| Author | Message | ||
  Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 222 Registered: 8-2006 |
The thought that experienced artist like you, Eugene, do fall back on the elements of form adopted by celebrity artists, is very encouraging to a beginner like me. Today I received my copy of Maitland Graves' The art of color and design. I am just skimming through the pages at present and notice that after reading this book I shall have no need for reading any further books on the matter. | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 235 Registered: 8-2006 |
Rekha, I think I used raw Umber not raw sienna to dull the pthalo | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 234 Registered: 8-2006 |
REKHA.I was intrigued by some of the sky colors in Eric Sloan's oil paintings. And tried to imitate them with watercolors. I have two of his books--"Spacious Skies"& "Age of Barns", and although they're oil paintings they are good examples for the landscape painter. | ||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 221 Registered: 8-2006 |
Thanks Eugene. The phthalo-raw sienna gives a wonderful background. How did you arrive at that pigment combination or is it what you observed? | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 232 Registered: 8-2006 |
Rekha, No, the figures were not painted wet in wet. I did a tremendous amount of maskng in this painting. All the wood and lighter parts of the figures. The wood was masked with tape and the figures with Pebeo drawing gum, which I think is the easiest masking fluid to use and remove. It was a lot of work, but the only way I could do a juicy sky. I had some trouble with paint leaking under the tape, but Marie has suggested that I use a different tape next time. (it was white artist's tape that gave me the trouble) | ||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 210 Registered: 10-2006 |
This message should have been posted on the thread on materials. I don't know how it got on this thread, other than the other one is so long, I had trouble even finding the message box. We may want to begin another thread on materials. Thanks. Bonnie | ||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 208 Registered: 10-2006 |
P.S. This arrangement also prevents the pigment from sitting in too much water, so that when I pick it up I don't get incidental unwanted water (any excess runs down the table). | ||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 207 Registered: 10-2006 |
Okay, Kisha, maybe someone can help me solve a problem here. I use a Tom Lynch porcelain pallette to hold my paint. I keep two sponges in it, which I keep wet, and then put a layer of waxed paper over the pallette before I put the lid on. My problem is, I have gotten in the habit of mixing my paint on the melamine surface of my painting table, while it is slanted. It is white. I put my paper mounted on gatorboard on an easel. This allows me to keep my pigments separate and mix them at the same time. Allows a large surface for getting just the right mixes yet still mix various grays. I am concerned about any exposure to the cadmiums and cobalts I may be getting from having these pigments over such a large area. After I finish a painting I use a spray bottle of water and a soft cotton (diaper-like) towel to clean off the table, but I'm sure lots of stray cads and cobalt are hanging around. Does anyone else see this as a problem? Can you think of a solution? This setup works so well for painting, I can't seem to let it go. | ||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 214 Registered: 8-2006 |
Eugene, are the figures in your post no. 211 painted wet-in-wet? | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 229 Registered: 8-2006 |
Thanks for the thoughts and kind words. Fortunately our retirement community has a great health care unit which is just minutes away. I don't have to go outside to reach it, so visiting is easy. Faye seems to be doing fine. She's in good health otherwise, but it will be a slow and painful recovery. Thanks again- I'll be in touch. This forum is my access to the outside world. I wont forsake it! | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 188 Registered: 8-2006 |
Eugene, A pelvic break is so painful, and I know care and recovery is hard -- you have my heartfelt concern that you have strength to carry on! | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Eugene-- It's very sad to hear this about your wife. I wish we could be there in person to help you with this. Please accept my best withes both for you and for recovery. | ||
Beth New member Username: Beth Post Number: 1 Registered: 3-2007 |
Eugene, very sorry to hear about your wife. Please don't forsake the forum. There are many people who enjoy your posts. I hope your wife gets better soon. | ||
Maidensmith Junior Member Username: Maidensmith Post Number: 16 Registered: 8-2006 |
Eugene, I am so sorry to hear about your wife's accident. | ||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 202 Registered: 10-2006 |
Eugene, I am also thinking of you and your wife and wishing you the best. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 276 Registered: 8-2006 |
Eugene, you and your wife are in my thoughts and prayers. I hope she gets better soon. | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 225 Registered: 8-2006 |
Sure, I'll post a final, if I ever get to painting it. My wife slipped on the ice last week and broke her pelvis. So I spend most of my time at our health care unit. Not much time for paintng. However, maybe the time I have to think and reconsider will help when I finally get to painting. (think like the tortise, paint like the hare) | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 186 Registered: 8-2006 |
Eugene, Could we see your final version of your painting, after receiving all the responses posted on this thread? | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 185 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, Very helpful clarification of the difference between principle and rule. I agree. An example from the area of religion might be the development of the Jewish rulebook, the Torah, that went far beyond the simple principles set forth in canonical Scripture. Jesus accused the religious leaders of his time with adding unnecessary and heavy burdens to God's people by imposing such rules. