For Crit: Cold Shoulder

Don Barnes wrote

on 6 Nov 2009 4:03 PM

16x20, oil on panel

This one is bugging me. My mind superimposes some changes, but my analytical side isnt convinced. I dont want to say what they are, because that would influence comments. Please, tell me your thoughts.

PS- Forgive the clarity. For some reason I couldnt get a good shot....and yes, that is a tiny strip of water at the bottom left.

valeriemalley wrote

on 6 Nov 2009 5:36 PM

Hello Don:    Love the sky, far and mid- mountains and the mistiness you have achieved.  

The near mountain is bringing your painting forward quite nicely.   Being colourblind, if there is a variation in the colour choices in the near mountain and the foreground, I don't see it - it may be very subtly done but, to me, there is little variation in colours, and the intensity of the colours coming forward I wonder if a bit of darkening of the foreground somewhat and a bit more lightening of the lighter areas might bring the foreground forward even moreso.  

The foreground tree with the highlighted ground is a bit of a stopper for me that I kind of had to work around.  If that were removed and the highlighted areas lightened a bit and snaking up to the middle trees, would that effect an S shape up and around to the far mountains that would draw you into the painting?  (Looking again, perhaps even moving the tree over to where the "but MY"  in your comments is - ???)

Your painting overall has a very nice feel to it.  The top two thirds of your painting is quite lovely.   The bottom third, were it my painting, I would want to punch it up a bit.   But then having this colour problem, I don't do subtle very well.

Thanks for inviting the input.

Lili Anne Laurin wrote

on 6 Nov 2009 8:01 PM

Hi Don, Did you mean for this painting to be a value study? I think a lot of interest would be added if the foreground area was painted with more intense chroma (at the moment it is the same value and color as the closest mountain. You could make the foreground in shadow, this would make the mountains recede. Since everything here is fairly high key, I would not overdue it with the intensity of the chroma. I agree with the previous posting about moving the tree in the foreground. Notice that the point of the tree is almost directly under the point of the distant mountain. I think if you move the tree to the right about 3/4 of the way between where it is now and the edge right side of the canvas and also bring it closer to the bottom edge of the canvas and make it bigger. The chroma of that tree should then be a little more intense to show that the other trees are in the distance. The tops of the trees that are just to the left of the the single tree in the foreground are following the slope of the hill they are sitting on and I feel that doesn't work well. Maybe you could open up some (sky holes) in this case mountain holes to break up the mass. I really can't make out that there is any water in this painting. I don't think it really matters unless you want it to then it needs to be more obvious. I'm curious to know what changes you had in mind. I'm not a professional critiquer (made up word) so I hope it wasn't too complicated. Basically all the changes I am suggesting are in the foreground. 

Margo5 wrote

on 6 Nov 2009 9:19 PM

Don, I really like the way you have done the sky and mountains. I personally feel like there would be more local color in the foreground, but maybe the time of day leveled the playing field for the colors. I am not talking about bright colors, but muted. If you want anyone to know that you have water in this then I suggest that you find a way to nestle it a little further back in the painting so that it can be seen. The one tree looks like it is almost centered in the picture and looks very lonely and isolated (kind of like Charlie Brown's Christmas tree). The tree on the right looks like it is too far out on the edge of the painting. The three batches of trees in the mid-ground look like they are all in a straight line going across the page. Perhaps you could do something to push some back, bring some forward and make them all seem a little less lined up in a straight line. There should probably be a little more detail in the front part of the painting, or more contrast of some kind. I think it is a great beginning and would like to see the changes. I don't think it is going to take much for you to really like this.

Mara Schasteen wrote

on 6 Nov 2009 10:16 PM

OK Don, thanks for inviting me in to be a critiquer (I like your word, Lilli Anne!).  I am very impressed with the critiques you have already received and I think that your painting will be improved should you decided to make those changes. Let me say that this painting is really cool, and I am assuming you created it with a palette knife, as usual?

