Friday, January 22, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Here is another painting from 2002 that I figured would be good practice for me. I borrowed the second orchid from a good friend of mine last weekend. She was kind enough to let me know she had some in bloom if I wanted to borrow one to paint. The original painting is an oncidium of some kind, and that was painted in my "plant portrait" phase. I was trying at the time to mix organic objects with graphic shapes. They were not very succesful. I did not have a photo reference for the oncidium, but from the graphics I put in I tried to think back to the lighting situation and put the new plant in a similar place. I kept the background fairly graphic but with softer edges. If nothing else, I did enjoy myself.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Saturday, January 16, 2010
I did not do as much to this as one would think given the difference in how the two were photographed. (DEC 31 post) Kevin asked if I had the photo reference with me, which I did not, but I did have the sketch from the original idea I had worked out. I had totally forgotten about the sketch it has been so long since I worked on this painting. What Kevin suggested I do was to paint from the sketch, as it was great. His critique then came from the sketch and its center of interest of the clump of vegetation almost dead center. So in essence, darken the building that is in the left corner and lighten the white building; darken the roof of the white building and simplify the plane facing the viewer. I also added the light "triangles" to the vegetation along the edge of all the buildings beginning with the left corner. I tried to lighten the building dead center that is integral to the vegetation, but I did not like it, but looking at the sketch next to the painting, I see that I still should think about that. Or darken the building with the two windows...that would make the other building appear lighter. Silly me, I thought the white house was the center of interest.
Friday, January 1, 2010
I found an interesting description in the Denver Post last weekend. It was an article about a new and upcoming artist who is considered a rising star on the Denver Art scene - Emerging Artist of the Year: "solo exhibition of paintings at Rule Gallery that exuded an alluring sense of emotional detachment and mystery."
I don't find emotional detachment alluring. In a previous article earlier in the year on the exhibit itself, this young artist was likened to Edward Hopper. I have been thinking about this wording all week trying to put my finger on why it bothers me so; I know the critic was seeing it as a positive. I just don't see it as a positive. Why would emotional detachment be alluring? Why would you be emotionally detached from life when life draws us to be more alive? And why was the word "alluring" used? If you use the words exuded and alluring, that would indicate an emotional attachment, would it not?
I wrote this on January one, and it is now January16. This whole question still is swimming around in my wee brain; is it because I equate this reviewers choice of words to be indicative of a larger piece that is going on in our culture and in our world that I find it so disturbing?