Fully realized

[Mike McCarty]

I wonder if I could get some help understanding a style of painting that I see and like, and to some extent have done myself. I've never been very good at artspeak. First of all I don't like to hear it. I don't like the fact that a painting must be explained, that I must not be able to "get it" without a hand out flyer.

My question is not so much about the above kind of art speak, but mostly about my own ignorance and desire to be able to communicate intelligently with the people that may view my paintings, or any other paintings.

It has to do with paintings that are not fully realized. They may have a high degree of finish in the upper three quarters of the painting but then tail off to bare canvas, or in a "vignette."

When an intelligent, albeit not in the arts, person says to you:

* when will you finish it?
* why have you already framed it?
* did you just get bored with it and quit?
* were you pressed to start another?
* I would want mine to be finished with paint everywhere.
* you would charge less for this, right?

I think people understand more easily when you do a "sketch" in the middle of the canvas, but the combination of highly finished, and unfinished seems to confuse people.

I'm pretty sure that this technique has hundred's of years of history, but I'm not strong on art history having never studied it academically. If you were standing with a person in front of a painting of this sort, and confronted with these questions, what would you say to educate them (and me)?

[Allan Rahbek]

Every picture is a section from life, so why not a section of a picture.?

People can be so tight. Nobody would ask a man "when are you finished" if he works on a factory. It would be more relevant to ask if he

[Kimberly Dow]

That's a tough one Mike. I don't know artspeak very well either.

I would assume (maybe incorrectly) that if they were asking those kinds of questions that they didnt care for that style. In that case, I might just answer that it is a particular style that you've found to be quite popular and enjoyable. And no, "I dont charge less as it takes quite a bit of skill to pull this off sucessfully." Of course, I don't spend a lot of time trying to educate people about art either, I'm not a natural salesperson. Once they've hired me I will, but not usually before unless it is some kind of opening and a specific question. But those questions sound so much like they are showing displeasure and I dont think you can talk someone into liking a style if they dont right away.

These do take extra skill to pull off - I dont think I have ever done one myself I liked.

[Mike McCarty]

I suppose it goes without saying that you wouldn't show up with a painting in this style without having done some education of the client before hand.

I would just like to be able to argue it's merit if I felt that a composition might benefit from such a technique. Just one of the drawbacks of being left in the woods as a child and being taught by a family of wolves.

[Chris Saper]

There's probably no more prolific (nor superior) vignette painter than Harley Brown.

I have done quite a few vignettes, and always include a couple in my portfolio, and ask potential clients to react to various pieces, so I can understand what appeals to them. About 80% of the pastel commissions I have done are vignettes, and probably about 20% of the oils. (No doubt for avariety of reasons...)

I actually feel it IS my job to educate clients insofar as different styles, artists, and prices. I need to know right away if they are looking for a painter like Dean Paules, who competently and meticulously can paint the roses in the Waterford vase on the antique Flamenco shawl on the baby grand piano on the silk Persian carpet which flows beneath the lace, bead and taffeta gown. I can't do that, and if I am not going to be the right painter for them, I want to know right away.

I let people know right away that the only purpose background serves for me is to lead the viewer where I want him to go, regardless of whether there is bare canvas visible or not.

I also agree that a successful vignette can be difficult to pull off, and as matter of fact, I think we should start a thread on this very topic, if one does not already exist.

being taught by a family of wolves.

That may be, but you still have lovely manners.

[Kimberly Dow]

Chris,

I wanted to clarify - I agree completely that we should educate our clients. I am referring to not educatinig (or to word it differently: selling) those that are just viewing the work. I guess I would look at those comments that Mike was asking about the same as I would if someone were to ask me "why do you paint so tight, why not loosen up?" If this were a potential client situation I wouldn't put much effort into trying to get them to 'like' my style. I always assume, and I do ask to make sure, that it is MY work someone wants when they are hiring me. There is a part of my contract that states something like "...hiring this artist for their particular style..." and more about being familiar with the artists style.

I may have taken Mike's question and twisted it. He wants to have a way to discuss this and make these types more valid to clients who don't get it ( I hope am am putting that close enough to what you meant) - and I kind of feel that if they dont get it, they cant be talked into it.

I'm curious Chris - when you say you want to know if they want work more like this artist or that one - do you show them samples of others work? I'm wondering why this is necessary if they have seen your work? I always assume that if we show them our work then they can see what their painting will be like. And if they didn't like our work they wouldn't be there... You have a distinctive style - I wouldn't hire you unless I loved that. It seems like common sense, but maybe I'm being too simplistic.

