back and constantly reasses my work and keep revisiting it, a few days afterwards sometimes for a fresh outlook.
Sometimes you just get a feeling about your work, like an intuition that it needs 'something' more. But i can't give a definate answer, not because i don't know; maybe i don't know how to express what i mean, but my main reason is that you have to take into account the artists's intentions, who are we to question their work? We can give a critical response and an analytical response, but we cannot account for their reasonings.
Yes, we have been given a criteria to follow, but as artists do we have to follow this inclusively? Or is there room for indiviuality and personal response?
It's all pretty confusing, as i dont believe there is a definate answer to this, i just think you know in yourself, as an artist, knowing your own intentions...
Until someone comes along and tells you otherwise............
I have layered the shapes to create depth and tried to cover the whole white paper so i wouldn't have to deal with 'white' background showing through, where there is slight amounts showing, i drew the shapes on larger to eliminate this.
Here in these images you can see the colours layered over each other and the quite 'brushy' lines still evident.
Howard Hodgkin
Mark Rothko
Mark Rothko
Mark Rothko
