Didn't like the painting in the previous post. The tall structure on the right was distracting from the ship, and the grass and ground were blah. So...it was time to edit and add another few layers of new colors and paint strokes. When you do that, sometimes you can allow a percentage of the previous colors to show through to add to the richness of the painting. Was my re-do a worthwhile-do?
10 comments:
David,
I don't think one painting is neccessarily better than the other. The redo does put the emphasis on the ship where as in the first version the structure to the right seems to because of its size demand initial attention with secondary attention on the ship. The buildings are not as prominent in the first.I think that the ship, buildings and structure connected in the first as a combined area of interest.I think that I favor the vertical effect of the structure to the composition in the first. The redo appears to be warmer, while the first appears to be cooler and maybe more atmosheric. I think that it is a loss that you have only one and not two paintings. I really like the way you paint with acrylics. Makes me want to get out some acrylic paint and have a go.:0)
I think you are correct, William, about the large structure and the ship in the first working as a combined area, and that is not necessarily a negative thing. But I guess with the goal of wanting the ship to take more center stage, I had to make those changes. This seems to be one of those paintings that's going to have to rest for awhile until I can come back to it with "new eyes".
Have you got an open blog or a website?
Dave . . .in spite of what Moore says, I think it is a vast improvement. The foreground value in the first piece completely contrasted and held the viewer's attention away from the ship . . .too heavy, too dark. Now there is some gradual value change to allow the eye to move. Nice work!
Mike: This is what I love about the blogging community...the sharing of ideas. Off the subject...as I sit here at my computer, I'm looking out the window and seeing a humming bird feeding on the winter blooms of out Camellia bush. On the eastern horizon, the sunrise is a deep yellow/orange. I suppose you and I could be cutting edge installation artists, but I think it's these types of views that anchor us to landscape painting! As always, your comments are much appreciated!
PS: for Mike Bailey and anyone else who might be interested. This speaks to the subject of a spirited exchange of opinions between artists. Go to my link for "Terry Miura Studio". Click on "Studio Notes" then click on a recent post titled "Sketch".
I'm certainly no expert on the subject, but I feel like the re-do brings with it a sense of melancholy. As though the piece is a remembrance of something lost. Whereas the initial painting is lighter and pleasant, as though to say, "Look at this view. Isn't it splendid?"
Cheers,
Joe
Joe: Interesting comment. You may be right. This painting has been a tough one. In fact I tweaked it some more! I may post it in the future, but I'll give it a rest for now! Love your art work, especially your pencil sketching...beautiful!
I think they're both beautiful. Both strong and interesting paintings. The drawing and perspective are right on.
I think they're both beautiful. Both strong and interesting paintings in their own right.
In the first one you see the ship but you go to the crane and then to the beautifully worked foreground and around again. In the second one, it's a different day atmospherically and the low lying buildings are well stated and balance the ship. Again the diagonal in the foreground is completely believable. Nice paintings here.
Mary: I think the general opinion I'm getting from everybody is that both the first and second paintings work but in different ways. Interesting!
Post a Comment