| Author | Message | ||
  marie |
I like Whitney, and he has a lot of good things to say about the organization of purely abstract, two dimensional space. I don't recall, however, that he goes into any discussion of how to organize three dimensional space. In many paintings, particularly in more representational genres, your eye moves not only through the flat picture surface but also from back to front and vice versa. Also, most of the examples in his book are landscapes, and he only briefly talks about the figure. Painting the figure brings all sorts of organizational opportunities that he never mentions. The direction of the subject's gaze, for example, often becomes a powerful compositional element. The viewer's eye will tend to follow the imaginary line of the subject's eye, and this imaginary line can be as powerful as any literal line or shape. I could point out other examples as well. And one more thing .... there's aesthetic device that I find visually exciting and that doesn't quite fit the Whitney mold. I'm not sure what to call it -- virtuoso brushwork and/or line that sets off a tension between realism and abstraction. I see it in Hals, Sargent, and Turner. On first glance a passage looks a piece of drapery and then on the next glance it looks like an abstract blob of paint. My brain keeps switching back and forth from the real to the abstract. That's all for now. | ||
Robert |
Let me 'splain another way-- The criteria of good shapes and value contrasts is a great way to explain how to paint a successful painting (thanks in no small part to Edgar Whitney. What I am hoping for is a discussion that veers **away** from Whitney these concepts into other pricnciples not covered by Whitney that cover paintings that violate Whitneys dictums but are still successful. I've heard Whitneyisms my whole workshop attending life, but I know for a fact there are other ways to do it. I'd like some talk about that as well, personally. | ||
Robert |
Please understand--I have not questioned or criticised Whitney's ideas. I have merely tried to point out that they are not the only way to do it. Pehaps everyone already realizes this, but I think some people peceive that a painting stands or falls based upon its presentation of shapes and values. I'm just saying there may be other ways of looking at it. | ||
Eugene |
Robert, In defense of Ed Whitney. First, Ed was teaching basics to beginners, not accomplished artists. He had strict rules that were really helpful basics for beginners. But I think all students, when they reach a certain point of confidence, throw away many of the rules and strike out on their own. He certainly influenced many of today’s top watercolorists. Not all of them follow his way of thinking. Example- Skip Lawrence learned his basics from him but later changed his style completely. I don’t agree with all of his teachings and don’t like all of his paintings. But , I don’t like all of Monet’s work either. Thank goodness we all don’t think alike or we would all be painting the same boring pictures. | ||
Robert |
Well shut my mouth!!! I was thumbing through "Perfect Color Choice for the Artist" by Michael Wilcox and came across the Monet Garden ( it doesn't have nearly the value contast as the pixel version on your screen would have you believe)linked earlier with this caption: "Visual interest can be added to a painting by the skill manipulation of the contrast of temperature. A painting that is entirely 'warm' or entirely'cool' can be rather bland. By contrasting 'cool' and 'warm' the work can be brought to loife and have much greater impact. "Areas of a single hue can be made more interesting through this contrast. Constable was particularly skillful in this technique. His trees, firelds, or hedgerows were never of uniform temperature. "Small pathes of "warm' and "cool" grrens were placed side by side to break up what could have been a rather monotonous arrangement. "Claude Monet was also a great master of this technique. As you will see in the painting above, notonly are areas of 'warm' and 'cool' colors placed side by side, reds against greens, for example, but within each area of single hue a further series of contrasts have been established. | ||
Robert |
It must be the subtle contrasts among various hues and "micro" values of the color--the juxtapositions of the various chromas etc but I am not able to adequately or even inadequately analyze this. Maybe someone else around here could. What has hit me is that, with a firm background in Edgar Whitney's approach to composition, when I go to muiseums and look at some of the past "masterpieces" how far some of them stray from Whitney's ideals of composition. So this begs the question--is the shapes/value approach the "best" way, the "right" way? If not, how do we explain the other approaches, such as Monet's in the painting previously. Why does it work? I've been looking at some books by Paul Riley and several of his paintings just don't at all define and shapes. Jackson Pollack's canvases--are these focuses on shapes and values primarily? Nature strikes me as very compex and some scenes in nature impress me and move me to paint in ways that defy the Whitney canon. I am not at all being critical or iconoclastic here, but wanting to clearly express that there are other ways--- though when I talk watercolor I so often hear paintings analyzed in terms of "shapes" that I'm beginning to suspect many firmly believe this is an absolute, categorical platform from which to evaluate composition. It's not--it's a aesthetic construct. | ||
Eugene |
Looking at the Monet again, I see many shapes, but they are defined by color rather than value. | ||
Eric |
Yeah, the influence of Whitney is far-reaching, but his way isn't the only way. It can be pretty confusing for a beginning artist looking for instruction and direction with the abundance of instructors,books, videos and their different approaches out there. | ||
