Entrance to Nowhere

Add a Comment

Comment by Michael Lang on December 15, 2013 at 8:05

Michael and Manneherrin,   thank you for replying with your excellent points. I have to say I agree with everything you wrote! I may well  adjust the painting, at the risk though of overworking it, something I am trying to avoid in general (by minimising the number of brushstrokes).

Comment by Manneherrin on December 14, 2013 at 12:35

I also agree with Michael Severin in that I would definitely change the value in zone 3 to push forward that beautiful olive tree and differentiate that zone so when the viewer sees it, it registers as a foreground. Thank you for this discussion. I seem to be learning quite a bit and i love it. 

Comment by Manneherrin on December 14, 2013 at 12:31

Michael yes, i see your point and thank you for reminding me that it is certain curcumstances the values are treated differently like Michael Severin said.  I love this picture by the way. I had to put it into black and white as I have trouble seeing values with coloring sometimes. I agree with your observation that in this that the value zones are all different.. ive learned something today.. it seems overcast kinda switches things around...here i have changed my initial value fields to reflect them more accurately..

Comment by Michael J. Severin on December 14, 2013 at 10:34

Hi Michael, me again.  I do agree with Manneherrin in that your paintings requires the planes to be more separated.  Every inch of the painting must recede.  You do this by value manipulation and overlapping.  Your depth would be helped if you overlap the right pillar with the foreground olive(?) tree.  Then the foreground tree needs to be IN FRONT  of the background trees ..that is not happening here.  The value of your foreground tree (the dark side) would be darker then the value of your cypress trees in the distance ..and to really push them back, lighter then the darks of your midground trees.  It is all about imposing your will upon the painting, Michael, and not the photographs will.    Alas, easy for me to say, but difficult to do!!!

Comment by Michael J. Severin on December 14, 2013 at 10:24

Hi Michael.  Interesting conversation and discussion!! ... I would lean toward what John Carlson says about the 4 value relationships.  His book is my "bible"  and I will hold to those relationships in 99% of my paintings.  Of course, there are instances when it is not true.  For instance:  sunlit snow and sunlit white buildings are actually brighter.  Sometimes, a highly reflective part of the ground might be the same value as the sky.  A sunlit autumn tree might be lighter then the ground or sky? ....these are just some examples...there are many more.    I think it is best to follow this "rule" of value relationships until the time we accumulate enough knowledge to break them?    I hope we hear from more artists on the subject? ...it is a very interesting one!!

Comment by Michael Lang on December 14, 2013 at 6:46

Thank you, Manneherrin, for taking the time to comment. I really appreciate getting your critique. It's always useful for me to understand how others see what I paint, as I'm often too 'close' to the painting. I'll ponder each of your points.

One point I note is about the sky. I have attached the ref photo. I hope you won't mind me quoting Carlson's Guide to Landscape Painting, which says that 'the sky, the source of light, must be the lightest mass or value in a landscape'.

 I have observed on other days sometimes the sky being the lightest (as here) and sometimes not the lightest mass (as you mention) depending on circumstances. I should say perhaps that I write this purely in the spirit of inquiry.

 

Comment by Manneherrin on December 13, 2013 at 7:32

I really like this one..but for a critique it appears kinda two dimensional. I would give a tad more detail work starting from your tree into the foreground.. not too much but just enough to add that 3rd dimension. I would save the high chroma for the foreground and let it fade as you move out that way your tree and the entrance pillars will pop out and help pull this into a 3d piece. I like how the foreground is lighter but I would also like for this to have an additional value in the middle ground to differentiate from the back ground. Here let me give you an example. ost people think that the sky should be the lightest but thats not true.. the ground is the lightest as it will catch the brunt of the sunlight... i hope you dont mind me taking the liberty to explain my theory..here goes.. each number represents a value field.. 1 being the lightest and 4 being the darkest. 

Comment by Michael J. Severin on December 11, 2013 at 16:53

Thanks Michael.  Then just disregard what I said ..it does look overcast ..my mistake.

Comment by Michael Lang on December 11, 2013 at 12:31

Thanks fork liking, Linda .

Comment by Michael Lang on December 11, 2013 at 12:31

Many thanks, Michael. You make a lot of points and I am grateful for the time you put into critiquing. I shall ponder each one properly. By the way, yes it was an overcast day. I painted from a ref photo and pretty much used that as my basis without changing much.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page