I, too, like the energetic brushwork of the first one. It seems to me, though, that the additions from last week changed the perspective. Now I'm looking up and into the full canopy; before I was looking at the trees head on and from a distance. I think I prefer last week's, just because it felt more active. Like the colors on the second one but the shapes seem too clearly defined (with all the action going on strictly inside those shapes). I guess I'd like to see more integration between shapes so they don't look like separate elements that aren't relating to each other.
In the first painting, you’ve lost a lot of the small branches that helped define the trees as trees. Also the brushwork on the trees gets lost in the darker background, imo. Bring those trees back! On the second one, I really like the color and shapeof the trees, but those clouds above are just a distraction. They need to be modulated a bit. Beautiful colors and brushwork in both.
There is an apocryphal story, well actually I just made it up, about a conversation between Gainsborough and Constable where Gainsborough says, "I love the beauty of nature, that is why I study and sketch it in great detail, so that I can get it right in translating it to paper and paint and present it to the viewer in all its glory." "Nature is beautiful and all that," says Constable," and I certainly make use of it in my paintings, but I use it as raw material in the greater good of expressing my vision." I can't vouch for who said what, but they are roughly taken from my reading about the English landscape painters. And of course I side with the latter artist. I don't care that much if the tree doesn't look like a tree as long as it looks good to me. I am not saying that this is the right way to be, just the way I am. And I am not complaining about your comment, all input is good. Those clouds though, yeah, I don't like them either.
I, too, like the energetic brushwork of the first one. It seems to me, though, that the additions from last week changed the perspective. Now I'm looking up and into the full canopy; before I was looking at the trees head on and from a distance. I think I prefer last week's, just because it felt more active. Like the colors on the second one but the shapes seem too clearly defined (with all the action going on strictly inside those shapes). I guess I'd like to see more integration between shapes so they don't look like separate elements that aren't relating to each other.
ReplyDeleteIn the first painting, you’ve lost a lot of the small branches that helped define the trees as trees. Also the brushwork on the trees gets lost in the darker background, imo. Bring those trees back! On the second one, I really like the color and shapeof the trees, but those clouds above are just a distraction. They need to be modulated a bit. Beautiful colors and brushwork in both.
ReplyDeleteThere is an apocryphal story, well actually I just made it up, about a conversation between Gainsborough and Constable where Gainsborough says, "I love the beauty of nature, that is why I study and sketch it in great detail, so that I can get it right in translating it to paper and paint and present it to the viewer in all its glory."
Delete"Nature is beautiful and all that," says Constable," and I certainly make use of it in my paintings, but I use it as raw material in the greater good of expressing my vision."
I can't vouch for who said what, but they are roughly taken from my reading about the English landscape painters. And of course I side with the latter artist. I don't care that much if the tree doesn't look like a tree as long as it looks good to me. I am not saying that this is the right way to be, just the way I am. And I am not complaining about your comment, all input is good. Those clouds though, yeah, I don't like them either.