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Jack, interesting theory! (from the photograph thread) If you are correct it means Bonnie and Kisha were born after, or were at least children after, the counter culture revolution in the late 1960’s. I thought I’d say a little more about the rule/principle confusion. A principle of design is really very abstract and difficult to understand. Design teachers have attempted to simplify the principles by giving concrete examples. Consider the principle of Balance. Balance is the concept of visual equilibrium and simply says that everything in the painting must be in a state of visual equilibrium in order for the painting to be good – it’s nothing more than that! But, how many people know what is meant by visual equilibrium? How many people can recognize visual equilibrium when they see it? They can sense visual equilibrium, but they can’t say they know what it is that makes it, or what it is that breaks it. So! The design teachers trying to simplify, and communicate, the principle of balance created the concrete example of a scale (seesaw, balance beam, and so on). This allowed for a discussion of symmetrical and asymmetrical variation (principle of variety) into the understanding of Balance. Here’s another example from one of the websites I posted on the photograph thread; Emphasis - say "Center of Interest." It is about dominance and influence. Most artists put it a bit off center and balance it with some minor themes to maintain our interest.” This attempt to simplify the abstract principle of dominance verses subordination (it’s nothing more than that) into a more concrete, and easy to understand concept of "Center of Interest" really changes the principle into a rule. So, what’s the problem with changing the principle into a rule? The problem is that changing principles into rules the design teachers changed the basic significance of the principles of design. Principles can not be broken. Rules can be broken. When a design teacher says about Emphasis; “most artists put it a bit off center and balance it with some minor themes to maintain our interest”, he is suggesting a rule. This rule can be broken without changing the principle of Emphasis. But…hay…look at the problems that have been created in trying to simplify religious concepts by using the concrete stories found in the bibles of all the major religions. Sorry about pulling the religion and art thread into this, but I just wanted to show that often attempts to make things clear (in art, religion and so on) can cause another kind of confusion. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Jack, well said! | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 167 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, I take no offense from Kisha's post, and I certainly intended none in mine. She is right. Idiots try to paint with or without knowledge of design principles, and following design principles doesn't necessarily result in good painting -- my painting is a good example of that reality. You may try for good design, but that doesn't mean you achieve it. And sometimes (I was being serious), you may intentionally go against some of the principles to achieve a certain effect or impression. On the other hand, George, I did not mean to suggest that design principles were only for the learner or beginner. The whole point is to so integrate the principles of design into your subconscious that you continue to paint in accord with those principles. You are right, of course, in suggesting that it would be unfortunate for experienced painters to woodenly or mechanically refer to design principles as they paint. That would be like asking Lance Armstrong to keep training wheels on his bike. However, it is interesting for even experienced painters to evaluate what they have produced in light of design principles -- to see if harmony, unity, etc. have been achieved in the way the elements of design have been handled. George, your last post also says that the principles of design are mistakenly thought of as rules, whereas in your post of March 1 (5:44 pm)you rightly indicate that the principles of design are drawn directly from the laws of nature. Therefore, whether or not we wish to call principles of design "rules," they do partake of natural law and are more than arbitrary suggestions. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Kisha, take it easy on Jack. I admit he sounded a bit harsh, but he didn’t mean to sound that way. I’m sure you know some people who begin a study of painting without any knowledge of the design principles, and who also don’t share your interest in discovering the source of the design principles. My guess is that you share Jack’s concern for those people. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
"However, some people may launch into painting with no awareness of design principles at all".. and some people drive drunk and some people are no talent idiots, regardless of whether or not they use good design principles. Ask yourself this--is it possible to paint a really bad painting, a repulsively terrible painting that adheres to the the principles of design? The answer should be a resounding yes. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Gee, I hope that was clear. I’ve been thinking about how the best way to paint (Kisha’s interest) and the best way to teach someone to paint (Jack’s interest) can be integrated into one approach to painting. I think Kisha would agree that being efficient and practical can at times be useful if everything is keep in its proper context. I also think Jack understands the way the principles of design are taught is almost always misleading and thus the principles of design are often mistakenly thought of as rules. Perhaps the best of both approaches can be melded into one approach if design teachers, while teaching the principles of design, were to stress; 1. that the student can best create perfect Balance in the painting when the student’s life is in a state of perfect balance. 2. that the student can best create perfect Unity in the painting when the student is in perfect unity with the oneness in the universe 3. that the student can best create perfect Harmony in the painting when the student’s life is in perfect Harmony. 4. that the student can best create perfect Rhythm in the painting when the student is in touch with the rhythms of nature. and so on…….. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Kisha, in your last post you suggest that the issue for you is - the best way to paint. In his last post, Jack’s issue is - the best way to learn to paint. They are related, but that are different issues. Reading the two posts reminded me of a discussion about learning that took place more than 30 years ago in one of my undergraduate college classes. A young lady made the argument that learning to swim by breaking down the act of swimming into it’s basic parts (arm movements, leg movements, breathing, and so on) was not the best way to learn to swim. She said, if you throw a person into the deep end of the pool, that person will either drown or learn to swim. Swimming is a natural act, and faced with death the subconscious mind would instruct the arms and legs to move in a way that would allow the drowning person to swim to safety. Many in the class were upset, and thought this was a mean way to teach swimming. They didn’t understand her larger point. Jack's point is this (please correct me if I’m wrong). The subconscious meditative state of mind essential to the Zen style of painting is something that is acquired over a lifetime of practice. A Zen style painter cannot be “free, effortless, and natural, like the Buddha-nature within” by simply wishing to be so. Many spend an entire lifetime attempting to acquire a state of free, effortless, and natural action, only to die without ever having achieved it – just as many who are pushed into the deep end of the pool will drown. The western analytical approach to learning to paint by studying the principles of design (just like learning to swim by studying arm movements, leg movements and proper breathing) is efficient and practical. Within a reasonable amount of time the learner is showing improvements. Today, all of the eastern countries have adapted the western methods of teaching painting because they are efficient and practical. Kisha’s point is this (please correct me if I’m wrong). Being efficient and practical is no way to live, or to paint. The western analytical approach to learning to paint by studying the principles of design moves the learner in a direction that will most likely divorce the mind from its natural source. It may be true that a Zen style painter might never learn to paint in a way that is “free, effortless, and natural, like the Buddha-nature within”, but not to try is another form of death. It is better to jump into the deep end of the pool and risk physical death, for the possibility that it might teach us who we are. Or as Thoreau put in Walden; “if you stand right fronting and face to face to a fact, you will see the sun glimmer on both its surfaces, as if it were a cimeter, and feel its sweet edge dividing you through the heart and marrow, and so you will happily conclude your mortal career. Be it life or death, we crave only reality.” | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 165 Registered: 8-2006 |
Kisha, I can buy unconscious or subconcious painting in a way that is consistent with design principles. However, some people may launch into painting with no awareness of design principles at all, perhaps wanting to short cut the learning process -- feeling they can just intuitively "do it." That may work sometimes, but most of the time it's like trying to fly an airplane with no flight lessons and no awareness of flight procedures. It may work for a while, but... I also should say that there are people who break the law in order to make a statement or call attention to something by way of shock effect. Painters who knowingly break the rules of design may be doing so for effect, and that is understandable, and sometimes effective. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Grizrev--I must not have been clear. Perhaps in memory it seems as if I rejected the design principles, but what I was actually doing was challenging some of George's statements about their having the status of natural law instead of being human contrivances. My point was that another way to approach design exists --that of allowing the intuition to sort of organically create the design during the painting. This happens unconsciously. The jury is still out with me re. whether the zen and western aesthetics have enough overlap to assign to be judged similarly. | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 162 Registered: 8-2006 |
Thanks, George, for an excellent post. Kisha, you extol the Taoist way of working with the flow of nature, wanting to reject the idea of working with design principles as too Western. What you have to keep in mind is that, as George explained in a previous post, these principles of design also flow from nature -- and, to that extent, are principles or laws of nature with which we would do well to find ourselves in harmony. | ||
Garydoc Intermediate Member Username: Garydoc Post Number: 99 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, wonderfully put! I'm still at the concious stage where I must plan carefully. I expect to be here the rest of my life, and that's ok! I don't think I'll produce masterpieces intuitively (if i'm ever lucky or skilled enough to produce ANY masterpieces!) Gary | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Wow--That was thorough and clear. Thanks, George. It isn't as I mistakenly thought you were saying, an either / or proposition. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
The golden mean, the golden number, and the golden rectangle are all related. You guys are talking about the same thing. Kisha, we have been all over the map when talking about design on this thread. Unfortunately we (myself mostly) didn’t make it clear when we shifted to a different but related design topic, thus creating confusion. You said you are specifically having a problem with us using the term "consciously." Let me see if I can clear it up. The S-curve, the X structure, the Arch, the Circle, the Parallel, the Ellipse, the triangle, the Golden Rectangle and the Spiral, are NOT principles of design. They are design tools that come from Greek geometry. Western artists have been “consciously” using these design tools as underlying structures in paintings for centuries. As Jack said, this is a statement of fact. Any one of these geometric design tools can be used in a painting, but it does not mean the painting will be in compliance with the principles of design. The principles of design are separate considerations. In the western tradition the principles of design are “consciously” employed as guides in evaluating the arrangements of elements while doing the preliminary thumbnail sketches (by many artists). In the eastern tradition (specifically Zen painting) the artist subconsciously, in a meditative state of mind, evaluates the arrangements of elements. This is done while in the process of doing the work of art itself. Western artists, especially the gifted ones, will also subconsciously, in a state of mind that is essentially meditative (sometimes called intuition in the west), evaluate the arrangements of elements while in the process of doing the work of art itself. Obtaining the required meditative state of mind is difficult. This may account for the very small percentage of paintings (both now and historically) that are considered masterpieces. This explains why art teachers recommend students "consciously" preplan the design with sketches and try to improve the arrangements so that they better reflect the principles of design. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
I understand the golden mean, it's relation to the spiral helix in DNA and the Andromenda galaxy, the Fibonacci series of rabbit births, etc. These things express themselves as a matter of nature and are the result of either randomness averaging itself out to follow the path of least resistance or an expression of a universal organizing Intelligence. Interestingly enough, the Taoist way of trusting the flow of nature (the Tao) might allow one to hook up with the fluid creative "something" in nature better than creating from a set of principles (however reasonable and theoretically). I understand, for instance, about the rule of thirds--ie, placement of the center of interest at one of the 4 points created by intersecting lines drawn from points one third and two thirds the distance of the length and width of the surface of the painting (an offshoot of the golden mean). However, I can choose not to be encumbered by such theoretics and create what looks and feels right, to trust my intuition and let the critics and theoreticians explain what rules I did or did not follow. This approach might not be for everyone, but it might be an essential for true greatness. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Speaking of simple--here's what I see as the crux of the debate: "Consciously or unconsciously" --Garydoc-- With this phrase there's enough wiggle room for all points of view we have expressed. What specifically I am having a problem with is the assertion of "consciously" exclusively. | ||
Garydoc Intermediate Member Username: Garydoc Post Number: 98 Registered: 8-2006 |
