Like so many, after art school I rejected the tantalizing career path of the “starving,” or, studio artist. Becoming a graphic designer promised a more secure and comfortable lifestyle while still offering creative reward. Now, after many years I’d love nothing more than to get to a position where I can easily side-step into a monetarily-comfortable, but more creatively-satisfying fine art career. It’s not that simple! Here are my reports from the front lines.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Looking Back to Go Forward
I've learned a lot about what makes a good painting in the 14 years I have been working in oils. That's not to say that I always pull it off, but I tend to stumble less often, or catch myself sooner. An interesting exercise I do is look back at my work of years ago and think about how I might have produced a better result. I painted this canvas in a rush, plein air, over 2 days in November of 1998.
I enjoyed making this image and being outside on 2 beautiful Fall days. It's one of my most prized paintings in my personal collection. There are some things that could have made it a better image, however. Since I am also a graphic designer I can "work" on this painting (photo) in Photoshop on my computer and explore what I could have done better. 1) I have always felt that the top left area, in the shadows of the church should have been cooler and a little lighter to add to the feeling of depth. 2) The tree in the middle may or may not have had many limbs all the same thickness, but this would be unusual in nature. Most trees have varied limb sizes, and making one dominate the bunch would make a better design. 3) The olive-colored cedar at top right is just grazing the naked tree trunk in front of it. It would look better if it stopped short or extended beyond the gray trunk on the naked tree. 4) The three gravestones in the foreground are the center of interest. They also establish the first and most important illusion of depth in the painting. Even though the smallest one of the three *was* in front, it is contradicting the things-get-smaller-as-they-recede rule. This fights against the illusion I was trying to create. The painting would be better if I disregarded the actual scene and adjusted the stones to help me with depth.
I used the color-adjustment curves to address the church shadows, and the clip and clone features on the rest to produce this result. The final computer image is a better design than the original. This was a powerful lesson for me, albeit after the fact. If you have the means, playing around with your final images in Photoshop (or some other image-manipulating software) is a quick way to experiment with some visual what-ifs on past paintings. Remember these lessons the next time you are designing a painting. Your work can only improve.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment