Introduction and Some Peonies
- Thread starter JStarr
- Start date
JStarr
Well-known member
- Messages
- 724
It is relatively inexpensive and you can buy it in rolls from Amazon- hard to beat it.
Jo Castillo
Supporting Member
- Messages
- 3,645
Very pretty. Love seeing how you work. Looking forward to more. Are you left handed? It appears you worked right to left.
JStarr
Well-known member
- Messages
- 724
Thank you- and good eye! I did do this one right to left- I often do, although I am right-handed.
Well, kinda-sorta. In anything still-life-y, I do the background first, because that's what is going to inform all the rest, plus, I, anyway, can see when I try to carve background around an already completed element in the fore- likely no different than in paint when the artist first paints the elements of the still life, then has to go all the way around all of them to place background without disturbing shapes and edge work in the fore. (Or like sky holes in trees- if not softened, they stand out as what the are: Background sky painted on last- and in front). I can see that, and to me, it distracts from the piece- it is visually uncomfortable.
I've never been able to do that "Work all over the piece in values at once" thing- I try, and within a couple minutes I find myself back to normal, working from top to bottom or right to left or vice-versa. I think it is because, no matter what the "subject", I already have an idea of what I want to capture- the light here, the shadow there, the reflection, the eye path- something- and when I step back to see how it's coming along, THAT is what I am looking at and for: Did I catch that?
This one was about the way peony blooms are set up above foliage, usually, and the foliage is dense and many-layered. I wanted the flowers to stick up and out, but I wanted the foliage to be able to hold its own with those huge, ruffly, high-chroma'd blossoms.
I think, even though the blooms appear so high chroma'd, I managed to give the foliage just enough intricate ooomph! to support them without being consigned to a mere background.
Again, than you very much!
Well, kinda-sorta. In anything still-life-y, I do the background first, because that's what is going to inform all the rest, plus, I, anyway, can see when I try to carve background around an already completed element in the fore- likely no different than in paint when the artist first paints the elements of the still life, then has to go all the way around all of them to place background without disturbing shapes and edge work in the fore. (Or like sky holes in trees- if not softened, they stand out as what the are: Background sky painted on last- and in front). I can see that, and to me, it distracts from the piece- it is visually uncomfortable.
I've never been able to do that "Work all over the piece in values at once" thing- I try, and within a couple minutes I find myself back to normal, working from top to bottom or right to left or vice-versa. I think it is because, no matter what the "subject", I already have an idea of what I want to capture- the light here, the shadow there, the reflection, the eye path- something- and when I step back to see how it's coming along, THAT is what I am looking at and for: Did I catch that?
This one was about the way peony blooms are set up above foliage, usually, and the foliage is dense and many-layered. I wanted the flowers to stick up and out, but I wanted the foliage to be able to hold its own with those huge, ruffly, high-chroma'd blossoms.
I think, even though the blooms appear so high chroma'd, I managed to give the foliage just enough intricate ooomph! to support them without being consigned to a mere background.
Again, than you very much!
