I’m working on a series of small paintings of flowers from life at the moment.
Trying to break some habits.
And hopefully get closer to what makes a painting me. Or mine. Or something.
To move forwards with it, anyway.
Here is what I set up:
Here’s a wider view, so you can see how it was set up.
What I liked about this set up, what drew me to want to paint it, was the glow of the roses. Particularly, the way the rose on the left stands out so beautifully and sharply, whilst the one on the right is receding into shadow.
And the low chroma of the set up, the softness of the light, the calm and beauty.
I had an idea, too, that I would bring that out more by painting it with softness. No hard edges. As if everything was disappearing into or emerging from a haze of light.
Hm.
So I chose all hog bristle brushes – another break in habit, since I usually paint flowers with soft, flat, semi-synthetics.
This is the painting I made.
Now, I really enjoyed painting this. The freedom. I was in the flow. I was quite pleased with it.
Until the next day.
When I looked at it and realised I’d captured none of the light. None of the idea that I’d had when I started it. In fact the only thing I liked were the edges.
Disappointment.
Why?
Well, I think I know: I’d forgotten to simplify.
I’d forgotten to reduce the subject down to blocks of light and shadow. And because of that, I’d lost the relationships.
I’d lost the light.
So I did it again.
This time, I made myself focus only on blocks of light and shadow, shapes that ran across form, that were about the light and not the things.
And I started with value only to make the focus come more easily.
Here it is in a few stages.
I was keeping the colours VERY simple at this point, and being very careful of the values.
So why am I telling you all this?
Well, the second version came a lot closer to my idea. It also has more light and depth than the first. And the rose on the left glows as it should.
I got there by simplifying. By being very strict with myself and repeatedly checking the relative values of the main value blocks.
It’s an easy thing to say. Simplify. And everyone knows we need to do it.
Ironically, I just finished teaching a live workshop about it.
And I still forgot to do it on the first one.
Hopefully this serves to illustrate the fact that this approach works.
That simplifying and generalising and then – crucially – making sure all the relationships between those value blocks are good makes for a painting.
At least, if you like this kind of painting, anyway. Broad, expressive painting without losing the realism.
(I do.)
And also that if you forget it, your painting can fall apart.
Thanks for reading.
Paul
This is such a great little lesson… thanks so much for sharing it! I love the second painting’s atmospheric feel!
Thanks Bethany. My wife said she preferred the first one. I’m a misunderstood artist, apparently 😀
Well, I think both are lovely in their way. Obviously simplification is an important skill but I would also add the old dictum that painting is all about relationships. If you try to make a picture where all the edges are soft I think the softness is, paradoxically perhaps, less apparant than when they are contrasted with a few hard edges. Your second painting seems to demonstrate this to my mind.
Agreeed on all counts!
Except I still don’t like the first one…
Hi Paul Nice to see a post from you. I’m just back from three weeks in the Faroe Islands. If you want to see where the gods keep all the extra light, air, and wind in the world, go there in the summer. A place for epic painting fails! Thanks for all your teaching.
Oh yes please, I’d love to go there! Could listen to Eivør sing live too 🙂
They are both beautiful, Paul. The first one reminds me of LaFontaine.
Maybe this is why you don’t like the first one as it looks like someone else painted it. It doesn’t look like you Paul.
I’m sure that’s part of it Marney-Rose. And the point of this series of paintings I’m doing is to get closer to whatever that is.
I much prefer the 2nd painting, you’ be caught the play of light on both roses in a more convincing way. The left rose has more life in it, darker background helps here, I think. Textural marks in the foreground work really well, giving a lovely sense of movement. See the influence of William Nicholson’s technique in the little silver jug, with the thick opaque stroke used to show the highlight. Fantastic masterclass in edge handling and low chroma painting. Beautiful work.
Sharp eyes Gemma 🙂
Yes, the darker background is truer to the relationships in the set up – even though it’s darker than it actually appeared to me. We know, of course, that our value range is significantly limited in paint – and I think it’s mostly limited in the lights. So if you want to keep value relationships intact, you often end up painting darker than the subject. I don’t mean to suggest there aren’t other ways to approach it, there certainly are, but for this kind of soft, natural, indoor light it does seem to work well.
And yes – I was thinking about Nicholson when the brush hit the panel on that highlight! How did you know!?
Hi Paul,
Well, we can’t please everyone, including ourselves sometimes. I’m treating this as a philosophical discussion, so please regard my post is simply one man’s opinion. I also understand if you feel I have missed the mark.
I love your work, and think it often has its own “quiet beauty”, so perhaps I’m just not getting it, but this is a definite miss for me. I’d agree with your wife up to a point, but even the first one is a miss in some ways. Your stated intent is to “make it yours” (my words), but aren’t all your paintings already “yours”? Does softening all edges to the point of abstraction make it more yours?
What “I SEE” in the photo (may be greatly affected by monitor/screen, jpg compression, etc.); flowers in silver pitcher, bathed in a gentle, cool, soft light even though the window reflection conveys a stronger light.
As a realist, i think some abstraction can be beneficial and I want to develop more in my own work. It’s a fine line though, and think sometimes one can lose everything that made the original scene/object worth painting. Should one not pick a major characteristic to paint and subordinate others? Was your intent to depict the beauty of the flowers and vessel (i.e., a silver pitcher) in its space or was it to portray “the” atmosphere? Can one really do it all?. I’m thinking of William Nicholson’s silver bowl with green peas, which has a more gentle level of abstraction.
Here’s what’s been lost specifically (to me) in the final; the beauty of the silver pitcher, the sense of calm due to an overly busy/noisy background that pushes forward too much (emphasized by the directional lines coming down (toward the viewer) from the angular shadow line, and that same overly dark shadow line extending onto the pitcher, losing the reflections that gave it volume. I see the shadow in the photo, but it had a sense of presence and luminosity that I don’t see in the painting. Again, it may be the photo on this screen, but that’s what’s generating my comments.
Thanks for sharing all your knowledge with everyone!
I participated in your Folds and Reflections workshop, highly enjoyable and learned so much.
I’m just a beginner, but I wonder if the first one would’ve worked better with a darker value in the background behind the roses?
I love the second painting – it has the magical ‘Foxton’ quality, and I hope you share the finished work if you decide to keep going.
I see your point, but I like them both for different reasons. They both have different personalities and feelings. I like the softness and variation and the way the background works with the flowers in the second, but the strength of the first speaks to me as well.
The thing that I ran into is that my preferred way of softening edges by swishing the brush does not play well with the idea of calm and still. I’ve been trying out different ways of softening that doesn’t translate to energetic but it feels too forced and labored. It’s a puzzle 🙂
Thank you very much for posting your behind the scenes, it always gives me so much food for thought, I really appreciate it!
Hello Paul! I am from Saint-Petersburg.
Thanks for the lessons. I really like the way you explain. And I really like your pictures.
I’m still learning and I’m not very good at it. But I’m trying.