No, actually I meant the golden number upon which the golden mean is based. The golden number is approx 1.61... and is the natural ratio of the spiral of the nautilus and the sunflower and many other organic processes. It is reflected throughout nature, and has many applications in math. It is one of the ultimate harmonies of the universe, and accordingly the strongest design paradigm upon which to paint a picture. *imho* Gary | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Somehow we are at an impasse and I can't figure out if we are all in agreement but coming from different directions or if there really is some disagreement. I myself (IMHO) find it rather telling draw 8 different (mutually supporting) design plans can be drawn on the finished on one painting and it can still be claimed the artist consciously chose any one of them as his template. Or was obviously was considering all 8 simultaneously!!!???? I am not saying this would be impossible, but what I am saying it is more likely he created a design that worked for him and now you guys are categorizing and labeling a product that was designed without such labels. This seems a simpler explanation and I always go with simply--this is called Ockham's Razor "The simplest explanation is most often the correct explanation." | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 161 Registered: 8-2006 |
Garydoc: I think you are referring to the "golden mean," which is the use of a mathmatical formula for determining the ideal places to put the focal point of a painting. I do think the consideration of various patterns in planning the compostion of a painting, the determination of the primary point of interest, etc. are important, but it is even more important to be sure that your painting keeps the design principles mentioned in the posts below in mind, consciously or unconsciously. | ||
Garydoc Intermediate Member Username: Garydoc Post Number: 97 Registered: 8-2006 |
Here is the spiral and sorry for the rough freehand drawing. Gary  | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Gary, the spiral is hard to diagram (draw) with my paint software. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
The S-curve! Note: you may need to compare each of my diagramed posts to the original to see the alignments.  | ||
Garydoc Intermediate Member Username: Garydoc Post Number: 96 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, How did you miss the near perfect "nautiloid" spiral, which is the epitome of the 'golden number' and the strongest of all of the geometric shapes in the picture? Gary | ||
George Unregistered guest |
The rectangle! I count about 20 points of alignment on this rectangle. Note: you may need to compare each of my diagramed posts to the original to see the alignments.  | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Oblique Parallels! Note: you may need to compare each of my diagramed posts to the original to see the alignments.  | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Now the X structure – it’s not real strong. I’ll show what I think Rubens had in mind with these angled lines on my next post. Note: you may need to compare each of my diagramed posts to the original to see the alignments.  | ||
George Unregistered guest |
First the ellipse! Note: you may need to compare each of my diagramed posts to the original to see the alignments.  | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Kisha, the question, as I understand it, is; did Rubens use an S-curve in the sketching stage for “The Rape of the Daughters of Leucippus”? I don’t know! I do know that Rubens used the S-curve in the sketching stage for other paintings. I saw a sketch (drawing) by Rubens in a museum show that contained a big S-curve (lightly drawn) with the figures outlined and placed (heavily drawn) in alignment with the underlying S-curve. But, as I said this was for a different painting. Do I think Rubens used the S-curve in “The Rape of the Daughters of Leucippus”? YES! As I said when I posted “The Rape of the Daughters of Leucippus” this painting has “many different geometric compositional tools being used for the layout of the figures.” It will take me some time to do it but I’ll diagram some of these geometric compositional tools for you. | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 158 Registered: 8-2006 |
Rekha: I think Nancy Doyle was stating an historical fact, not an opinion. Eugene: X's and S's are just devices for building a composition in keeping with the principles of design -- they are not principles themselves. Kisha: Repitition is a design principle. As Tony Couch observes, alternation and variation are just clearer ways of expressing how repitition should be used. Repitition of the same element in a painting -- like a line of trees all of the same size, shape, color, interval, etc. -- can be boring. The correct design principle to follow is repitition that uses variation and alternation in the portrayal of such an element in a painting. Repitition by itself is a frail design element. The same is true of something like balance. Static balance is somehow not as appealing as dynamic balance. The principles of design are intended to be used interactively. By the way, hats off to all of you who can handle these things both accurately and intuitively! I'm just a plodder who has to have help and guidance as I go along. I'll never be a great painter, but I enjoy my little pen and ink sketches, and the pitiful little watercolors in my sketchbooks. I am a long way from employing design principles faithfully and well! | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Kisha, Repetition, Alternation, Movement, Pattern and Rhythm are interrelated. Design instructors often will only list one of these as representative of the others. Sometimes a design instructor will list more than one of these among his personal list of the design principles. The answer to your question about the primary use of the principles of design is; the primary use is to help organize the elements of design (lines, colors, values, and so on). In the western tradition a pre-organization is done in the thumbnail sketching stage. Each small sketch is analyzed for its adherence to the principles of design. The next sketch is then adjusted to show greater Unity and Harmony. The Rhythms, types of Contrast, areas of Emphasis (Dominance) and so on are selected to fit the psychological message in the painting. The artist will also sometimes make adjustments in the painting as the paint is applied. If the process is done correctly the resulting painting is in such perfect balance (visual equilibrium) that the placement of the signature can throw it all out of balance. Because the artist has put so much effort into this structuring process the principles of design can be seen (working their magic) in the painting. A good design instructor should (will) show where these principles have been used in the works of the old masters in order to illustrate the promise of what can be achieved by their use. Also, I should add that every painting you find in an art museum is a good example of the principles of design at work. However, my experience is that many of the paintings in minor art shows demonstrate a lack of understanding of these principles of design. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
