Close up verus distance ?

[BelowPar]

When we view a painting close up , had they suppose to look as good close up as afar ?

I've noticed my paintings don't looks as good close up as afar and I've also noticed I have shading problems because I don't have enough natural light or white light in the room . I try to fix these problems when I see them but with being a beginner , I don't know whether I am trying to hard and being too fusy or this is just the way it is . At the moment I use the camera flash and upload to try and get better vision to spot errors . In this one my shading is off because of dim light in my room .

 

[TK H-H]

I think it depends on your style... but a lot of paintings look more... cohesive? from a distance. For lack of a better word. Up close you can pick out brushstrokes (even when not intended), minor imperfections, etc. Some of my favorite artists have paintings that look so complex from a distance, but suddenly look a lot simpler up close when you can see more easily where individual colors and strokes were placed. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.

As for shading/value... It's pretty common that artists don't go dark enough with their values. Especially when going for realism, you want to make sure your darks are dark enough, and your lights are light enough. It can be scary to go darker with your values! Sometimes I take my reference photos and increase the contrast so I can better see where my different values are. You can take pictures of your own painting and change the contrast to see how it might look with the values a bit darker too before you commit to it.

 

[BelowPar]

I think it depends on your style... but a lot of paintings look more... cohesive? from a distance. For lack of a better word. Up close you can pick out brushstrokes (even when not intended), minor imperfections, etc. Some of my favorite artists have paintings that look so complex from a distance, but suddenly look a lot simpler up close when you can see more easily where individual colors and strokes were placed. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.

As for shading/value... It's pretty common that artists don't go dark enough with their values. Especially when going for realism, you want to make sure your darks are dark enough, and your lights are light enough. It can be scary to go darker with your values! Sometimes I take my reference photos and increase the contrast so I can better see where my different values are. You can take pictures of your own painting and change the contrast to see how it might look with the values a bit darker too before you commit to it.

Thanks for the comment , I might try paint a golfer next . No doubt you're an experienced painter , have you painted a golfer before?

Yes up close I noticed you can pick up brush strokes , I wish you luck that you get no strokes ever again but I suppose it is inevitable you be brushing strokes . I take pics but don't alter the contrast . Do you prefer a bit darker in the end I quite like vibrant colours .

 

[stlukesguild]

The paintings I have admired the most usually resonate both at a distance and up close… but in a different way. Looking at Bonnard for example…

… I find that from a distance I take in the overall image… the composition… the color harmonies… but when I move close I am more aware of the artist’s touch… the surface… the swirls and blobs of paint. This is something that is lost in most reproductions… and something that many today raised on the internet and smart phones often fail to grasp.

My own paintings are often quite large and I spend a good deal of time looking at them from a distance during the creative process… but I also spend as much or more time working up close… considering the smallest details and marks. Every few years I must take a class as a professional development in order to retain my teaching license. I was struck by the difference between many of the younger students raised on digital media and the older students. Us older farts will spend time looking at each work of art up close and from various angles taking in the slightest nuances and then backing up to take in the work as a whole… like an image on the stage or the movie screen. Many of the younger students wouldn’t bother. There was a critic… quite possibly Robert Hughes… who suggested that many of the newer painters who worked on a large scale never considered the fine nuances of the artist’s touch because they had been raised on art reproductions seldom ever looking at works of life in person.

 

[BelowPar]

The paintings I have admired the most usually resonate both at a distance and up close… but in a different way. Looking at Bonnard for example…

View attachment 45514

… I find that from a distance I take in the overall image… the composition… the color harmonies… but when I move close I am more aware of the artist’s touch… the surface… the swirls and blobs of paint. This is something that is lost in most reproductions… and something that many today raised on the internet and smart phones often fail to grasp.

My own paintings are often quite large and I spend a good deal of time looking at them from a distance during the creative process… but I also spend as much or more time working up close… considering the smallest details and marks. Every few years I must take a class as a professional development in order to retain my teaching license. I was struck by the difference between many of the younger students raised on digital media and the older students. Us older farts will spend time looking at each work of art up close and from various angles taking in the slightest nuances and then backing up to take in the work as a whole… like an image on the stage or the movie screen. Many of the younger students wouldn’t bother. There was a critic… quite possibly Robert Hughes… who suggested that many of the newer painters who worked on a large scale never considered the fine nuances of the artist’s touch because they had been raised on art reproductions seldom ever looking at works of life in person.

