|
Julie,
I'm not talking about content. I'm referring to the structure of a painting, which is then overlaid with technique. By structure, I mean the modeling of form, the soundness of the drawing, the value patterning, the color harmony, the edge handling and the compositional arrangement.
I think that when a painting is successful, all too often other artists try to emulate what they see and unfortunately few look beyond the surface. I see many wannabes emulating the brushstrokes without considering much else. If the structure is sound it is so regardless of the technique. Technique is like the color of an umbrella, the siding on a house, and the icing on a cake. These may enhance the effectiveness to a degree but are never responsible for the ultimate success or failure of a painting.
It is my experience that people respond to good painting. My painting heroes, Bouguereau, Paxton, Raeburn, Kramskoy, Ingres, Lawrence, and VanDyke, ranged from tight to painterly but when I look at their work this is entirely beside the point. They were superb picture makers who understood the limitations of painting on a flat surface and succeeded at the highest levels possible, capturing life.
This is what I feel should be emulated. Not style.
|