One "authority" by definition gives the stamp of authority. That begs the question of whether or not"authority" should be the most reliable source of knowledge (an epistemological question, actually). I have to agree with Eugene that there is no evidence that Reubens in the "Rape" painting was saying to himself "I think I'll use an S pattern for this composition." It is as likely he did a preliminary set of drawings until he produced what "looked" right. That is not to deny his inner sense of design, but the question whether he intellectualized meta-cognitively his own creative process as it happened. I am struck, as I have said, by the fact that some of us see and S plan and others an X. Since that is the case, the entire analysis seems very subjective, artificial, and superimposed upon the painting. I don't think can easily explain their way around this dilemma. | ||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 203 Registered: 8-2006 |
One author's opinion doesn't necessarily give the idea a stamp of authority, does it? | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Eugene, I respect that you have an opinion on this. However, your opinion is not in keeping with what art historians believe. Here is something concerning this that I found from a Google search of the topic. It is one of many similar statements; “Artists had been aware of this primacy of underlying structure in painting for centuries prior to the 1890's. The old masters did preliminary compositional studies, many very structural in nature; however, the underlying structure was then covered over by the subject matter of the work, humbly taking a back seat.” - Nancy Doyle | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 217 Registered: 8-2006 |
I’m afraid tis discussion has gone way beyond the capabilities of my little brain. CLARIFICATION OF MY STATEMENT. I believe the S’s and X’s in the Ruben's paintings were not put there consciously but by intuition. I don’t think he said “i’m going to build a composition on the S curve.” He was a well trained artist and good composition was instinctive to him. I think scholars and critics later analyzed the paintings and found the curves. Value, shapes, contrasts are just as important in compositions as the leading of the eye around with curves and X’s. My opinion, right or wrong. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Hmmm--I noticed repetition was not on the list--where did I get the idea it was a principle of design? So change my example to Alternation. Thanks | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Interesting. Thanks George. I see what you are saying, finally. I'm a little slow sometimes.  Here's a question: When we talk of principles of design, are these PRIMARILY to be perceived as rules for making good paintings, OR are they tools that allow us as viewers to discuss why the painting works or doesn't work (In other words we can talk about the effective use of repetition or lack thereof)? | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 179 Registered: 10-2006 |
Grizrev: Thanks for listing the elements, principles and reference. I have to Couch's book but haven't read it in a long time. Just lurking on this thread...Bonnie | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Kisha, I understand! The misunderstanding is over the use of the term “natural law”. As I said in another thread the principles of design are abstracted from nature. That’s all I mean by natural law, nothing more. This may help clear things up. These are the design principles and their sources: 1 .the principle of Balance is the concept of visual equilibrium, and comes from our physical sense of balance. 2. the principle of Unity comes from our sense of oneness in the universe (common to all major religions). 3. the principle of Contrast comes from our sense of duality (also common to all religions). 4. the principle of Alternation is sometimes called the principle of Ryhthm and comes from the many rhythms found in nature (for example the cycle of the seasons) Visual rhythm may be best understood by relating it to rhythm in sound. 5. the principle of Harmony comes from the same source as the concept of Harmony in Music (common to all humans). 6. the principle of Variation, sometimes called the principle of Variety, comes from the concept of division (common in science). 7. the principle of Gradation is the one I know the least about. I think it may be a variation on the principle of variation. 8. the principle of Dominance, sometimes called the principle of Emphasis, marks the locations in a composition which most strongly draw the viewers attention. This same concept is a key to the way the brain identifies visual patterns, and is a basic component in the interpretation of data sent to the brain from the human eye. These principles of design are at the very heart of life itself, and therefore should be (and are) found in all good art. The S-curve, the X structure, the Arch, the Circle, the Parallel, the Ellipse, or the Spiral, are NOT natural laws of design. They are design tools that come from Greek geometry. You would have to go to Plato to make the case that Greek geometry is also natural law, but I’ll not go there. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
I'm sorry--I am referring to the Rape of Lucretia or whatever the title of the equestrian painting is (not the portrait). | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
George--Let's simplify this. I am not denying there are agreed upon principles of design just are there are agreed upon principles of table etiquette. What I disagree with is that they are somehow "natural Laws" as you put it. That is my sole disagreement--the level of absoluteness implied by the term natural law. As I understand that the principles of design listed in this thread (line, repetition etc) are basic building blocks of composition. At some point they relate in some way to the S compositional pattern George identified in the Rubens portrait. However, I see a different compositional plan--an X design. You can say that compositional plan doesn't fall under the principle of design heading but it is dining at the same table and is part of they general argument re. design being advance. At some point this ceases to be natural law then it is seen differently by different people. If I see X and another sees Y --there may be a design at work, but it is hardly a LAW of Nature if it is so variably perceived since the wording is very specific in these "laws." What I think what this really reveals os the 2 basic types of people--referred to by some philosophers as the Aristotelian vs Dionysian personalities--or the classical vs the romantic world views. More recently --right brained, left brained. Some like to analyze and classify. Some like to follow intuition. Neither is wrong. Both contribute. | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 157 Registered: 8-2006 |
Just for the record, the seven elements of design are: size, shape, line, direction, texture, color and value. The eight principles of design for dealing with those elements are: unity, balance, harmony, contrast, gradation, dominance, alternation, and variation. Tony Couch shows how these principles of design can be employed in creating beautiful paintings in his book "Watercolor, You Can Do It." Not only Tony, but almost everyone teaching watercolor, including those teaching their own workshops, acknowledge and refer to these elements and principles of design. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
