Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Marvin Mattelson
Thomasin, I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. I'm talking about controlling pictorial space.
My point was that in order to model the form (paint something so it has the illusion of three dimensional space) one needs to manipulate the values, edges, contrasts and intensities to bolster that illusion. Hard edges come forward and soft go back. If all the edges are treated similarly, then the painting looks flat not illusionistic.
Comparing Deutsch's 3-D effects with the Persian paintings clearly demonstrates the point I was making. The uniformity in intensities (within the same hues), edges and the lack of value gradation makes the Persian paintings lack the feel of pictorial depth.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with lovingly placing ones strokes. That is a whole other issue. Everyone who is into painting should be doing that. Why waste your time doing something you aren't passionate about.
|
I do understand what you are saying very well. What I am saying is that you have to understand the properties of paint (or charcoal etc., and each needs a different understanding) in order to achieve a convincing illusion of space. For example, if I, and of course I am far from a modern-day Ingres, try to render a atmospheric illusion of form in space too soon into a painting (i.e without having the patina of layers of paint underneath), or if I push too hard down with the brush, or if I try to hard to model the contours of an object trying to ignore and control the wayward properties of the paint - i.e trying to ignore its shininess when it is put down too thickly, I get a very mediocre, ordinary illustration of three-dimensions. If, however, I work with the paint itself, allowing unexpected and accidental marks to happen, I am learning essentially about what the paint itself does and can do. In this way you discover ways of making space and form that are far more convincing than simply working out a mathematical grid and pushing forward in a blinkered and linear way. Flatness is not plan B as though illusionism is beyond one's capabilities. I know you denied criticizing flat painting, but the way you dismissed it after adulating the modeling of Deutsch seems to indicate otherwise.
Changing directions from illusionism to flatness reveals high intellectual development on the part of the artist. Take Cezanne, for example: he was a master of painting flat illusions of space.
With regards to flat vs. illusionistic painting I again refer to my own particular experience: I find that if I put down a complex pattern of tones as a 2-dimensional image based on what I see in front of me, the illusion of space happens anyway. If I simply enjoy the juxtaposition and relationship of tones and how they resonate against one another my resulting image becomes an illusion of space and form if that is what I am referring to. Once that happens, it is very easy to oscillate between a deliberately flat image and a deliberately illusionistic one without losing the sense of solidity and life. Paintings are essentially about the human mind's response to living in a world of three-dimensionality, not the world itself. Whether the artist orders his impressions in a schematic map of life with each object honoured with its own unhindered space (as in the Persian painting), or whether they are crowded into a clever illusion of space is indicative of the mind of the artist, with its influences and biases.
I think that in order to create satisfactory space sketching right onto the canvas, pushing and pulling and experimenting with marks and getting to know the paint is a sound way of speeding up your training. One fortuitous paint mark has more information for the artist than a great many how-to-paint books do.