Two main composition elements are causing this painting to feel "boxy" and "dull" for me. First, the breakdown of the spaces: the sky space is basically an even ratio to the space the land takes up on the canvas. To have pushed the top down, or the bottom up would have emphasized either the sky or the land (the negative or the positive space) and made the intial impression of the piece instantly more interesting. Second, the horizontally straight line of the closest hill subdues the energy of the piece. A line which crossed in front of us more diagonally would have served to invite us into the painting, rather than act as a fence as it does now. If you are being true to a particular location, that may be tricky, however.

My eyes continue to wander into the depth of the tallest mountain in the background. The subtle values there are superb and it is absolutely gorgeous. The foreground seems to get in my way of enjoying that beautiful mountain. I am a HUGE rule breaker, and out of the box thinker, so if my next suggestion seems way too wierd for you, please don't hesitate to laugh at me and move on ...

Using your biggest palette knife, scrape off the foreground with aggressive directional strokes as if you were cutting a path through a forest for the viewer to walk through and lead me right to that cold shoulder!

Below is my pathetic attempt to illustrate what I mean:

And there you have it! People who know me well know that I'll try anything, even scraping off a masterpiece if I think it feels right. But Don, it is just a suggestion, and if you choose to continue working with what you have, I still think you have a beautiful painting here. I am so excited to see what you end up doing with it!

caroldnelson wrote

on 7 Nov 2009 9:35 AM

Hi Don,  Your previous "critiquers" comments are fantastic and I agree with them that it is the bottom 4 inches of this painting that need a redo. Mara's suggestions about leading the eye into the painting are excellent.  If you're working from a photo, don't be afraid to rearrange mother nature.  That is one huge advantage painters have over photographers - we can move mountains if necessary.

The comments about the values of the painting are also spot on.  More vibrant colors in the foreground would help with the aerial perspective.  I can't wait to see your redo.

Carol

j.b2 wrote

on 7 Nov 2009 3:01 PM

Don, I'm in agreement with the 5 comments above me. The foreground or bottom of the painting throws me off.

If it were my painting I'd use more chroma in the foreground & rearrange it..

I do like the tight vaules in the rest of the painting, they work very well!!!

Kathryn Clark wrote

on 7 Nov 2009 7:37 PM

Don--Thanks foralso inviting me to be a critiquer.  I've been gone today and so just got your note.  I agree that the two distant mountains are very lucious.  The mountain range in fron of them, however, makes a climbing sweep off the edge of the painting on the left.  It would be good to have it come down to keep the viewer in the painting.  That mountain range is also relatively flat.  Some strong, larger shapes within that mountain range with strong light and shadow would create a center of interest.  Then the foreground needs to be simplified, maybe a larger body of water. This painting is about the mountains so it would be good to have the center of interest be in the mountains, the lightest light and the darkest dark. Also, softening the edge of the darkest mountain range in places would help it be less flat.   The comments from others were also good.  I'm looking forward to seeing it when you're finished.

Don Barnes wrote

on 7 Nov 2009 11:36 PM

Everyone- Thank you for your comments. There really is a lot to consider here. Please forgive that I havent posted replies. My dad is in town and there have been lots of activities keeping me away from AD.  (I have eaten way too much and slept far too little, but it's been one of the best visits I think we've ever had.) Please know that I have read each of your posts and will make time Monday evening to respond more personally. I'm beginning to feel as though we're all very good friends.

db

ragoster wrote

on 8 Nov 2009 3:01 AM

Hi Don,

I think the background mountains are extremely well done. The atmosphere and distant clouds are really great, I can almost feel the cold wind hitting my face. I like the subtle value changes you used there. What I do think this painting might benefit from is more color and value contrast in the foreground. This would create more intrest and balance the very suble tonal background. How about trying to put some more pure brown/purple/yellow and maybe some more green in the foreground trees, and trying to lower some values towards black? I'm not sure if the photo is contibuting to this impression, but it is what I see I respond to. The composition is good in my opinion. Great work as a whole!

I hope you dont mind, I digitally made some changes to better show what I am talking about.

Ragnar Osterlund

Kathryn Clark wrote

on 8 Nov 2009 8:05 AM

Don and Ragnar--  I very much like the changes Ragnar made and so I take back my suggestion to change the shape of the mountain range on the left.  With a strong curve on the right side of the hill in the front, that holds the viewer in the painting and sends the eye back into the distance.  The contrast he's created also emphasizes the tremendous depth to the view.