[Marcus Lim]

Originally Posted by Mike McCarty

I wonder if I could get some help understanding a style of painting that I see and like, and to some extent have done myself...
My question is not so much about the above kind of art speak, but mostly about my own ignorance and desire to be able to communicate intelligently with the people that may view my paintings...
When an intelligent, albeit not in the arts, person says to you:

* when will you finish it?
* why have you already framed it?
* did you just get bored with it and quit?
* were you pressed to start another?
* I would want mine to be finished with paint everywhere.
* you would charge less for this, right?

When i hear similar comments like this, i'm suddenly reminded about how things are in Singapore art market. Literally, people don't understand the notion that "the art market is not a mass market", as Michele have put it. Worse when one gallery owner defines good art as one which "looks sharp, not blurred"!
So nowadays i came up with an informal "client screening" process, which includes educating them about painting styles; not just mine but a few artists' styles that i know and understand.

Originally Posted by Chris Saper

...I actually feel it IS my job to educate clients insofar as different styles, artists, and prices. I need to know right away if they are looking for a painter like Dean Paules...and if I am not going to be the right painter for them, I want to know right away...

I agree with Chris that it is imperative to reach out to clients with our works and prices, and allow them to react to it.

Then comes the second part where either at the start of in the middle of the process, clients ask list of questions that Mike has faced before here. I'm not good at artspeak, or business-speak for the matter, but i explain to them about my purpose being an artist (somewhat artist statement in SIMPLE ENGLISH), and that my work represents the ESSENCE of what i understand of who they represent in their own lives - and what they mean to the people around them.

Most of all, the so-called "incompleteness" in our paintings was not because we are scrimping on oil materials (yes, we get those comments too...) or we got bored with it, but simply that any more work on it, kills that ESSENCE. Like the best chefs in the world, any extra pinch of salt kills the flavor of their culinary creations. If you really want a fine work, i think we jolly well can recommend a couple of photoshops that does great photo portraits.

At this point, i suddenly remember an oath that one artist jokingly puts it to her clients, to swear that "this is a painting, not a photograph"!...errr, was it from you, Chris?

So to end mike, what is important is not about spouting technicalities to people who query about the finished work, i mean after all they pay hefty sums for it. But to continue to affirm ourselves, and with them with who we are as artists, our missions with them, and fufilling that mission to the point that the people around our clients identify with the artists. At least, that's what i learnt from watching the DVD on Norman Rockwell, when they interviewed his relatives and neighbours at Stockbridge.

[David Draime]

I just came across this thread. I think it's a very, very important subject. As to the history of vignette paintings or drawings, when and where do they appear, by whom...I am, sad to say, totally ignorant (I'm ugly!!)!!. Having read all this, I am now determined to educate myself. But I do know why they are so appealing to me. And I think Allan hit the nail on the head:

Originally Posted by Allan Rahbek

About vignettes, it is an act of balance between the part that is finished and the materials used, the paper/canvas and pencil/paint. The vignette shows both stages, both the materials used and the illusion intented.
I think that the most interesting transition is between those two beings. Allan

It's as if the unfinished parts serve as a gentle reminder to the viewer of the simple, dumb, inert, DEAD materials that are used. And then we see a transition into this wonderful illusion being created that makes it seem that these simple, ordinary materials mysteriously come to LIFE, through the magic hand of the artist. We go back and forth, and are amazed at the skill of the artist. When everything in a painting is finished, rendered to a high degree of realism, I think that we, as the viewer, buy into the illusion - and stay there. I don't want to say there is anything wrong with this type of painting - I'm sure there are many great examples in the history of painting, where every square inch is lovingly and exquisitely rendered - and they are great paintings. But, for my money, the most exciting, powerful, and alive paintings, are those where a wonderful illusion is being created AND the surface qualites of paint on canvas are so rich in and of themselves, that something happens...(whether it's a vignette or not) - like Allan said, it's in the interplay of the two ways of seeing - that's where it's happenin.' Sargent comes to mind....

And I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who may be uneducated about art, but who would love a well-executed vignette, without knowing why.

And if you're dealing with a client whose measure of a great work of art is to what degree it looks like a photograph...

I guess after educating ourselves, we just try to pass it on, wherever there is a hearing ear.

[Linda Brandon]

I'm resurrecting this thread in the hope that somebody will post some favorite examples of vignettes.

Specifically, I'm wondering if as a compostional matter it is important to leave something reaching the bottom of the canvas to "connect" or ground it, versus letting a head and shoulders "float" amiably in (darkened?) space.

[Michele Rushworth]

Personally, I never liked the vignette look and whenever I leave a head and shoulders portrait unfinished at the bottom I'm always compelled to "finish" it off. If you do leave a portrait vignetted I like the idea of having part of it connected to the bottom of the canvas. I guess it depends on the specific composition.