I thought you might like to see the fêtes galantes of Antoine Watteau with its S-curve.  | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Here’s one from a site discussing 18th century painting; The S curve of this rococo style was incorporated in paintings such as the fêtes galantes of Antoine Watteau, which showed pleasure-seeking ladies and gentlemen socializing in a pastoral setting. http://www.nga.gov/collection/gallery/french18-2.shtm There are others, but I’ll stop. The point is; artists use the S-curve (consciously) to structure designs. I didn't make it up! | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Here is another example from a photography design site; THE ‘S’ CURVE This line goes further than just a plain ‘curved line. It is called the ‘Line Of Beauty”. It is Elastic, Variable and combines Charm and Strength. It has Perfect Grace and Perfect Balance. You have seen this ‘S’ Curve hundreds of times in drawings and paintings and other works of art. Examples: the double curve of a river makes an ‘S’ curve. A path, row of trees or bushes that curve one way and then the other way create the ‘S’ curve. Look for this type of design and use it in your photos to add interest and beauty. http://photoinf.com/General/Arnold_Kaplan/The_Magic_Of_Selective_Vision_-_Photo_Composition.htm | ||
George Unregistered guest |
The S-curve is a common design tool found in all kinds of designs. I typed S-curve into Google and found this; The S-curve is also one of a number of techniques used to enhance the sense of mystery and depth in Japanese gardens. An S-curve path, for example, invites further exploration and is universally preferred over a straight path, which reveals all at a glance. The sense of mystery can be deepened with techniques of "hide-and-reveal" (mie-gakure) by obscuring the path here and there with plantings, rock outcroppings, or hillocks in a natural way. http://www.bbg.org/gar2/topics/design/handbooks/japaneseinspired/2.html | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Kisha, you said; “the design schemes being touted as natural laws are actually subjective and variable.” What design schemes are you saying are “subjective and variable?” If you are talking about the S-curve and the X-structure, then as Jack said; these are not principles of design. If I have caused any confusion I’m sorry and I’ll clear it up right now. It is not true (no one has suggested that it is true) that the S-curve, the X structure, the Arch, the Circle, the Parallel, the Ellipse, or the Spiral, are natural laws of design. The only thing that has been suggested is that these are “tools” that are used to organize the elements of design. Kisha, you suggest; the artist's approach to creating designs might be “different and less rigid and abstract” than is suggested by the S-curves I (George) see in Ruben’s designs. I don’t think the S-curve is “rigid and abstract”. I don’t think the use of an S-curve makes a “rigid and abstract” design. I don’t think any artist who uses the S-curve is involved in a “rigid and abstract” process. My guess is you are really referring to my early comment that Rubens made; “a lot of adjustments in the elements of the design to force everything to fit the S-Curve”. I assume that he did this in his thumbnail sketches because the S-curve is seen in so many of his paintings. I don’t believe it is statistically possible for the S-curve to appear in his paintings as often as they do as the result of random chance. Also it’s well known that artists have used these geometric tools in their paintings. | ||
Rekha Advanced Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 198 Registered: 8-2006 |
I agree with Kisha. When you see familiar shapes in clouds, trees, shadows do you say they have been following the laws of design | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
I am saying somehting quite different than planning interferes with the creative process. I am saying that it appears from what has been said in this discussion that the design schemes being touted as "natural laws" are actually subjective and variable with the beholder (which is impossible for a natural law) and are being superimposed by another after the painting is finished. Thats is not to say that planning didn't occur, but it does suggest to me that the artist's approach to creating design might be different and less rigid and abstract than the critics, which in the analysis of these designs, we have become. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
That should read: I'm just looking for a clarification. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
I think most of you know this, but for the others, I’m also not an art professor or an art critic, and I’ve never had formal art school training. But, I have read a lot. I’m a little confused about what seems to be an idea that planning out a design in the sketching stages somehow interferes with artistic expression. Would someone please explain how those of you who are suggesting this, believe this interference occurs. Eugene, when you say you don't believe Rubens consciously put X's and S's in his paintings are you suggesting Rubens didn’t do preliminary sketches? Or are you saying you don't believe Rubens consciously thought about the spatial order in his preliminary sketches? Or are you saying you don't believe Rubens consciously thought about X's and S's when he did his preliminary sketches? I just looking for a clarification. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
No-- It was aimed squarely at George but not in an unkind way. I was just amused how he saw and S and I saw an X and Eugene saw both and others. The significance i drew from that was that indeed the tail is wagging the dog and this is the sort of how many angels can dance on the head of pin debate that keeps academics employed and artists distracted. | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 154 Registered: 8-2006 |
Kisha, I don't know if your last post was aimed at me or not, but I want to assure you that I am neither an art professor or art critic, and I have never had formal art school training. I just paint pictures. However, I have found that how well I have employed the principles of design in working with the seven elements of design help me evaluate the quality of what I paint! I usually do that after the fact, and in a little preplanning. I don't mechanically think about the principles as I paint -- I hope they have been worked into my subconscious. I think all good painters, regardless of their styles or traditions, follow the principles of design either consciously or unconsciously. Think of the creative possibilities when you apply all the principles of design to each element of design in your paintings! | ||
Terry Intermediate Member Username: Terry Post Number: 64 Registered: 8-2006 |
I put the returns in but it seems that once the text is formated it stays that way. Sorry about that.... | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
I agree Eugene--I think in the discussion the tail of design is trying to wag the dog of artistic expression. This is more a topic for art critics and professors -- for people who focus on talking about art rather than making it. | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 214 Registered: 8-2006 |
I'm not saying that you cannot find S curves in Rubens' paintings, What I mean is that I don't believe he conciously put them there. I can find X's and S's in almost any painting. Good and bad. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Jack is right, the discussion can get cloudy unless we keep in mind that the S-curve and X structure (as well as the Arch, the Circle, the Ellipse, the Spiral and other structural tools) are not principles of design. Rubens loved all of these structural tools. Here’s another Rubens with many different geometric compositional tools being used for the layout of the figures.  | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 153 Registered: 8-2006 |