Thank you for yor comments , that was an interesting reveal ! I am looking for the stool in the mirror lol ,

 

[TK H-H]

Thanks for the comment , I might try paint a golfer next . No doubt you're an experienced painter , have you painted a golfer before?

Yes up close I noticed you can pick up brush strokes , I wish you luck that you get no strokes ever again but I suppose it is inevitable you be brushing strokes . I take pics but don't alter the contrast . Do you prefer a bit darker in the end I quite like vibrant colours .

I haven't specifically painted a golfer before, no. Closest I've done would be a volleyball player.

I just meant alter the contrast as a tool. Just to see what darker values might look like before you actually paint them.
As for brushstrokes, I personally don't like them visible. So I spend a lot of time smoothing out my paint. Sometimes probably too much. That's likely why my drawings are always more realistic than my paintings. Using brushstrokes to imply textures and blends can be quite effective when done right though. All depends what you're going for.

Depends what I'm painting. I tend to paint darker subject matter other than my florals. One of my primary mediums is charcoal as well, so I like dramatic contrast.

 

[BelowPar]

I haven't specifically painted a golfer before, no. Closest I've done would be a volleyball player.

I just meant alter the contrast as a tool. Just to see what darker values might look like before you actually paint them.
As for brushstrokes, I personally don't like them visible. So I spend a lot of time smoothing out my paint. Sometimes probably too much. That's likely why my drawings are always more realistic than my paintings. Using brushstrokes to imply textures and blends can be quite effective when done right though. All depends what you're going for.

Depends what I'm painting. I tend to paint darker subject matter other than my florals. One of my primary mediums is charcoal as well, so I like dramatic contrast.

Thanks for the input ! I am just trying oil painting for the first time , keeping it basic to test the water . Seems easier to control than acrylics , should be fun .

 

[Dave Woody]

My tuppence worth ... I play with paint, mostly use my fingers. My stuff from afar looks untidy, but upon close inspection there is loads of detail.

I enjoy knowing that people do not know that my stuff is loaded with reflection, I love using reflective paints.
My pictures change, depending on the light and angle they are viewed from.

 

[Dave Woody]

Quick example...not a classic but ... you'll get the idea....

 

[Dave Woody]

 

[txomsy]

I think that, like onions and ogres, Art has many layers.

For a start, I would concentrate in the overall composition, shape, feeling... on how it looks from afar.

Then, as you go on, that may be enough, and it is all good and well. No need for more.
Some years ago, I visited a monastery in the Way of St James, and found an amazing tromp d'oeil, where a painter monk had done this loose painting of a procession of monks in an atrium, nothing detailed, but as you moved, the whole line of monks and the building perspective seemed to move to always face you. That's one step farther than just two eyes that follow you. The artist had made a stunning piece without needing to care for any detail.


Or you may discover you delight in mastering detail, and start painstakingly working to get something that also looks great up close.

Once, in El Prado, I stopped ad realized someone was behind me (saw his hand), as I turned around to apologize I discovered the hand was from a painting of Goya (I think), it was so realistic it had fooled me.


Or maybe you do not like detail, but enjoy playing with the brush, or laying out paint, or building up textures... detail needs not be realism, could be many things.

Can't remember if it was in La Biennale di Venezia, or in ARCO international fair of Madrid, I was drifting by when an abstract work caught my eye from very far away. From that distance it didn't look different from so many others we had seen, yet it somehow caught my eye. I told my wife I needed to look at it closer, and from up close, I realized it had amazing 3D built-up paint textures, which you somehow couldn't consciously tell from afar, but which my eye unconsciously noticed and found so appealing. It was by a very well known contemporary painter and architect (which I generally like very much, but whose name now escapes me).

The point is that some works do not need detail to be amazing: many graffitti, murals, tromp d'oeils, in Bushwick, Brooklyn, NYC for example, ... do not need detail to be amazing, but some artists delight in taking it one step farther, and in playing with up-close detail. At many levels and for many reasons.

The last time I went to an itinerant exposition of Van Gogh, they had a minute 3D printed reproduction of one of his works (can't remember which either) which you could even touch, and up close, it was amazing to see how he had laid out the brush strokes. You know VG: not much realism, not much detail up close, but the brush work... oh my! One could make the image with blind eyes just by following the brush work.

I don't claim any of this artists intended these effects, most likely they just intended to get their overall painting right, letting their pet obsessions permeate their work unconsciously. But, up-close, that told you a lot about their seek for perfection, in different directions each.

So, not, no need to look great both close and at distance. But when it does, it adds up to the overall experience.