Crown Range Workshop17, Revised

11" x 14" acrylic on board

11 members like this

View Full Size

Tags:
Albums: Workshop17

Add a Comment

Comment by Michael J. Severin on January 23, 2013 at 7:37: Hi Cheryl. To answer your question: I am suggesting that you make those trees in the background a little more interesting by making them different from each other, i.e., one of them can be larger and abstractly shaped. Then, remove that small foreground tree. Put a mass of trees on the left at the horizon so your eye does not drop off the picture. Your newly planted trees should be quite amorphous.....that is, keep the edges soft, no contrasty colors or values, keep it very, very, simply stated ...and do not make it too dark or it will pull your eye over there. That's it ....good painting. Whatever you do, please do not touch anything else on this painting ...it is all very beautiful!! Another solution to the left edge would be to soften and blend the edge into the mountain color so it kind of morphs together into a lost edge...... if you choose not to put in a tree mass....

Comment by Stuart J. Gourlay on January 23, 2013 at 4:23: Cheryl, painting directly from a photo is where your problem lies. Nature doesn't give us many perfect scenes. Your photo lies to you about colors and values but not about shapes. Symmetrical and repetetive shapes are boring to the eye, so you need to spice it up by rearranging objects and creating abstract shapes. You can do this by either planning out your composition as thumbnail sketches or by converting your photo reference to black and white and using marking pens to add, remove, or clean up your shapes. Kevin MacPherson addresses this in his books. Carl Purcell explains all this in "The Artist's Brain". Many teaching artists go over composition and shape making in their workshops. Basically you want to make your painting more interesting than your photo reference, as Richard does. Keep at it; you have a good eye for design, your brushwork is very good and your color harmony is excellent. That sunrise you painted is just spectacular. Stu

Comment by Cheryl Lipham on January 23, 2013 at 3:41: First of all, I thank you, Stu and Michael, for your very valuable comments. They are much appreciated. But let me try to understand what you're suggesting. Michael, you're saying to remove the smallest tree in the background, while making one of the trees at the gate irregularly shaped...ooooh I'm not good at improvising as you can see. And then, take out the newly added tree and put it in the background along the far edge of the field to the left? or in the same general area as the original..oh goodness. I feel so inadequate! haha. You see I usually paint straight from a photo; never rearranging...for this very reason. Let me know if I got it right. AGAIN! Thank you so much Stu and Michael for your opinions....that's what I'm here for..to learn.

Comment by Stuart J. Gourlay on January 22, 2013 at 19:23: I am not getting into this one either! Cheryl, you did make it look even frostier, and even though you lightened up and cooled off your foreground shadows some, it still looks good and gets your frosty point across. You correctly have connected yur shadows, and there is a good lead in to your middle ground trees. What Michael is saying is generally very true for all trees; they should never be symmetrical, particularly round--so if they can't be truly abstract at least make them more oval and different one side to the other; the easiest way to do this is to take bites out of them by painting back into them with your background (negative painting). Stu

Comment by Michael J. Severin on January 22, 2013 at 12:10: Cheryl, what did you do!!!! .... the original was great!! Looking at the comments and suggestions from the other artists, I think what they were referring to was the intensity of your left tree ....not the placement or the size. The original could have stayed their, but toned down in intensity and softer edges. I really should stay out of this one, but I am really sad at what you did here. I think that all you really need to do is : 1. take out that little tree!, 2. indicate a soft middle/dark value tree mass on the left at the horizon ......and leave it alone!! ...it was a beautiful painting. One more thing, those 2 same size background trees ..... make one of them a little larger and give it a more abstract shape (look at Richards painting), also, try connecting them with the shadow. When you took out that large tree, you put all the emphasis on those little trees ... think abstract shapes, not round balls.