Kisha and Whitewater, Your posts on randomness are interesting. Kisha wrote: "the element of randomness is what is at once pleasing and helps art evolve, much like mutations in genetic material make evolution happen." Isn't evolution a law that encompasses and uses random mutations? Did you know that the random action of subatomic particles result in orderly laws of action at the atomic level? If so, randomness in painting may indeed be encompassed by the classic principles (laws?) of design! By the way, S-curves and X structure are not one of the seven or eight classic laws of design -- just possible approaches to painting in a manner that is consistent with those laws. Of course, there is always freedom to paint in a way that breaks the laws of design -- with results that are similar to ignoring or trying to transgress the law of gravity. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
This can just as readily be described as having a design pattern based upon intersecting diagonals, an "X." These are both after the fact superimpositions that help us grasp the painting, but in the end the painting is unique and not simply a rote echo of design principle. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Eugene, I just now looked at about two dozen paintings by Rubens and a good percentage of them had an S-curve as the major design format. Here’s another one by Rubens with an S-curve. http://www.elrelojdesol.com/peter-paul-rubens/gallery/pages/03_St._George_and_the_Dragon.htm | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 213 Registered: 8-2006 |
I like the Rubens painting very much. Always thuoght it looked like Bette Davis. But I doubt if Rubens ever heard of an S curve. I can't even find the S curve and I really tried. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Kisha, you make an excellent point! While the principles of design can be thought of as natural laws they are clearly not the same kind of laws as laws of science. | ||
kisha Unregistered guest |
In the spirit of full disclosure, I must add that in the realm of Quantum physics, all bets are off! | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
George--Though I see your meaning in saying "Kisha, design principles are natural laws just as much as are laws of science" I will have to disagree. IN a natural law such as Newton's laws, nature cannot behave in any way other than the law describes. Apples never fall away from the center of the earth. Matter is neither created nor destroyed. They are not optional . Rules of design are optional. To say they are much laws as the laws of science is to misunderstand the laws of science, I am afraid. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
to this very famous Zen painting; http://www.haikudesigns.com/art3.htm | ||
George Unregistered guest |
I’ve been looking at some Zen paintings on the internet and I think what you might be calling “looseness” is what is meant in the western tradition as simplicity. For example compare this western painting by Turner http://website.lineone.net/~carpenter9/artist/gifetc/turner-process.jpg | ||
George Unregistered guest |
I found this on Zen painting. http://www.aranya.org/zenart.html | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Kisha, design principles are natural laws just as much as are laws of science. The difference is that the two are expressed in different languages. The design principles are visual; the laws of science are mathematical. I’m not sure your suggestion that one tradition is "looser" than the other is true. I need to think about that. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
In my last post it should read: abstract the organizing principles from the intelligence of nature. Bonnie, I think you are really saying the same thing that Kisha is saying. To put what you said in your last post about randomness and balance into the principles of design it would be; Unity in Variety and Variety in Unity. Am I right? | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Yes George, your comparison seems on target. Work that emerges from the "eastern" inspired traditions will often seem "looser" than it's strictly western counterpart (ala the Monet example, Pollack etc). As Whitewatercolor mentioned, the element of randomness is what is at once pleasing and helps art evolve, much like mutations in genetic material make evolution happen. I will say that the Ruben's, to my aesthetic sense, is way too contrived and formal to be pleasing and, ironically enough, argues against your points. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
However, George, design principles are largely agreed upon conventions, not natural laws at the level of Newton's second law of thermodynamics. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Kisha, yes that explains a lot. My only knowledge of Zen design comes from an article I read some years ago about the Zen garden. As I recall the design in the Zen tradition is the result of a proper state of meditation. Jack, I think what Kisha is saying is that in the western tradition the design principles are consciously employed as guides in evaluating the arrangements of elements while doing the preliminary thumbnail sketches. The eastern tradition however is to subconsciously (in a meditative state of mind) evaluate the arrangements of elements while in the process of doing the work of art itself. Both traditions (when done correctly) result in artwork that reveals the same principles because both traditions abstract the organizing principles form the intelligence of nature. The difference being one tradition has pre-abstracted the organizing principles, while the other tradition abstracts the organizing principles at the time of each individual creation. Am I right Kisha? | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 177 Registered: 10-2006 |
No matter how calculated our strokes, it is impossible to create something that is as glorious as nature does every day. That "randomness" is fleeting and what separates man's mind from nature's balance. As human's we look for rules that help us see that balance. Each of us possesses the ability to learn from and see beyond those who have come before us. Using the randomness, ie., variety and interaction, of nature seems to me to be a valid avenue to explore. Balance just doesn't work for me without the randomness. Hope this makes sense. | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 152 Registered: 8-2006 |
Kisha, The Impressionists, especially Monet (see the art hanging in his home in Giverny), were also intrigued by Japanese and Chinese art, and you can see the influence -- a happy marriage in a number of their paintings. An "either/or" choice is not necessary in terms of paying attention to design principles. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
Voila! Eureka! George--This last post of yours clarified a lot for me. Your aesthetics are firmly rooted in western traditions while mine are growing increasingly influenced by Japanese Zen and Taoist Chinese aesthetics which welcome "flaws" and "randomness" as expressions of the intelligence of nature. These really are different aesthetics though they of course overlap significantly. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
