Across the fields - xpost
- Thread starter Bartc
- Start date
Jo Castillo
Supporting Member
- Messages
- 4,166
I had to come comment again. Love how you did the foreground. Applause!
ColorEnthusiast
Well-known member
- Messages
- 388
And this is definitely one of the fine paintings o the day. Very beautiful.
Bartc
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,335
First, thanks for all the compliments, folks!
I look at this painting as nice and attractive and it works, but not sure at all why wherever it's been seen it seems to generate a lot of enthusiastic compliments (and I'm not fishing here, just curious as to why so that I can learn.)
It does what I set it out to do in format and composition, in color and values. Not exactly the way I had originally planned, but certainly each of the elements chosen once begun seemed to have the desired effect. This is not an exact representation, and I don't just mean the abstraction and the colors. I did rearrange some of the scenic elements to work better compositionally to my thinking, and since my style is Impressionist/post-Impressionist anyway, that is pretty much always where my paintings land.
But if you don't mind, can you please help me understand what it is you like about it so that I can learn? Yes, I already get that folks really like the foreground depiction, and the complimentary colors are deliberate. Is there really anything else that is catching your interest?
Thanks.
I look at this painting as nice and attractive and it works, but not sure at all why wherever it's been seen it seems to generate a lot of enthusiastic compliments (and I'm not fishing here, just curious as to why so that I can learn.)
It does what I set it out to do in format and composition, in color and values. Not exactly the way I had originally planned, but certainly each of the elements chosen once begun seemed to have the desired effect. This is not an exact representation, and I don't just mean the abstraction and the colors. I did rearrange some of the scenic elements to work better compositionally to my thinking, and since my style is Impressionist/post-Impressionist anyway, that is pretty much always where my paintings land.
But if you don't mind, can you please help me understand what it is you like about it so that I can learn? Yes, I already get that folks really like the foreground depiction, and the complimentary colors are deliberate. Is there really anything else that is catching your interest?
Thanks.
MurrayG
Well-known member
- Messages
- 702
Hi Bart, nice one. Great loose foreground, but the buildings and tree misground hits the spot contrasting with the hills.
Bartc
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,335
Keep going, folks. This is helping me understand why a painting might appeal to others.
I recently read about a comment (possibly here?) from the famous dealer of the Impressionists who disdained Pisarro (almost dooming him to economic doldrums), but on his deathbed saying he'd much rather find a heaven that looked like a Pisarro painting. The upshot was that he found the artist's works to depict something peaceful and pleasant, I think. Though I'm no Pisarro by any means, my feeling about this painting was essentially peaceful and pleasant. Good, not great. Enjoyable to look at but not eye-popping or stunning.
Yet it seems to work for a very wide variety of viewers.
I recently read about a comment (possibly here?) from the famous dealer of the Impressionists who disdained Pisarro (almost dooming him to economic doldrums), but on his deathbed saying he'd much rather find a heaven that looked like a Pisarro painting. The upshot was that he found the artist's works to depict something peaceful and pleasant, I think. Though I'm no Pisarro by any means, my feeling about this painting was essentially peaceful and pleasant. Good, not great. Enjoyable to look at but not eye-popping or stunning.
Yet it seems to work for a very wide variety of viewers.
MurrayG
Well-known member
- Messages
- 702
Hi Bart, OK, I will give it a go, even though I am not "technically qualified". I like all "good art", now there is a subjective statement of bias
However, I o admit to a preference to "impressionistic". There is something about allowing the viewer to build their own story but for them to do so, the "rules of nature" should be in place or our brains do not fully accept the depiction. Sometimes yes, but in most cases, the thing falls short unless the viewer is experienced enough to look beyond.I feel this painting has as you say, a classically impressionistic quality, lent more so by the pastels. There is a looseness, but sufficient detail that importantly for my eyes at least (and most others I believe) that are in scale. By this I mean our brains try to fit the scale of a thing and anything "off" jars. Your values add to the depth and drama, the far hills acting as the defining contrast. You have nailed, intentionally or otherwise, the law of thirds, both vertically and horizontally. You also have hinted diagonals that lead into the painting from different directions, especially the foreground. And as Wayne would say - the values are pretty good.
