 |
| Gotta stand way back to tell what’s going on in this one |
When I chose this photo to work from for my next study in composing values (another that Dianne provides with her lesson), I thought it might be easier than the sunflowers one I did last time. It was and it wasn’t…the shapes were simpler and there were fewer colors, but I actually found that made it more difficult for me. It’s almost like with more simplification, it was harder to make a compelling painting. The petals are smooth which I didn’t enjoy painting as much, and the macro nature of the photo makes it a confusing image for me to look at.
And what I love about this is that it forced me (well, the choice was mine to paint it, so it was a self-imposed force) to try different things and compare the experiences. I wouldn’t have chosen the sunflowers reference image on my own because it was so complex and I felt intimidated by it. And I probably would have chosen the tulip photo because it seemed more straight-forward, but I found it wasn’t engaging to paint. This is where my Upholder tendency pays off. And probably why I enjoy classes and workshops so much — I can get things done on my own no problem, but I don’t necessarily choose the thing that will push me forward.
I finally remembered to take a progress shot: the block-in shows the in-shadow and not-in-shadow families. If I were to do it again, I’d try making the shadows of the tulip less intense and a little lighter, and actually would bring up the overall value range so it’s not so dark.
 |
| The initial block-in of in-shadow and not-in-shadow |