Karyn wrote

on 9 Nov 2009 8:19 AM

There are a lot of great suggestions here, I think.  And a lot of directions you could pursue, Don. 

I think that the foreground, and also the mid-ground could use some contrast adjustment.  The mid ground range is what draws my focus the most, and yet it lacks the depth that the background exudes so well.   The background has both defined shape and contrast, beautifully rendered.  But the mid-ground lacks character.  The foreground could use more color and/or contrast as demonstrated by Ragnar, I think, too.  And I would agree that if the ground line is going to remain horizontal, it could use more trees to break it up.

Looking forward to seeing the changes

Don Barnes wrote

on 9 Nov 2009 11:25 PM

My goodness. How wonderful to have such a response to this piece. I hardly expected so many varying suggestions. This illustrates in such a fabulous way the thing that makes us artists. As I consider each of your comments, I realize the different ways in which each of us approaches and interprets our art. You each identified the same basic issues, but each of you offered unique solutions. Thank you all.

Valerie- Your initial post prompted me to reduce the image to grayscale, which was quite telling, as it essentially became a values examination.

Lili- Your suggestions about color and value were spot on, along with your point about the trees on the hill. I think this must be what Ragnar was getting at, as well. Truth is, the whole problem area (read "foreground") is imaginary. More about that, shortly.

Margo- The observation about all the trees seeming to be in a straight line also struck a chord. Part or that was probably because of their equal height, in addition to value.

Mara- You discussed the division of space in the piece. I had noticed it, but hoped that some clever sky work might cause it to disappear. I love your suggestion (and attached illustration). To flatten the foreground and push the eye back was daring and surprising. Thanks for having the courage to post such a bold suggestion. Oddly, in the original photo, the fore is a broad expanse of slowly rising flat land which ends at the foot of the hills. (Confession: I did not do a small sketch first. If I had, I'd probably have avoided most of these issues.)

Carol and j.b- I really appreciate your support for this piece. If I'd read the previous comments, I'd probably have simply gone on without leaving any.

Kathryn- You said,"This painting is about the mountains so it would be good to have the center of interest be in the mountains..." This simple statement brought so many of the other comments into better perspective. This whole painting seems to have devolved from the original idea, because I got caught up in trying to make the improvised foreground work.

Ragnar- Thanks so much for your graphic. The visual input makes a big difference in my own perception of the piece. I appreciate the value changes you made.

Karyn- Thanks for taking time to comment on this piece. I'm sure you get a ton of requests, and I appreciate your thoughts.

As I continue to mull all your comments, several things stand out. The first is that, if I'm going to keep the same composition, I'll need to do some work on the fore. Contrast and color seem to be the main suggestions, with some possible adjustments to the line of the hill.

First, I'd make the contrast changes to the foreground, as you've all suggested. One of the things my mind's eye keeps pushing is a bit of very pale viridian/blue in the lower sky, to bring more definition to the clouds. Also, at the top right, I see a darker ultramarine. On the middle range, I'd bring in some deeper (not darker) greens and a bit of alizarin, to give it some interest. Finally, I've thought about another possibility. That is to crop the piece, from 16x20 to 16x12. It would look something like the image below.

Again, I thank you all for your thoughts on this piece. It means a lot that you'd take the time to write such well considered comments.

Mara Schasteen wrote

on 10 Nov 2009 8:30 AM

Awesome, Don! You have a lot of insightful friends and what luck to have received so many great contributions to your project. I must say that the cropped version of the painting is really working for me - me, the crazy "scrape-off-your-painting" girl. The composition of the cropped version is much more "easy" to view, and perhaps if you applied a few of the chroma and value suggestions, you will have quite a beautiful piece in your hands! If I make it down your way by the end of this year, I hope I can see it in person!

Don Barnes wrote

on 10 Nov 2009 1:37 PM

I didnt think you were crazy, Mara. I liked the idea and am still considering it. For now, I'll put it away for a bit and see what strikes me in a week or so. ---Whenever you get down this way, I'd be glad to show this one to you, along with any others that strike your fancy.