The scene while "simple", draws one into a story. Finally, the colours are clean and not muddy. While I see your normally bright palette, this is "bright" but not overwhelming, and so fits the calmness of the scene. I like the hinted scrub and the trees, the buildings are suitably "unfocussed" adding to the depth.
In "The art of motorcycle maintenance", the author struggles to define "quality". Mostly focussed on writing, but the same question applies everywhere. What is quality? We instinctively know quality, but struggle to define it. I believe that artists have an "eye" that sees quality and they often try to depict it through their art, the same way a poet tries to define a scene through words, without destroying the moment. Its a fine balance, but sometimes the words or painting "sings".
I would like to think that you will keep this painting in a place, to remind you of how simple "sings", also, so you can occassionally, just enjoy it as most of us here do as well. Its a lovely, simple timeless painting, I like it and would happily hang it
Bartc
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,335
Murray, thank you for all that! Really helps me to more fully understand the appeal.Hi Bart, OK, I will give it a go, even though I am not "technically qualified". I like all "good art", now there is a subjective statement of bias
I feel this painting has as you say, a classically impressionistic quality, lent more so by the pastels. There is a looseness, but sufficient detail that importantly for my eyes at least (and most others I believe) that are in scale. By this I mean our brains try to fit the scale of a thing and anything "off" jars. Your values add to the depth and drama, the far hills acting as the defining contrast. You have nailed, intentionally or otherwise, the law of thirds, both vertically and horizontally. You also have hinted diagonals that lead into the painting from different directions, especially the foreground. And as Wayne would say - the values are pretty good.
The scene while "simple", draws one into a story. Finally, the colours are clean and not muddy. While I see your normally bright palette, this is "bright" but not overwhelming, and so fits the calmness of the scene. I like the hinted scrub and the trees, the buildings are suitably "unfocussed" adding to the depth.
In "The art of motorcycle maintenance", the author struggles to define "quality". Mostly focussed on writing, but the same question applies everywhere. What is quality? We instinctively know quality, but struggle to define it. I believe that artists have an "eye" that sees quality and they often try to depict it through their art, the same way a poet tries to define a scene through words, without destroying the moment. Its a fine balance, but sometimes the words or painting "sings".
I would like to think that you will keep this painting in a place, to remind you of how simple "sings", also, so you can occassionally, just enjoy it as most of us here do as well. Its a lovely, simple timeless painting, I like it and would happily hang it
And best of all, not just the compliments, but seeing that everything I put into this picture is working as intended, because all those elements that you mention were in fact deliberate.
Guess I'll have to frame this one after all.
MurrayG
Well-known member
- Messages
- 702
Ha! Really? Well I take it as a compliment. BTW, I also appreciate constructive input, even though the odd pat on the head is pleasant
But my thoughts stand. At first glance, it is an uncomplicated work, but it fills many of the "criteria" of a work of quality that I appreciate and includes the well described elements of "goodness".I enjoy realism, but there is a balance between realism and the "impressionism" that allows or draws a viewer in. The mind has to work to see the actual beauty or story. I fail miserably but strive to take on the lessons of the Nine by Five exhibition (Golden Summers) in Australia. Small works with minimal but expressive brushwork that make the viewer work. I feel that if the viewer is unable to enter the artists world, someone had failed, either artist or viewer
It is quite meditative to examine very good works of art in order to answer the question (at least for yourself) what makes it so appealing.
Bart, if the work was more deliberate than usual, study it. As a long time meditator, I can offer these thoughts.
All meditation (and here I say art, poetry or writing) should encompass 3 stages :
- Before beginning, what's the aspiration or aim of the meditation/work, what do you want to achieve?
- Doing the actual work (meditation, art, poetry etc)
- The review of the progress of the work..... Most forget this, but its the MOST important part of learning. (What worked, what absorbed you, what did you feel at certain stages.....)
Sorry if thats preaching, but I only wish to provide some context to this complicated question of "quality in art" to either performer or observer.
Be well and happy
