Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Comparison


Two posts ago, I showed the progress of an urban street scene that I was painting with another art teacher that was taking private lessons from me in order to paint in a losser style. Here is his painting (top) and mine (bottom). It is always interesting in seeing how painters doing the same scene differ in their approach. I'd love to get your take on these two renditions, dear readers.

21 comments:

Sergio DS said...

I prefer your painting, sometimes disciple is better than teacher.

Studio at the Farm said...

I prefer the bottom rendition, I think because I find the darks in the top one to be too intense and heavy ... almost over-powering.

David Lobenberg said...

Thanks for weighing in Sergio!

David Lobenberg said...

Studio at the Farm,
My best critic, my wife, said the exact same thing when I showed her the top painting. We both, however, like the addition of the dog.

Art by Michael Mitchell said...

I love the different interpretation of the brick that was taken, not that either one is better, but I think he has accomplished a "looser" style than yours

Gary L. Everest said...

Hi David,
Your painting has a much better sense of light and you obviously understand and employ basic rules of perspective (the window).
His window is way off and I don't care how loose one paints, basic drafting and perspective will always be important. Not that I always successfully employ them myself! The Maestro tried to teach me the importance of getting things right, especially when painting structures. He'd tell me, when something is "off" viewers will sense, or outright see the mistake.
Great post, David.
Sincerely,
Gary.

Bill said...

I like the bottom painting. The colors are gritty and more realistic.

RH Carpenter said...

I think your version has more life in the "not quite straight" lines of the building and the graffiti but do like the whites against the darker building in your student's version.

David Lobenberg said...

Art by M M, Thanks for your opinion. It is so much fun to paint the same scene with another artist and see the similarities and differences.

David Lobenberg said...

Hi Gary! Boy,the Maestro was spot on. I gotta pay your blog a visit.

David Lobenberg said...

Bill - With all due modesty, I agree with your assessment, but damn, I wish I had thought about painting in a dog. Maybe a pit bull.

Barbara Muir said...

Hi David,

Clearly you're an amazing teacher and a wonderful artist. These are fascinating.

Ciao,

Barbara

David Lobenberg said...

My Toronto friend (B.M.) You make me blush. It sure is fun when artists get together to paint the same subject. Have you engaged in this activity before?

Barbara Muir said...

Hi David,

Sometimes I make it to the Tuesday model session at the art club I belong to. It is fascinating to see how entirely differently every artist portrays the same model.

Ciao,

Barbara

Meera Rao said...

Fascinating! I like your lights and graffiti a lot but also the dog and the bit of darkeness/sense of danger of the other :) Great to see them side by side!

David Lobenberg said...

Thanks Meera and good points!

David Lobenberg said...

Thanks Meera and good points!

Kevin Neal said...

A slight edge to the bottom painting as far as style goes. That's a personal preference. I was drawn to the scene immediately.

David Lobenberg said...

Thanks for weighing in, Kevin.

Marleen said...

The two interpretations create a different mood-season, his fall yours, daytime summer and what's up. Your artist colleague didn't damp down the back figure as much and the shadows are lost except for the poles. I like the light in yours and the rendition of the building, the shadows, graffiti and the fact that the second back figure is the ? in the painting. Maybe the second figure could be just coming into the light. Both figures are grounded with the dark and they are the draw you into looking around.

David Lobenberg said...

Wow! . . . good point with the seasonal feel, Marleen. You are also spot on about the back figure. It has been less rendered and therefore a bit more mysterious.
good critique!