The Creation of Visual Content

When I was in art school, we learned to paint alla prima - all in one session.  Wet-in-wet, three hours max.  The reasoning was to train the artist's eye and hand, to quickly decide upon an approach and composition, and to finish by the end of class.  Coming back to a semi-dry painting two to five day's later had it's own set of problems, like remixing colors and changes in the model or still life set-up.  It worked in the academic world, but does it work as well in real life?

I'm not one who works out detailed compositions before hand - I prefer to let a painting idea develop  as I go along.  This is fine for abstract work, but recently I've been experimenting with expressive representational styles where my preference for alla prima was preventing me from developing content and visual weight.

Hidden, First Version

This is the first version of a painting I originally called "Hidden."  It's large - 24 x 36, oil on linen. I was pleased with it at the end of the alla prima painting session - which lasted 6 hours instead of 3.  My concept developed around the division of space, the Golden Rectangles, plus spatial effects front to back and combining realism with abstract. 

But the more I looked at this version, I recognized a hard-to-define weakness, a sense that it wasn't finished.  What was going on here?  I'd captured emotion in the face, but as my husband (as well as a few others) asked, why did I choose to cut off the face like that?

Gradually I understood that I'd set up two centers of interest - my eyes jumped from the ear on the left to the face on the right. It wasn't clear where the figures were in space and how they related to each other.  I had to decide which center of interest was going to be dominant - the face and expression that began to tell the story - or the beautifully painted ear placed in the sweet spot.  (The face is also in a sweet spot.)

 

Demeter's Garden
@the artist, 2009

So, taking my courage in my hands (and Liquin, poured over the top of the dry painting) I risked ruining something I really liked in the hopes that I could make it better. Since I'd been working on a new Ancestors Series, exploring mythology and Native American influences, the story of Persephone "attached" itself to the expression on the face.  Here, on the left, was the goddess Demeter, hiding her daughter Persephone (on the right) in a garden to avoid Hades' perfidy.

Now I had a story to develop through detail.

As hard as it was, I reduced the visual impact of the ear (my favorite part). I added more of the translucent gray ribbons, which tied both sides of the painting together visually.  Developing the leaves around the face increased the visual importance of Persephone's face, while the mystical detail in Demeter's hair moves the eye away from the cheekbone; we're not wondering why I "cut the face off."  Finally, I evaluated the composition in terms of the grid used by many of the Classical Masters,  discovering that nearly all the major points lined up, containing the important elements in the painting.

These adjustments required careful study of the composition - at least for me - contemplation that often doesn't occur when I'm focused on starting and finishing all in one go.  There is a certain lushness when painting wet-in-wet, an immediacy that produces a freshness that I strive for - but it's just as important for me to learn how to go back to a painting that I've not developed fully.  Sure, there are elements here I wish I'd rendered more skillfully, but that's true for most artists.  We always see our own faults and are seldom satisfied.

So for now I'm happy with Demeter's Garden.  Those areas of less than perfect draftsmanship?  Well, maybe I'll be brave enough next week to go back into this painting. Or maybe not.

While it's important to know how to go back to a painting, it's probably more important to know when to let it go.   

Comments

[AscenderRisesAbove]

that is lovely; very unique