Eugene |
Robert - In your opinion what is essential and crucial in the Monet painting? I'm not trying to be smart or controverial. But I would like to hear your opinion. It is a beautiful painting, and I think it is because of color rather than shapes. | ||
Robert |
In other words, I'd like a different way of explaining this composition other than by shapes and values. True, if you squint, shadow areas and sunlit areas take on vaque shapes, but that is in my opinion superimposing a theory that does not address what's essential and crucial in the painting. | ||
Robert |
For instance, it is my opinion that the following painting clearly does not embody "shape/value" theory unless you wrestle with superimposing the theory on the painting. The painting works but follows a different sensse of aesthetics: http://sunsite.sut.ac.jp/wm/paint/auth/monet/last/giverny/monet.giverny.jpg | ||
Roberty |
And i guess my point was that, yeas, this is taught as the way to great compositions. But it is not the only way; it is an acquired aesthetic preference that many of today's artists assume is synonymous with the "right" way. | ||
Eric |
In addition to assigning values to shapes, a crucial point with Whitney is the strong emphasis on teaching what a "good shape" is versus a bad shape. He taught that the best and most interesting shapes have two different dimensions, are oblique, and have "incidents" at the edges. | ||
marie |
Edgar Whitney was popular at about the same time as Abstract Expressionism, and I have always assumed that his emphasis on shapes and design is rooted in Abstract Expressionism, a mostly American movement. In reading Whitney, it seems to me that he is almost trying to legitimize watercolor by wrapping it in the language of Abstract Expressionism. At the same time, some of my favorite British watercolorists, Trevor Chamberlain and Lucy Willis, talk a lot about value and tone. And a shape is really nothing more than an area of value. Maybe they are just using different language to get at the same thing. | ||
Robert |
Yep, that is specifically, precisely the aesthetic to which I refer. | ||
Suzy |
Frank Webb, who was a dear friend as well as a student of Edgar Whitney said that on his tomb stone he wants it to read 'He divided paper well" He went on to explain "that good composition is nothing but dividing the paper into pleasing intersecting shapes and then assigning values to those shapes.." | ||
Robert |
A lot of the watercolor talk I encounter regarding compositions employs the concept of "shapes." This is a useful tool for explaining a particular style of successful composition that is, as far as I can tell, strictly American in origin. I say this because I have several watercolor books by British painters who never mention shapes and don;t even adhere to their dominance in composition. I also look at a lot of impressionist art and it seems these guys largely followed a difference aesthetic than dominate shapes and strong value contrasts. I point this out because there is probably more than one aethetic when it comes to watercolor though the idea of shapes and strong value contrast seem to have become a virtual law among American watercolorist due, my guess is, to the plethora of workshops by Edgar Whitney school artists. | ||
ben |
one of Piet Hein's "Grooks": T.T.T Put up in a place where it's easy to see the cryptic admonishment T.T.T. When you feel how depressingly slowly you climb, it's well to remember that Things Take Time. | ||
Suzy |
One More: Creativity is allowing oneself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep. - Scott Adams | ||
Suzy |
I have no fear of perfection- I know I'll never reach it. - Salvador Dali | ||
SutureSelf |
There are four elements that must be correct in any of my work in order for the piece to be a success: Proportion, Shape, Value, Structure. If I fail to establish any of them, the piece fails. marie, you say "here's what I find going wrong with my work:...Values/Tones... I find that color rarely destroy[s] my paintings." There's an old saying that goes "Value does all the work but color gets all the credit." I've found that that's true. In my work, color can be almost whatever it wants to be. As long I've established the four elements well, the painting will work. | ||
Suzy |
For me, personally, it is almost always a state of mind. At this stage of my career when I am mentally in a good creative place, I create wonderful things. When I am the slightest bit distracted, upset, or pressured I don't. | ||
Robert |
Great question. I think for me it is when I don't take the time to really look and soak in the subject prior to beginning. The successes, modest thought they may be, usually come when I give myself a good portion of time to simply look and "be" with the subject and wait until it forms a genuine impression in my mind. | ||
marie |
I don't know about the rest of the group, but I find that I throw out at least two thirds of my paintings. As I look through the scrap heap, here's what I find going wrong with my work: 1) Drawing: Most of my rejects come from bad drawing. The head is too big or too small, or the hands are wrong, or I left out the feet. 2) Values/Tones: Poorly organized values come in a close second. Either I don't think through the values, or I don't get the values dark enough. Or I overwork the painting in an attempt to fix the values. 3) Accidents and Interuptions: The phone rings or the model takes a break when I am in the middle of a critical wash. I find that pigments choices and color rarely destroy my paintings. I would be curious to find out the experience of others in this group. Also, what do you do with your paintings when they don't work? Do you throw them away? Do you use them as test sheets? Do you use pieces of them for collage? Do you gesso them? |