I think you have a really good topic here. Does too much planning sacrifice some of the life of the painting? Does the adjustment of design elements to fit a preconceived design mean the tail is wagging the dog of the painting? Good questions! Looking for an answer to these questions I picked Peter Paul Rubens at random and typed it into Googel. This was the first painting that pooped up. What are the odds it would have an S-curve in it? Sometimes I get lucky! Rubens had to make a lot of adjustments in the elements of the design to force everything to fit the S-Curve. He pushed the clouds into an unnatural formation. He added flowers that are located in an awkward position. He even positioned the drape in a strange position (not likely it would have been worn that way). Is the design stiff and lifeless because of Ruben’s excessive attention to design? Not to my eye!  | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
George-- To adjust the figures so they will fit (too IMHO) precisely the s-curve is allowing, to my mind, the tail of design to wag the dog of the painting. | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 174 Registered: 10-2006 |
I like the composition. The S curve doesn't need to be more obvious, in my opinion. The guys to the left add interest and keep you in the painting. There are so many great things going on in this painting, I wouldn't attempt to improve on it. If you want to do another one, I would let this one go and start fresh with a different angle. I find that when I get into too much left brain calculating, I lose some of the life of the painting. It is the dance that captures the life and you need to leave the freedom to work with the great things that come up in the process. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Jack, I think there are lots of possible solutions. That’s the whole value of thumbnails - finding the best combination of elements in the design. | ||
Garydoc Intermediate Member Username: Garydoc Post Number: 95 Registered: 8-2006 |
As far as the screen being too wide, that's because there aren't any returns between the pix. To all who post pix...put a couple of line returns between each picture to make sure they don't stack sideways! Terry, can you go in and add the returns to the original post? Gary | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 212 Registered: 8-2006 |
Thanks, everyone for the good advice. I'm going to try it as a full sheet, with some adjustments. We'll see what hapens. Kisha, The sky is mostly Pthalo with a touch of raw umber which dulls it and gives it a greenish cast. | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 151 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, Would the S-curve be helped by eliminating the two men as you suggest, then moving the four men at the bottom left a little higher to save the balance, and also make a more symmetrical S-curve? | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Eugene, I like it! It has great light and color! If you do another one, my only suggestion would be to think about reworking the design to place greater emphasize on that S-curve you have developed (I’ll diagram it for anyone who may not see what Eugene has done). Perhaps you could move some elements of the composition so as to pull the upper loop of the S-curve to the left a bit thereby balancing the dynamic movement. The two men you have on the left do provide balance, but I think they would be better integrated into the design if they were somehow a part of the S-curve.  | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 150 Registered: 8-2006 |
Eugene, What a wonderful treatment of human forms! A great combination of realism and looseness! I have a techical problem. For the first time in calling up a thread, the thread does not fit on my screen, and I have to scroll right and left to read the posts. How do I adjust the view? This is not happening on the other threads I have called up this morning. | ||
Kisha Unregistered guest |
I like the uncropped version. Composition seems perfect. Wonderful painting! BTW--Is that viridian in the sky? | ||
Garydoc Intermediate Member Username: Garydoc Post Number: 94 Registered: 8-2006 |
Eugene, I love the original and the one next to it best. The other crops are too spare & out of balance. Gary | ||
Joe Member Username: Joe Post Number: 26 Registered: 2-2007 |
I think the third from the left is a little stronger overall. I have a "feeling" the uncropped picture needs something on the left. Cropping the left edge fixes that. My humble opinion and please feel free to ignore it. Great piece. Might be interesting to toy with losing the top edge of the last figure on the right. Lose it against the sky. It is very close to it now. | ||
Maidensmith Junior Member Username: Maidensmith Post Number: 14 Registered: 8-2006 |
I love it! And although I'm no expert, I like it best without any cropping - the top one on my computer. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 265 Registered: 8-2006 |
I'm impressed! Great job! And it would work fine as a show piece. (And I can't imagine how you managed it on a half sheet.) As for the cropping .... I think it works fine without the crop. If you do crop, I would choose the one at top right --- but I wouldn't want to lose the figures at the bottom. The two bottom crops divide the page too evenly down the middle. A couple of comments about the masking issue .. or rather a few things I have discovered. * I tend to have problems seepage under white artists tape when I get impatient and remove the tape before the sheet is totally dry. * I also have problems when I don't put the tape down solidly in the first place. I make sure to run the back of my fingernail along the edge before I apply paint. * I think there are two kinds of artist tape. The 3M or brand-name stuff isn't as sticky as the store brands (Utrecht or Pearl for me). The store brands work better for me. * Also, the blue painters tape from Home Depot or Lowe's works incredibly well if you can stand the blueness of it. | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 172 Registered: 10-2006 |
Eugene, I love every one of them. Maybe someone else can see something I don't, but I would have a hard time cutting anything out. It is really great and really unusual. I'm glad I got to see it. I'd love my friend from Lancaster, PA to see it. Wish there was a way to forward this site. Great Job! Bonnie | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 211 Registered: 8-2006 |
I just finished this painting of an Amish barn raising and had some real problems so I want to do it again,with changes. Maybe it was too ambitious for me -- a lot of work in the drawing and masking. Masking was one of the problems. In the beginning used Scotch Drafting tape and it worked fine, but I ran out of it and switched to white artist;’ tape which let the paint seep under it. Also I think cropping would help. #1 is the full painting, Do you like any of the other crops? If done right I think this subject would have possibilities as a show piece, because if the subject, Jurors seem to like the unusual. Advice is welcomed. (I probably won’t take it, but I like to hear other opinions) Size is 1/2 sheet, I’d like l to do it larger, but physically, I can no longer handle full sheets.     |
