Edges

[Alicia Kornick]

I have a question regarding lost and found edges for the pros out there.

Is a "found" edge the same as a "sharp" edge? I know how to blend and soften my edges, but I'm a little confused about "found edges". Is a found edge somewhere between a hard and a soft edge?

Thanks,
Alicia

[Tom Martinez]

Alicia,

An edge can be either sharp or soft. Losing an edge and finding it again is the principle that you're seeking. Let's assume that you are working on a form, any form, and the outer boundary of that form has a noticeable edge. As you follow that edge it enters into an area where the light is striking that form in a strong manner(highlighting it). The edge disappears (losing it) in the highlighted area. When that edge travels out of the strong light, it then becomes apparent again, thus it is found (a found edge). I hope that this helps.

[Tom Martinez]

I happened to think of another example... Say that you are viewing a cable that is traveling in front of a shadow in such a manner that it has a strong contrast to the shadow, thereby giving it a hard edge. The cable, then, turns and travels into the shadow in such a manner that it obtains the same value and hue of the shadow and becomes invisible, thereby giving it a lost edge. Then, it turns again and travels out of the shadow. As it comes into the light its edge becomes apparent and is seen as a soft edge. But, then, as it nears and enters into the strong light, it becomes a hard edge.

[Alicia Kornick]

Thanks, Tom.

I think I get the picture. I paint mostly from pictures and understand that it is difficult to determine edges from photographs. That is what I understood from Chris's essay on edges. It is the amount of light on an edge that determines its character, and also the position of the edge.

Thanks,
Alicia

[Karin Wells]

I paint from photographs too. But I think of them as only a "suggestion" of the reality that I am creating ("artistic license").

Lost and found edges don't always show up where you want them in photographs. You need to make them up when you have a logical opportunity to do so.

Utilizing a lost and found edge gives you a splendid compositional opportunity to integrate foreground, middle ground and/or background in a painting. Check out any of the Old Masters. They lost and found edges all the time.

[Karin Wells]

Here's a "quickie" example from a detail of a painting by Vermeer.

Note how the line of the models back in the foreground gets "lost" in the horizontal bar that is part of the background.

A lost edge is an illusion meant to fool the eye. Because the viewer knows where the line of her back is meant to be, it isn't really necessary to "see" the presence of that edge to understand what is happening.

"Found" edges are easy to spot. They look a little bit like "cut outs" that are pasted on (note the well defined "found" edge on the upper back that is above the "lost" one).

[Alicia Kornick]

Thank you, Karin.

I am beginning to see what is meant by a "lost" edge. It it much easier for me to understand something if I can see it. I guess that goes along with being a painter, as I relate on a visual level rather than conceptually. I will look for lost edges in the masters' paintings.

That would be another lost edge on the left side of the model's face. The eye of the beholder fills in what is known to be there. I will incorporate this into my paintings (or try to) in the hopes that they begin to take on a softer appearance and will not look like "cut outs".

[Karin Wells]

There are lots and lots of "lost edges" in the example I posted...I only mentioned one of them.

Obvious: the book gets "lost" in the sleeve, the sleeve's back edge gets "lost" into the back of the dress.

Not so obvious: her curls and some areas of the leaf's edge (on the left).

Also, notice the way Vermeer connects his shadows into larger patterns that transcend form. They merge so well you cannot tell where one form ends and another begins.

"Edges" don't actually "get lost" in "real life", but the artist grabs the opportunity to make it happen in good painting.

I most especially love Vermeer. You can learn all you'll ever need to know about painting just from studying his work. His lessons are simple, clean and clear. He is a painter with both weight and substance.

Can you tell that Vermeer is my verrrrry favorite painter? Honestly, everything I know so far, I think that I learned from copying his work.

[Alicia Kornick]

Karin,

Well, you've finally convinced me that I have to copy the paintings I love, to find out what I love about them. I too love Vermeer (what's not to love?) Did you read the novel "Girl with a Pearl Earring"? Were you able to see his works at the Met last year? I have a large coffee table book from this showing that two dear friends brought back to me. They were lucky enough to be in New York at this time and I told them not to miss it. The chance of a lifetime.

I will make time to paint from the Masters. Actually painting them should be fun, as it is not a commission and I can relax when I do it. I only need to please myself right? Tongue placed in cheek (I am my worst critic) as are most of us here on the forum.

Thanks for helping me to see.

[Peggy Baumgaertner]

Before you begin:

Everything I have read would indicate that Vermeer painted in the direct manner. In other words, he did not do a grisaille with glazing. He did a detailed drawing (cartoon), underpainted in tin yellow, and began immediately to paint the correct color and value. He would use some glazing in the final process as indicated, and would also do some impasto for emphasis. Titian, Velasquez, Hals, Rembrandt, as well as Sargent and the Bostonian painters also painted in the direct manner. I have seen the tendency to assume that the masters all painted in grisaille with glazing. Not necessarily. Then as now, the artist would pick the painting method that suited his/her temperament.

Peggy